Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:12, 14 January 2020

This article was nominated for deletion on Sept. 17, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

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

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. 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. Politics Mid‑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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. 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.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

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

Towards bringing the main question to a conclusion

We've put a lot of work into trying to deal with this. We're probably all feeling burnt out but we should not let all of that effort go to waste and try to bring this to a conclsion. I think that we already decided that this article should exist and we have sort of an idea what it should be about. To state it imperfectly (but still goo for clarification) it's about the form of libertarianism that matches the common meaning of "libertarianism" in the US. In in the global taxonomy, it is a type that is not opposed to capitalism.

Here is is the result of soliciting possible names for the article. I left on any links that people put on during the "request for ideas" phase.

1. Right-libertarianism
2. Libertarianism (common U.S. meaning)
3. Libertarianism (U.S. usage)
4. Libertarianism (common U.S. usage)
5. Modern libertarianism
6. Libertarian capitalism
7. Contemporary Libertarianism
8. Mainstream Libertarianism
9. American libertarianism
10. American style libertarianism
11. Negative Rights Libertarianism
12. Laissez-Faire Libertarianism
13. Free-Market Libertarianism
14. Center-North Libertarianism
15. Libertarian (political typology)
16. Libertarian

Not sure how this might or might not be considered to be a result/decision, but may I request that the regulars/watches here weigh in on every one of the above ideas? The "every" is important; otherwise similar ideas will detract from each other. Besides the normal comments, may I suggest 3 potential "ratings" for each?

1. Good idea
2. "just OK" idea
3. Bad idea

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:07, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

North8000's views

1. Bad idea
2. Good idea
3. Good idea
4. Good idea
5. "Just OK" idea
6. Bad idea
7. "Just OK" idea
8. Bad idea
9. "Just OK" idea
10. "Just OK" idea
11. Bad idea
12. Bad idea
13. "Just OK" idea
14. Bad idea
15. "Just OK" Idea (sorry, just too cryptic)
16. Good idea (if clarified at the start)

These are based on considerations already discussed at length above. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:47, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

@North8000:, could you propose a new lede for option 16? JLMadrigal @ 13:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Responding, a whole lead is a pretty big thing. But I'd be happy to propose the "immediate clarification" /first sentence or two or disambig that I alluded to. Now I'm thinking that disambig might be better because it allows reference to the article e.g. "this article is about" North8000 (talk) 11:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

See below North8000 (talk) 12:00, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

JLMadrigal's views

1. Bad idea
2. Good idea
3. Good idea
4. Good idea
5. Good idea
6. Bad idea
7. Good idea
8. Good idea
9. "Just OK" idea
10. "Just OK" idea
11. Good idea
12. Good idea
13. Good idea
14. Good idea
15. "Just OK" idea
16. Good idea

JLMadrigal @ 12:56, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

JLMadrigal @ 16:07, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

JLMadrigal @ 03:34, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Pfhorrest's views

1. The only truly Good idea
2. Bad idea
3. Bad idea
4. Bad idea
5. Bad idea
6. "Just OK" idea (but really should be a separate article if at all, a la Left-libertarianism and Libertarian socialism)
7. Bad idea
8. Bad idea
9. Bad idea
10. Bad idea
11. Bad idea
12. Bad idea
13. Bad idea
14. Bad idea
15. Bad idea
16. Bad idea

@Work permit: @PhilLiberty: @The Four Deuces: I believe I speak for the rest of the main editors who have been thoroughly discussing this issue in seeking your input regarding a more descriptive and accurate title for the page. JLMadrigal @ 01:28, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

The Four Deuce's views

It seems to me that libertarian has two meanings in the U.S. In a narrow sense it refers to the ideology of people such as Ron Paul and Murray Rothbard that saw itself as part of 19th century libertarianism and adopted many of their theories and symbols. They talk about things such as the gold standard, self-ownership and other things that most people don't understand and promote non-interventionism and an end to the war on drugs, which draw little public support. In a broader sense, it refers to the traditional liberalism in the U.S. which promotes individualism and capitalism and is suspicious of government policies of redistributionism. That view can be seen across the U.S political spectrum except socialists. Its intellectual roots are in Locke and Adams, not Spooner and Goldman. Basically it refers to economic liberalism but that term is not used because due to what an editor of the National Review called the Great American Semantic Confusion, the term liberalism in the U.S. came to refer to an approach that was mid-way between laissez-faire liberalism and welfare liberalism. TFD (talk) 02:20, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

For the biggest numbers (the "20%" of US voters), I think it's a lot simpler. People who generally prioritize smaller and less intrusive government and more personal freedom. They mostly couldn't name a libertarian philosopher. Like 95%+ of Americans they consider capitalism to be the norm, without naming or promoting it. North8000 (talk) 10:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Could you give your thoughts on the title ideas? North8000 (talk) 10:27, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

While the term is used that way, I don't see a body of literature about the topic. Can you point to any book or article about libertarianism that uses your definition? TFD (talk) 16:59, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I think that it more of a "description of a phenomena" than "using a definition" but: The Libertarian Vote by David Boaz and David Kirby, Cato Institute, 18 October 2006. The ANES Guide to Public Opinion and Electoral Behavior, 1948–2004 American National Election Studies. Kiley, Jocelyn (25 August 2014). "In Search of Libertarians". Pew Research Center. North8000 (talk) 17:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

IOW it is the quarter of the Nolan chart that is socially liberal and economically conservative (as those terms are used in the U.S.) Maybe "Libertarian (political typology)?" In any case, this article is more about ideology than typology. The same thing could be said about the liberal typology. Democratic socialists for example are not liberals and don't base their opinions on liberal ideology but nonetheless score higher than actual liberals in the Pew typology. If as you say most libertarian voters can't name any libertarian philosophers, there's little need to mention them. TFD (talk) 19:35, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

We're trying to move forward with this article, TFD, and give it the most descriptive and accurate title for the common center-north libertarian ideology described by most English speakers (and writers) as simply "libertarianism". We have established that the current title is both confusing and inaccurate. What title(s) from those listed would help to resolve this dilemma? Could you rate them? JLMadrigal @ 13:08, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

As I said, the most descriptive term would be "Libertarian (political typology)," which isn't listed above. It's not an ism. I don't even think it is the most common usage, because when I think of libertarianism, I think of Ron Paul and the Libertarian Party. TFD (talk) 14:00, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Just as an overview, I looked at more polls and they generally say that 23% of US voters identify as libertarian and 27% have libertarian voting patterns (by the common US definition) but I think only about 1% - 3% vote for the US libertarian party. But, party voting aside, Ron Paul is probably the most well known libertarian personality. North8000 (talk) 14:40, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I added "Libertarian (political typology)" even though I don't understand. Please check if it is as intended of if you would like to change it. North8000 (talk) 15:17, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I added my additional rating above. I am not yet convinced that it is a great choice and may require substantial alterations to the article. Convince us that it is the best choice. JLMadrigal @ 16:24, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

"We have established that the current title is both confusing and inaccurate". No, we have not established that, you just keep asserting it. This article is about the subdivision of libertarianism that is distinguished from left-libertarianism, and "right-libertarianism" is the only name for that attested in sources that anyone has offered here. --Pfhorrest (talk) 16:40, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

23% of voters identifying as libertarians is consistent with usage as a typology rather than an ideology. Typologies are normally referred to when discussing voters. If you do a Google search or book or scholar search you will find that the most common use is as an ideology. I note also that these polls are multiple choice. Some polls omit libertarian, and the same people describe themselves as something else, either liberal, conservative or moderate. An open-ended question would result in more responses. TFD (talk) 17:32, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

It's presented correctly. Another possibility is Libertarian (voter demographic). What I mean is that it is in this sense a term used by pollsters to describe a voting group that is socially liberal and economically conservative based on a belief in smaller government. But there's no suggestion that voters identified as such share a common ideology any more than there is with the liberal voting block, some of whom are liberals while others are socialists. TFD (talk) 17:38, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

In that case, why not just title the article "Libertarian"? Such an article does not yet exit, and, in contrast to "Libertarianism", the vast majority of libertarians are not pushing an ideology (-ism). The fact that this description is a typology is redundant. JLMadrigal @ 19:51, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

That sounds fine. TFD (talk) 19:57, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Maybe! Would probably need the first sentence (and maybe a disambig) to clarify but it's much easier to do in a sentence than a title. North8000 (talk) 20:06, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

It sounds like you guys are talking about something that should be a different article entirely, not a repurposing of this article. This article fills a space in the organizational structure between Libertarianism and Left-libertarianism; this and the latter are sub-articles of the former, relied upon by it. --Pfhorrest (talk)

I think the discussion is based on retaining the same subject. But not necessarily the way that you are describing/defining it. While the idea of typology is new to me, and I don't know that it can be totally separated from ideology (it seems to me that typology must be based on at least a brief vague ideology definition) that general idea seems more relevant to deal with the most common form of named-libetarianism. While it may be a complement of left-libertarianism, trying to view it through an ideological taxonomy used for other philosophical strands of libertarianism may not be the best lens to view it through. This may be particularly true / more useful for something that is basically a very large (like with 1/4 of the US population self-identifying as such) vague phenomena rather than an ideologically/philosophically defined strand of libertarianism. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Pfhorrest, an article's title doesn't need to fit into a perfect anticapitalsit/capitalist libertarianism dichotomy, as the anticapitalists would like. The reality is different. The Libertarian conservativism article would serve as a nice redirect from the current title, and let them have their ideological opponent - which falls to the right in the libertarian quadrant on both economic and personal issues. JLMadrigal @ 02:51, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Libertarian conservativism is not the same thing as right-libertarianism, it is a subset of it; and if you look at the early history of this article, there were already extensive arguments about differentiating the two topics, which were both vying for this article title, and that ended up splitting what you think "right-libertarian" means off into the libertarian conservativism article, and leaving this article about the topic it's currently about.

The only reason this article exists at all is to be a counterpart to left-libertarianism. If you guys think there should be some other article about something else libertarian-related, go ahead and propose that. But it seems to me like you all just object to there being any article at all called "right-libertarianism" and keep searching for new excuses to do away with it. --Pfhorrest (talk) 18:25, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, the only use of the term "right-libertarianism" is in articles about "left-libertarianism," which is a breakaway from the school founded by Murray Rothbard, Karl Hess and David Nolan. Left-libertarians, while accepting most libertarian principles, disagree on whether natural resources including land could be acquired through appropriation from nature or whether they could only be obtained through social consent. Some editors have misinterpreted their position as anti-capitalist.

Compare it with Delaware. There is an article about Delaware and one could discuss how Delaware differs from the rest of the United States. But that doesn't mean we need an article about the "Rest of the United States other than Delaware."

TFD (talk) 21:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

And, bypassing the many repeated counterpoints I've already given to the points you keep repeating without change, I point you once again to the best exemplar we have, the SEP article on Libertarianism (note that it is just Libertarianism simpliciter, about the whole field of views, that that article is about) which has a whole section on "left and right" varieties, and cites among the "left" authors one who predates any of the names you claim left-libertarians break away from. I'm getting really tired of repeating that without any rebuttal. --Pfhorrest (talk) 06:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Pfhorrest, if you look at this page it's clear that a lot of people are trying very hard to figure out what the best thing to do is, and are trying to evolve that rather than come in with pre-conceived answer. IMO your "But it seems to me like you all just object to there being any article at all called "right-libertarianism" and keep searching for new excuses to do away with it." is clearly not the case and is uncalled for, Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:36, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

In response to the request above, North's idea for "immediate clarification" at the top of the article for idea #16

My first try:

Libertarian is a common term for the form of Libertarianism widely practiced in the US as well as the common meaning of the term libertarianism in the US. This form is often named "liberalism" elsewhere such as in Europe where "liberalism" has a different common meaning than in the US. In some academic circles this form is called "right libertarianism" as a complement to Left-libertarianism, with acceptance of capitalism being a distinguishing feature of right libertarianism.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I would begin the article with;

"According to polls conducted by x, x, and x, 25%, 27%, and x% of Americans self-identify as libertarian, respectively. While this group is not typically ideologically driven, the term libertarian is commonly used to describe the form ..."

I would also revise your last sentence to read, "... with acceptance of "capitalism", as defined by that group, being the distinguishing feature."

JLMadrigal @ 14:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Those are good recommendations. Here's my first try:

Not to be confused with libertarian ideology.

Libertarian is a typology used to describe a political position that advocates small government and is culturally liberal and economically right-wing in a two dimensional political spectrum. The other major typologies are liberal, conservative and populist. Libertarians often support legalization of victimless crimes, such as the use of marijuana, while opposing high levels of taxation and government spending on health, welfare and education. The term libertarian was adopted in the United States where the word liberal had become associated with a version that supports extensive government spending on social policies. Libertarian also refers to an anarchist ideology that developed in the 19th century and to a version that developed in the United States that is avowedly pro-capitalist.

TFD (talk) 16:04, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Both paragraphs could be used without being redundant. I would omit the first sentence, "Not to be confused with libertarian ideology." I would also expand on the two-dimension typology with a Nolan chart, which is commonly used by this group, to clarify the distinction between social and economic or person and property stances. JLMadrigal @ 16:51, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

That's actually a hat note at the top of the page:

TFD (talk) 19:42, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Draft Lede for Option 16 Libertarian

According to polls approximately 1/4 of Americans self-identify as libertarians. While this group is not typically ideologically driven, the term "libertarian" is commonly used to describe the form of Libertarianism widely practiced in the US, and is the common meaning of the term libertarianism in the US. This form is often named "liberalism" elsewhere such as in Europe where "liberalism" has a different common meaning than in the US. In some academic circles this form is called "right libertarianism" as a complement to Left-libertarianism, with acceptance of capitalism, as defined by that group, being the distinguishing feature.

Libertarian is a typology used to describe a political position that advocates small government and is culturally liberal and economically right-wing in a two dimensional political spectrum. The other major typologies are liberal, conservative and populist. Libertarians often support legalization of victimless crimes, such as the use of marijuana, while opposing high levels of taxation and government spending on health, welfare and education. The term libertarian was adopted in the United States where the word liberal had become associated with a version that supports extensive government spending on social policies. Libertarian also refers to an anarchist ideology that developed in the 19th century and to a version that developed in the United States that is avowedly pro-capitalist.

JLMadrigal @ 18:29, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

It's kind of unusual to put detailed multi-poll data in the first sentence and the lead is supposed to be summary. How about put that detail in the body and start with "According to polls approximately 1/4 of Americans self-identify as libertarians." Also, are the quote marks on "capitalism" needed? Is there really a different meaning? Even if so, it sounds a bit disparaging, and it already alerts the reader to potential differences with "as defined by that group" North8000 (talk) 18:45, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I took your suggestion for the first sentence. There is, indeed, a difference in interpretations for the word "capitalism", as the discussion above demonstrates. The group that terms itself "left libertarian" makes a distinction between "free markets" and "capitalism", while libertarians in general do not. I believe that it is important to alert the reader early about this potentially confusing issue of semantics. JLMadrigal @ 19:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I also removed the quotes. Are we ready for production? JLMadrigal @ 04:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

If you guys want an article about who does or doesn't identify as a libertarian, that would be a different topic than the topic of this article, which is about a specific subtype of libertarianism; and you would need to justify that the sense common in the US is deserving of being the primary topic, which I suspect will find the same objections you would find in moving the topic of this article to just Libertarianism. Also, since Libertarian is currently a very common redirect to Libertarianism, this whole proposal strikes me as an underhanded way of sneaking in exactly that more without actually having the fight you'd face if you tried to do it directly. --Pfhorrest (talk) 06:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Pfhorrest, my thought is that we're both talking about the same topic but as seen through two different lenses, but let me try to double check that. One topic has been the very large phenomena centered in (but not limited to) the US. As would anything with about 100,000,000 different people in it, it is vaguely defined, roughly along the lines of one quadrant of the Nolan chart. Do you believe that this is a part of the topic of this article? If so, then I would say that we are talking about the same topic but as seen through two different lenses. I would argue that your "lens" is from a very small group of people, those trying to create a taxonomy for the various philosophical strands of libertarianism and even then creating it mostly as a complement to left libertarianism. I would also argue that those people are creators, not coverers/sources. If your idea of the topic of the article does not include the broader phenonema described above, then I would argue that you really don't have a topic for an article. Just a two word sequence used in different ways by some creators of philosophical taxononmies, not practiced anywhere by that name.

Your post also edged on the topic of not avoiding any appearance (by the choice of title) of appearing to say that this is the meaning of libertarianism. I also wanted to make sure of that when I said that we'd need immediate clarification / disambiguation at the very beginning of the article. I think that the current draft of the beginning very strongly accomplishes that. At the very beginning, (in the disambig) it says that this is about a subset of libertarianism, and points and links to the Libertarianism article as the one having broad coverage of that topic. The first few sentences of the proposal also make it clear that it's about a specific strand of libertarianism. I also put in as a compromise pretty prominent coverage of the term right-libertarian early in the lead. IMHO more prominent than it merits, but that's what compromise is about. We're never going to find something that 100% of the people like 100%. This discussion was pretty well advertised in the libertarian areas of Misplaced Pages. We got a handful of participants who did a lot of work on this. The ones who most stridently opposed your view have at least temporarily stepped aside. A broad RFC is also a possibility but I expect that such would draw a lot more responses from the 100,000,000 and their experience of what libertarianism is to them. Could you accept something like the above title (#16) and proposed disambig & clarification wording (maybe with with some tweaks) as a compromise? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:58, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

In answer to your first question, I think the topic of this article is the right (pro-capitalist) half of the spectrum of different kinds of libertarianism, specifically as a taxonomic distinction from the left half of that spectrum, with this article and Left-libertarianism as sub-articles of Libertarianism generally. The political view generally called just "libertarianism" in the United States, which frames itself as the top quadrant on the Nolan chart, falls within that topic, yes. (Though note that the use of that framing is disputed between different kinds of libertarians, and others would frame it rather as being in the top-right quadrant of a square chart of liberty x equality, rather than the Nolan diamond of personal x economic liberty. That's why "center-north" is not an unbiased title.) But, and this is the important part, that does not define the topic.

As for the use of popularly-uncommon taxonomic terms for article titles, I again remind you of the situation with different kinds of "football". Nobody says they're going to an "association football" game or to an "American football" game, everyone just says "football game", and means different things by it. But when discussing different kinds of football, people use the terms "Association football" and "American football", and the Misplaced Pages articles are appropriately named with those terms even though nobody but sports taxonomists use them. The situation we have here is completely analogous. Everybody just says "libertarian", but means different things by it, except when needing to distinguish one type of libertarian from another. I've asked for anyone to show any reliable source reporting on anyone using any different set of terms for distinguishing these kinds of libertarianism from each other, and nobody has offered anything.

Think of it from the reader's perspective. If a Brit who likes "football" comes to Misplaced Pages and searches for "football", he'll find an article about the variety of different kinds of football he maybe never heard of, and find out that the kind he knows is technically called "association football" (even though none of the footballers he's ever heard talking about it call it that), and follow to the article about that. Likewise if an American comes looking for "football", he'll find the same general article and navigate his way to the article about the sub-type he knows as just "football". And if an American who likes "libertarianism" comes to Misplaced Pages and searches for "libertarianism", he'll find an article about the variety of different kinds of libertarianism he maybe never heard of, and find out that the kind he knows is technically called "right-libertarianism" (even though none of the libertarians he's ever heard talking about it call it that), and follow to the article about that. Likewise, if someone from outside of America who's accustomed to "libertarianism" meaning a kind of socialism comes to Misplaced Pages and searches for "libertarianism", he'll find the same general article and navigate his way to the article about the sub-type he knows just as "libertarianism". It's quite evident from the talk pages of various football articles that lots of people get really upset that their particular kind of football isn't the kind talked about under the title of just "football", and that the game they're into isn't called "association football" or anything like that, it's just football damnit. But that's not how Misplaced Pages works. And I get the strong impression that all this hullabaloo at this article is just the political equivalent of that.

And no, the proposal #16 here does nothing to assuage any of my concerns. It's ever bit as bad as if Libertarianism was just about right-libertarianism with a prominent disambiguation to Left-libertarianism. It's still biasing the encyclopedia in an undue way. --Pfhorrest (talk) 22:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

If you all absolutely will not stop until there is no article titled Right-libertarianism anymore, about the only acceptable solutions would be merging this and Left-libertarianism into a combined article on the difference between them (similar to Negative and positive rights), or merging both of those article into Libertarianism simpliciter and discussing the left-right division in a subsection of that the way that SEP does. --Pfhorrest (talk) 22:45, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I like both ideas although I suspect that the "difference" article and Negative and positive rights violate guidelines. North8000 (talk) 14:09, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

What guidelines? There are lots of other articles like that, especially in the Rights section, including Claim rights and liberty rights, Natural rights and legal rights, Individual and group rights. For a time there was also an article on Equity and gender feminism though that's since been torn up and refactored into other existing articles. There's probably other examples, those are just the ones I've personally noticed. --Pfhorrest (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Either way I like the idea.North8000 (talk) 16:27, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

You may be on to something there, Pfhorrest. Build a new article about the dichotomy view of libertarianism - although the left-libertarianism article pretty much already does that. JLMadrigal @ 13:33, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Actually, what I've been promoting (and even promising) to do for many years (see project page) was to reduce this article to one that is primarily about the term. This would give it the article-retention & full taxonomy treatment that Pfhorrest desires, albeit while acknowledging that it is through that lens, and reducing it to being mostly about that term. In the discussion above, it was decided that the underlying topic of this article needs also to have an article. Perhaps we can do both. North8000 (talk) 14:48, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm all for it - with my reservations specified above. JLMadrigal @ 23:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I have reworked the entire lede to reflect the focus on the common libertarian typology, and omit repeated references to the right-left dichotomy view. You can view and comment on my potential version here: https://en.wikipedia.org/User:JLMadrigal/sandbox

Cool. Not sure if you were seeking to include this in the initial move.....I would suggest not, that we just include the "immediate clarification". But if you think that we should change the "initial form of the immediate clarification" in my write-up below, I'm open to that. But I had the "right /left" thing in there (plus other things) to garner Pfhorrest's support. North8000 (talk) 17:08, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it will not be as simple as that. While the article will not need to be entirely rewritten, the use of the terms "left libertarian" and "right libertarian" need not be repeated throughout the article, since the dichotomy is already explained sufficiently in the lede. The dichotomy view of libertarianism can be expanded in the respective article(s) - such as the new disambiguation article which will fall under the current title, to satisfy its adherents. JLMadrigal @ 17:42, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Either way, are you suggesting that we change in in my summary below? North8000 (talk) 18:45, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Let's stick with the lede at the top of this section with the discussed corrections - for the new title - and explore the remaining lede paragraphs in the sandbox. The objective, by majority consensus, is to describe the typology typical to the vast majority of libertarians, and a full 1/4 of US citizens - which the current article already does, but under an ambiguous and misleading title. JLMadrigal @ 05:09, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation Page

The current title will need to be converted to a disambiguation page that clarifies the uses of the term "right-libertarianism". It will need to describe both the use by "left-libertarians" to describe American-style libertarianism as well as the use by American-style libertarians - which implies libertarian conservatism. Here is my attempt:

The term, "right-libertarianism" is used by libertarians - particularly in the U.S. - to refer to conservative libertarians who ally with the right to some extent on social and economic issues - particularly regarding abortion and immigration - while holding otherwise typical libertarian views.

It is also used by self-identified left-libertarians, the term used to refer to the Steiner-Vallentyne group which broke away from the Hess-Nolan-Rothbard group (which they term "right-libertarian") on the issue of whether or not natural resources should be privately owned, to describe all other libertarians.

JLMadrigal @ 16:09, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

One structural note (which I think you already know) is that I think that the current article would first need to get moved to the new title. This is consistent with the fact that this discussion is about the topic of the current article, and also to preserve the history. North8000 (talk) 20:08, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Converting the title page to a disambiguation page won't remove the talk and edit histories - as far as I know. Or are you wanting to move the history to the new title? Is there a special procedure for that - other than copy-paste? I don't want to leave a dead link. JLMadrigal @ 21:10, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

I think it would be to move the article to the new title. That would leave a redirect at the old title. Then edit the redirect into the disambig. North8000 (talk) 21:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Aside from the general problems with this proposal overall, the bit about left-libertarians being only Steiner-Vallentyne and breaking away from Hess-Nolan-Rothbard is factually inaccurate, as I've repeatedly pointed out is substantiated by the SEP article, which names left-libertarians who long predate Hess-Nolan-Rothbard. --Pfhorrest (talk) 22:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

In fact the SEP article mentions exactly one left libertarian who predated Hess-Nolan-Rothbard, Henry George. George is sometimes described as a left-libertarian and sometimes as a precursor to the left-libertarian school associated with Vallentyne and Steiner, which grew out of the Hess-Nolan-Rothbard school. See for example, "left-Libertarianism" in The Palgrave International Handbook of Basic Income:

"Left-libertarians and Georgists (also known as 'geolibertarians') combine a defence of robust self-ownership (which they share with minimal state libertarianism) with a defence of the egalitarian ownership of natural resources (which they share with left-wing Lockean and Painean traditions)."

Note this is not to be confused with actual left-wing ideologies that have been described as libertarian such as libertarian socialism and communism. Left-libertarians hold that government had no right to tax income, capital, profit or buildings, which is not a socialist position. In fact a typical right-wing complaint against socialists is they that they tax too much.

TFD (talk) 09:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

This is beside the point and I've said it before anyway, but you do realize that libertarian socialists also don't support taxation of income, capital, profit, or buildings, because they don't want there to be any state at all, with any such power to do any taxation or anything else, right? Instead they're against states enforcing certain kinds of claims to property, very much like the kind of left-libertarians you're talking about. They generally support what they call "personal property" (possessions that you have for your own personal use) and oppose what they call "private property" (individual ownership of collectively used things, like the means of production, including land), but rather than saying that the latter should be taxed or something, they just say no such claims should be recognized. --Pfhorrest (talk) 18:45, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point. The terms left and right libertarian are used to distinguish pro-capitalist writers such as Vallentyne from Rothbard, they are not used to distinguish anti-capitalist libertarians (who are left-wing) from pro-capitalist libertarians such as Vallentyne and Rothbard (who are not left-wing). TFD (talk) 19:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I said "this is beside the point", because you brought up libertarian socialists and then acted like they want to tax things, like you keep doing, and I keep pointing out is not only beside the point, but factually false. You wrote "...ideologies that have been described as libertarian such as libertarian socialism and communism. Left-libertarians hold that government had no right to tax income, capital, profit or buildings, which is not a socialist position" -- but that is the position of libertarian socialists, who oppose there being any state at all, and so any taxes. I'm not the one bringing up libertarian socialists here, you keep bringing them up to try to distinguish them from what you consider left-libertarians, but then the distinction you keep drawing about taxes is just factually wrong. --Pfhorrest (talk) 22:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Do you think libertarian socialists and other left-wing ideologies described as libertarian are left-libertarians as defined in the SEP article or not? TFD (talk) 02:48, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't see any clear grounds to distinguish them on, but I'm not positively asserting that they are the same, because that's not necessary to hold up my main point. I'm just criticizing you for bringing them up only to mischaracterise them. --Pfhorrest (talk) 03:52, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

And to clarify my view of the two positions:

• Left-libertarianism as you characterize it: like right-libertarianism, anti-state (and consequently anti-tax), but doesn't recognize private claims to land, only chattel.
• Libertarian socialism: like right-libertarianism, anti-state (and consequently anti-tax), but doesn't recognize private claims to the means of production, only personal possessions.

So I don't see a really clear line by which to say they're definitely completely different unrelated groups, and it's definitely not the line you keep implying it is. But again, that's not a necessary point to support for my overall position. --Pfhorrest (talk) 04:05, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Results

Here are the final results with 0 representing bad, 1 representing OK, and 2 representing good. Please advise of any corrections.

           North8000     Pfhorrest    JLMadrigal     TFD         TOTAL
Option 1   Bad           Good         Bad            Bad          2
Option 2   Good          Bad          Good           Bad          4
Option 3   Good          Bad          Good           Bad          4
Option 4   Good          Bad          Good           Bad          4
Option 5   OK            Bad          Good           Bad          3
Option 6   Bad           OK           Bad            Bad          1
Option 7   OK            Bad          Good           Bad          3
Option 8   Bad           Bad          Good           Bad          2
Option 9   OK            Bad          OK             Bad          2
Option 10  OK            Bad          OK             Bad          2
Option 11  Bad           Bad          Good           Bad          2
Option 12  Bad           Bad          Good           Bad          2
Option 13  OK            Bad          Good           Bad          3
Option 14  Bad           Bad          Good           Bad          2
Option 15  OK            Bad          OK             Good         4
Option 16  Good          Bad          Good           Good         6

JLMadrigal @ 13:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Was that actually TFD's input on those or did you infer it? If not, TFD, could you give your thoughts on those? North8000 (talk) 17:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

TFD didn't call any of the other titles "OK", but, at this point, it would not move option 16 from the top spot, so it is moot. JLMadrigal @ 23:18, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I did revise his stance on option 15 for the record. I have not verified it, since it is inferred. But those are the only two titles on which he took a positive position. @The Four Deuces: is welcome to revise it, if necessary (for the record). JLMadrigal @ 12:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

So, if we:

• Did #16 with the "immediate clarification" combined with
• Doing one of Pfhorrest's suggestions or else mine of retaining a bare bones taxonomy-through-a-lens article here (which I'm guessing Pfhorrest wouldn't object to)

We have a plan? North8000 (talk) 14:15, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I do object to there being just a bare-bones article here. If there is not a full article here at this title to complement Left-libertarianism and function as the necessary sub-article of Libertarianism, then there should only be a redirect to an article or subsection of Libertarianism discussing the difference between left- and right-libertarianism, and likewise at Left-libertarianism, so we'd need to get consensus from editors at that article before proceeding too. --Pfhorrest (talk) 18:51, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

OK, it looks like we're close together but that every aspect isn't going to be unanimous. So to get it all in one place to get it moving, I'd say move this article to to #16 Libertarian plus/with the immediate clarification roughly as worked out above. After that we pick and do one of Pfhorrest's two ideas. BTW, either of Pfhorrest's two ideas could be mostly implemented without or prior to involving the Left Libertarian article.North8000 (talk) 20:52, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I still have the same objections I mentioned above to moving this article more-or-less-as-is to Libertarian: basically the same objections I'd have to moving it to Libertarianism.

And I really think that the combined section or article needs to be created before turning this into a redirect to it, and that that entire plan hinges on Left-libertarian redirecting to the same place (if only this article becomes a redirect, that is not an acceptable outcome), so we really do need their input before we do anything.

The whole plan is such a big change that I think it needs a proper RFC, really. But since I'm not the one who thinks anything needs to be changed at all -- I think things are fine how they are, and am only suggesting an alternate way that things could also be fine as a compromise to all of you who hate the way things are right now so much -- I think one of you should do the work of calling that proper RFC, over at Talk:Libertarianism where the discussion links for the merge templates point. --Pfhorrest (talk) 21:51, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, one thing is absolutely clear to me is that requiring elimination of the Left-Libertarian article in order to make this change is not appropriate. And, as I indicated over there, I think that you quickly putting merge templates all over the place along the lines of your idea was not appropriate and out of process, even though I do like your ideas. And such actions should certainly not be used as a basis for determining the course of or jamming up the initiative here. A full broadcast RFC would be fine with me but as I described in more details above I think that the result would end up more adverse to your viewpoint than the compromise being worked out here. As something close to that, this discussion was well advertised in libertarian circles and then a proposed move also serves as a mini-RFC, and I think that this one has has much more basis to be proposed (basically the whole discussion above) than yours did. North8000 (talk) 12:51, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

The change that I approve of is the merger of this article and Left-libertarianism, into either a new article or a subsection of Libertarianism. To move this article and do nothing to Left-libertarianism would just be to give you exactly what I've been objecting to this entire time, so of course this change requires the elimination of Left-libertarianism. It's not a merger at all if you just rename one article and leave the other alone. --Pfhorrest (talk) 17:45, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Saying that the Left-libertarianism article must be deleted in order to implement change here would be a poison pill for any change here.North8000 (talk) 18:41, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not saying that Left-libertarianism has to be deleted in order to implement any change here, just that if the change we're implementing is merging this article with that one, just retitling this article and leaving that one untouched is not, in fact, implementing that change. And that change is the compromise I've offered, which you seem to be expressing acceptance of too, so if we're going to make that change, we need to actually make that change and not some other one you haven't gotten consensus for. --Pfhorrest (talk) 20:55, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

If we could snap our fingers and it happened, I'd consider your idea to be the best of all if it were to get reduced to become a sort of taxonomy article. (if not, it would just be a duplication of the liberrtarianism article) However, it requires sort getting rid of the Left-libertarian article which IMO has a stronger basis for existence than the Right-libertarian article and look how difficult this effort is. In short, such is a poison pill for this overall effort. Unless we leave it for phase two.North8000 (talk) 12:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Pfhorrest, this discussion has been in process for nearly 3 months, which has given you plenty of time to solicit objections. You can't stall for time any longer. I say we give you until 11/13 to bring an official objection from a Misplaced Pages authority. Otherwise we go ahead as planned. JLMadrigal @ 13:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

That's not how Misplaced Pages process works. You are the ones wanting to make a change away from the long-standing consensus over objections, for reasons that amount to WP:JDLI. The changes you've all put forth over these months have wandered all over the map, from making up a bunch of different completely unsourced new names for this article, to changing the content of this article completely, and now to renaming and repurposing it for reasons that are far from clear. What is the actual problem that any of these proposed changes purport to solve? You have yet to establish that there is anything actually wrong with the status quo, only that you all don't like the label "right-libertarian" being applied to folks who self-identify as just "libertarian", but that's what the sources call that subtype and nobody has presented any other sources with any different labeling over my repeated requests for them, and just that you don't like it isn't an argument. Lots of soccer players hate that the article about their sport isn't just called Football, too, that doesn't constitute an argument.

The onus is not on me to prove that things are fine how they are, the onus is on you to show that any change is required. You've all been making up your own new processes here and acting like they carry any weight. You don't get to just hold votes, Misplaced Pages is not a democracy. You don't get to set arbitrary deadlines. You need to actually follow process. And I don't have to do that work for you, because I'm not proposing any changes; I'd be happy if this whole thing just dropped. --Pfhorrest (talk) 17:45, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I think that we try to make the move it will turn into another mini-RFC anyway. But clarity, I'm fleshing out my summary:

Move this article to idea #16 which is Libertarian subject to having a immediate (at the top) clarification that this topic is merely a subset of libertarianism. The clarification would initially be as follows but then can be evolved:

This article is about the form of libertarianism that is common in the United States.. For full coverage of libertarianism, see Libertarianism.

Libertarian is a common term for the form of Libertarianism widely practiced in the US as well as the common meaning of the term libertarianism in the US. This form is often named "liberalism" elsewhere such as in Europe where "liberalism" has a different common meaning than in the US. In some academic circles this form is called "right libertarianism" as a complement to Left-libertarianism, with acceptance of capitalism being a distinguishing feature of right libertarianism.

This is also an expression of support for doing one of Pfhorrest's two templated proposals at a later date.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• I think pages Right-libertarianism and Left-libertarianism must be merged into the article Libertarianism. The problem here is that a rigorous definitions of the first and the second cannot be given. And, for example, geolibertarianism can be attributed both to the left- and right-libertarianism.

@Czar: What is your opinion on this issue?

Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 10:55, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

If we could snap our fingers and it happened, have it reduced to a sort of taxonomy / terminology article, then I'd be strongly in favor of that idea. However, it requires getting rid of the Left-libertarian article which IMO has a stronger basis for existence than the Right-libertarian article and look how difficult this effort is. In short, such is a poison pill for this overall effort. Unless we leave it for phase two.North8000 (talk) 12:08, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Davide King's comments

I hope it's not a problem if I write here my thoughts on the Right-libertarian page's discussion and ping @JLMadrigal, North8000, and Pfhorrest: and all other users involved, asking you if you can wait for my unblock request's result so that I can participate to the discussion since I was involved into it and this discussion goes on by months. To clarify, I was the IP that opposed PhilLiberty's discussion that started all this. I've got nothing personal against JLMadrigal (I commend you for not editing the page like PhilLiberty did and waiting to reach a consensus), but I'm honestly astonished by the direction all this took. I hope you will read this until the end; read it a little bit at a time, but please read it. I apologise for the length, but there was so much I wanted to say and counterargue, although Pfhorrest did a good job already, even if I disagree with the merger proposal. Whether I will be unblocked or not, I want to show my committement to Misplaced Pages in making good contributions and I hope my arguments and proposal will be taken in consideration regardless.

What's to be done

In short, the topics should be as follows:

1. Libertarianism (broad terms).
2. Left-libertarianism (libertarian socialist and other left-leaning ideologies and the broad libertarian left opposed to the use of the state and authortarianism in left-wing politics).
3. Right-libertarianism (American-style libertarianism, i.e. radical economic liberalism that in some ways part ways, no pun intended, from liberalism in its opposition to the state in some form and being even more critical of government and state intervention, especially in the economy, that has expanded around the world, or more specifically the libertarian ideologies which support free-market/laissez-faire/liberal capitalism and the private ownership of both natural resources and capital; and the broad libertarian right, opposed to both economic and social intervention).

Indeed, it's Libertarianism in the United States that desperately need to be discussed and improved; and where you can add Etimology/Definition/Typology and Left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism sections instead of disambiguating and deleting Right-libertariansm and/or Left-libertarianism. Besides, there's already Libertarianism (disambiguation) which discusses what you're talking about, perhaps expand it?

Libertarianism in the United States desperately needs:

1. New informations to the lead that better describe and summarise it.
2. Its double origins, namely how Joseph Déjacque, the one to first coin the political word, lived in New York City and published a book on the topic and a journal; and how it was used by anarchists in the United States to distinguish themselves from state socialism (much like in the rest of the world). It only talks in the sense of libertarian as a synonym for classical liberalism and economic liberalism.
3. Mentions of the origins of and debate/issues between communist and indvidualist anarchists about one being the true libertarian and accusing the other other of being authoritarian/statist, etc.
4. Mentions of left-wing market anarchism or other left-libertarians in the United States. Indeed, the page should also mention and talk about 19th–21st century anarchist/libertarian socialist movements.

We could create a Libertarian capitalism page, whose topics should be about economic and laissez-faire liberalism opposed to state interventions and government regulations present in democratic capitalism, which they deem as crony/state capitalism, corporatism, etc.

Issues

First of all, just a few months ago we had a requested move which resulted in consensus not to move the page and not seeing anything wrong with the current title. Second of all, I agree with Pfhorrest's arguments, which are basically mine too (I also agree with Pfhorrest's football comparison rather than North8000's previous dogs comparison). Just like the first move request, the premise a possible second move request is objectively false as right-libertarianism is the common name, whether we like it or not, which is what the opposition to the current name is based on, rather than a serious reasearch on what reliable sources say. Indeed, no reliable sources have been put on to support a move and I'm astonished that this discussion is still going on when right-libertarianism is the one with the most hits.

Thirdly, there's some serious misunderstanding of the topic and an American libertarian bias in JLMadrigal's arguments (arguing left-libertarians are a minority not by realiable sources, but by some party affiliations, or something like that, when most so-called left-libertarians are anarchists who reject electoral politics) and a lack of knowledge about the topic (the Libertarian League was created by anarchists/libertarian socialists much earlier than the Libertarian Party and before modern libertarianism in the United States became a thing). For instance, it's my understanding that JLMadrigal sees right-libertarianism in American libertarian lens, i.e. as libertarians who are cultural conservatives (Lew Rockwell, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, etc.), when in reality it refers to the libertarianism supportive of the private ownership of natural resources and of capital, i.e. the means of production; the reason why the page isn't titled libertarian capitalism is because right-libertarianism is the common name and that's fine (unless you simply don't want to be associated with the right, which is nothing new), even better because certain right-libertarians may reject capitalism, seen as state capitalism rather than the free market they support (which they prefer as term), even if in practice they support capitalism (private ownership of the means of production, production for profit, wage labour, etc.). Furthermore, left-libertarians don't identify as such either, but JLMadrigal only worried about libertarians that are considered right-libertarians, hence JLMadrigal's bias against left-libertarianism. We could make a Definition, Etymology, or Typology section in the more appopriate Libertarianism in the United States page instead of this disambiguation proposal.

Finally, it's my understanding that these two pages are a compromise, which I personally support. Libertarianism refers to the ideology in broad terms (if it's now mainly about so-called left-libertarianism is because we can't simply act like over hundred years of history didn't exist until the 20th century); left-libertarianism to the original/classical/19th century libertarianism (which is still the majority view of the world and is very modern/actual), i.e. libertairisme, libertarismo; and right-libertarianism to the modern 20th century libertarianism, i.e. libertarianisme, libertarianismo. Both pages are written in international lens (because American-style libertarianism has indeed expanded around the world ever since the 1970s) and so right-libertarianism is about American-style modern libertarian ideologies supportive of laissez-faire capitalism rather than just American right-libertarians. The issue is that in the United States left-libertarianism basically simply refer to the left of right-libertarianism, i.e. the Steiner–Vallentyne school, which as explained by The Four Deuces is very much close to right-libertarianism, but since it's also a tiny minority (per The Four Deuces, again), it shouldn't be a problem (especially since we're talking about left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism through global's lenses and not the United States') and thus left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism remain the most used and best possible titles, even if we don't like it. Ultimately, this whole discussion should be on Talk:Libertarianism in the United States because that's what JLMadrigal and Nort8000 actually seem to be referring to.

Proposals

This page should remain, just like left-libertarianism. What should've been discussed is ways to improve the page with more reliable sourced informations, not moving or deleting the page when reliable sources support the current naming; perhaps the page should be more clear and clarify what's talking about, not what has been proposed thus far. I propose to simply delete the History and Notable people and publications associated with right-libertarianism (which are basically the same in Libertarianism in the United States) since I believe that's the real issues JLMadrigal, so that the page reflects the left-libertarianism one and because I believe that's the real issue JLMadrigal has with and which caused a misunderstanding. As stated, this page is about libertarian ideologies supporting free-market/laissez-faire capitalism and the private ownership of both natural resources and capital, so that makes most American libertarians listed right-libertarians, even if they may not call themselves as such (I repeat this page should be looking at it internationally).

As such, I propose to move pages such as Libertarianism in the United Kingdom and Libertarianism in South Africa here, redirecting them to Right-libertarianism#Name country, where we would write a section about it, since they mainly talk in American-style/right-libertarian terms. I'm not even opposed to a Libertarian capitalism, perhaps talking about economic liberalism and laissez-faire as stated by The Four Deuces, or was it Beyond My Ken, sorry? The Economic liberalism page is really short and could be expanded with information about American libertarianism, which is basically its synonymous. I believe The Four Deuces and Beyond My Ken are two very expert-wise users and could do a really good job. Perhaps The Four Deuces could also re-write from the scratch a History section in Right-libertarianism.

I also propose to add more information, if we can find it from reliable sources, the New Left and libertarian left and the New Right and libertarian right in left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism, respectively, i.e. making them more broad than just libertarian socialism and libertarian capitalism (hence why the separate articles), talking about the anti-capitalist left opposed to the use of both authoritaranism and the state in left-wing politics; and the libertarian right supportive of both economic and cultural liberalism (cultural conservative libertarians are really conservatives who supports both social conservatism and economical liberalism in European terms) in right-wing politics.

Left-libertarianism's lead proposal

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 Left-libertarianism, or left-wing libertarianism, is a political philosophy which stress both individual freedom and social equality. As a term, it refers to several related yet distinct approaches to political and social theory. 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. While maintaining full respect for personal property, classical left-libertarians are opposed to private property and the private ownership of the means of production. Modern left-libertarians are skeptical of, or fully against, private ownership of natural resources, arguing in contrast to right-libertarians that neither claiming nor mixing one's labor with natural resources is enough to generate full private property rights and maintain that natural resources should be held in an egalitarian manner, either unowned or owned collectively. Those left-libertarians who support private property do so under occupation and use property norms such as under mutualism, or under the condition that recompense is offered to the local or even global community such as with the Steiner–Vallentyne school. Market-oriented left-libertarianism, including Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's mutualism and Samuel Konkin III's agorism, appeals to left-wing concerns such as egalitarianism, gender and sexuality, class, immigration and environmentalism within the paradigm of a socialist free market. In the United States, libertarianism has become associated with right-libertarianism after Murray Rothbard and Karl Hess reached out to the New Left in the 1960s. However, political usage of the term until then was associated exclusively with anti-capitalism, libertarian socialism and social anarchism and in most parts of the world such an association still predominates. 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. ISBN 1846310253. ISBN 978-1846310256. "'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". 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". Newman, Saul (2010). The Politics of Postanarchism, Edinburgh University Press. p. 43. ISBN 0748634959, ISBN 978-0748634958. "It is important to distinguish between anarchism and certain strands of right-wing libertarianism which at times go by the same name (for example, Murray Rothbard's anarcho-capitalism). There is a complex debate within this tradition between those like Robert Nozick, who advocate a 'minimal state', and those like Rothbard who want to do away with the state altogether and allow all transactions to be governed by the market alone. From an anarchist perspective, however, both positions—the minimal state (minarchist) and the no-state ('anarchist') positions—neglect the problem of economic domination; in other words, they neglect the hierarchies, oppressions, and forms of exploitation that would inevitably arise in a laissez-faire 'free' market. Anarchism, therefore, has no truck with this right-wing libertarianism, not only because it neglects economic inequality and domination, but also because in practice (and theory) it is highly inconsistent and contradictory. The individual freedom invoked by right-wing libertarians is only a narrow economic freedom within the constraints of a capitalist market, which, as anarchists show, is no freedom at all". Spitz, Jean-Fabien. "Left-wing libertarianism: equality based on self-ownership". cairn-int.info. Retrieved 11 March 2018. ^ Cite error: The named reference routledge-anarchism was invoked but never defined (see the help page). Kymlicka, Will (2005). "libertarianism, left-". In Honderich, Ted. The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. New York City: Oxford University Press. p. 516. ISBN 978-0199264797. "'Left-libertarianism' is a new term for an old conception of justice, dating back to Grotius. It combines the libertarian assumption that each person possesses a natural right of self-ownership over his person with the egalitarian premiss that natural resources should be shared equally. Right-wing libertarians argue that the right of self-ownership entails the right to appropriate unequal parts of the external world, such as unequal amounts of land. According to left-libertarians, however, the world's natural resources were initially unowned, or belonged equally to all, and it is illegitimate for anyone to claim exclusive private ownership of these resources to the detriment of others. Such private appropriation is legitimate only if everyone can appropriate an equal amount, or if those who appropriate more are taxed to compensate those who are thereby excluded from what was once common property. Historic proponents of this view include Thomas Paine, Herbert Spencer, and Henry George. Recent exponents include Philippe Van Parijs and Hillel Steiner." Carlson, Jennifer D. (2012). "Libertarianism". In Miller, Wilbur R. The social history of crime and punishment in America. London: Sage Publications. p. 1007. ISBN 1412988764. "Left-libertarians disagree with right-libertarians with respect to property rights, arguing instead that individuals have no inherent right to natural resources. Namely, these resources must be treated as collective property that is made available on an egalitarian basis". Narveson, Jan; Trenchard, David (2008). "Left libertarianism". In Hamowy, Ronald (ed.). The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; Cato Institute. pp. 288–289. doi:10.4135/9781412965811.n174. ISBN 978-1-4129-6580-4. LCCN 2008009151. OCLC 750831024. Left libertarians regard each of us as full self-owners. However, they differ from what we generally understand by the term libertarian in denying the right to private property. We own ourselves, but we do not own nature, at least not as individuals. Left libertarians embrace the view that all natural resources, land, oil, gold, and so on should be held collectively. To the extent that individuals make use of these commonly owned goods, they must do so only with the permission of society, a permission granted only under the proviso that a certain payment for their use be made to society at large. Sheldon Richman (3 February 2011). "Libertarian Left: Free-market anti-capitalism, the unknown ideal". The American Conservative.  Retrieved 5 March 2012. Carson, Kevin (15 June 2014). "What is Left-Libertarianism?". Center for a Stateless Society. Retrieved 6 November 2019. Bookchin, Murray; Biehl, Janet (1997). The Murray Bookchin Reader. London: Cassell. p. 170. ISBN 0-304-33873-7

Right-libertarianism's lead proposal

Extended content

Political ideology supporting laissez-faire capitalism Part of a series on Liberalism History Age of Enlightenment List of liberal theorists (contributions to liberal theory) Principles Consent of the governed Due process Democracy Economic liberalism Economic globalization Equality Gender Legal Federalism Freedom Economic Market Trade Press Religion Speech Harm principle Internationalism Invisible hand Labor theory of property Laissez-faire Liberty Negative Positive Limited government Market economy Natural monopoly Open society Permissive society Popular sovereignty Property Private Public Rights Civil and political Natural and legal To own property To bear arms Rule of law Secularism Secular humanism Separation of church and state Separation of powers Social contract Social justice Social services Welfare state Whig history Philosophers Milton Locke Spinoza Montesquieu Voltaire Rousseau Smith Kant Turgot Burke Priestley Paine Beccaria Condorcet Bentham Korais De Gouges Wollstonecraft Staël Say Humboldt Constant Ricardo Guizot List Bastiat Martineau Emerson Tocqueville Mill Spencer Arnold Acton Weber Hobhouse Croce Cassirer Mises Ortega Keynes Collingwood Čapek Hu Hayek Popper Aron Berlin Friedman Rawls Sen Nozick Kymlicka Badawi Politicians Jefferson Kołłątaj Madison Artigas Bolívar Broglie Lamartine Macaulay Kossuth Deák Cobden Mazzini Juárez Lincoln Gladstone Cavour Sarmiento Mommsen Naoroji Itagaki Levski Kemal Deakin Milyukov Lloyd George Venizelos Ståhlberg Gokhale Rathenau Madero Einaudi King Roosevelt Pearson Ohlin Kennedy Jenkins Balcerowicz Verhofstadt Obama Macron Organizations Africa Liberal Network Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Party Arab Liberal Federation Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats European Democratic Party European Liberal Youth International Alliance of Libertarian Parties International Federation of Liberal Youth Liberal International Liberal Network for Latin America Liberal parties Liberal South East European Network Regional variants Europe Latin America Albania Armenia Australia Austria Belgium Bolivia Brazil Bulgaria Canada Chile China Hong Kong Colombia Costa Rica Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czechia Denmark Ecuador Egypt Estonia Finland France Georgia Germany Greece Venizelism Honduras Hungary India Iran Israel Italy Liberism Japan Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Mexico Moldova Montenegro Netherlands New Zealand Nicaragua Nigeria North Macedonia Norway Panama Paraguay Peru Philippines Poland Cracovian Portugal Romania Russia Senegal Serbia Slovakia Slovenia South Africa South Korea Spain Sweden Switzerland Taiwan Thailand Tunisia Turkey Ukraine United Kingdom Cobdenism Gladstonian Manchester Whiggism United States Arizona School Classical Jeffersonian Modern Uruguay Venezuela Zimbabwe Related topics Anti-authoritarianism Anti-communism Bias in American academia Bias in the media Capitalism Democratic Centrism Radical centrism Economic freedom Egalitarianism Empiricism Humanism Individualism Anarchist Land value tax Libertarianism Left Right Pirate Party Progressivism Sexually liberal feminism Utilitarianism Schools Classical Conservative Cultural Feminist Equity Green Internationalist Muscular National Neoclassical Neo Ordo Radical Religious Christian Catholic Islamic Jewish Secular Social Techno Third Way Liberalism portal Politics portal v t e This article is part of a series on Libertarianism in the United States Schools Agorism Anarcho-capitalism Austro Autarchism Bleeding-heart Christian Consequentialist Feminist Fusionism Geo Green Market anarchism Minarchism Natural-rights Neo Paleo Panarchism Paternalist Propertarianism Techno Transhumanist Voluntaryism Principles Anti-imperialism Civil libertarianism Constitutionalism Counter-economics Decentralization Departurism Economic freedom Evictionism Free banking Free market Free-market environmentalism Free migration Free trade Free will Freedom of association Freedom of contract Freedom of speech Homestead principle Individuality Individualism Liberty Limited government Localism Marriage privatization Natural rights and legal rights Non-aggression principle Non-interventionism Non-politics Non-voting Open border Polycentric law Private defense agency Private property Public choice theory Restorative justice Right to bear arms Right to privacy Rugged Individualism Self-ownership Single tax Small government Spontaneous order Stateless society Tax resistance Title-transfer theory of contract Voluntary association Voluntary society History Age of Enlightenment Abolitionism in the United States Classical liberalism Anti-Federalism Transcendentalism Individualist anarchism in the United States Old Right New Left Freedom School Economics Austrian School Economic liberalism Fiscal conservatism Georgism Laissez-faire Neoliberalism Supply-side economics Intellectuals Andrews Barnett Block Boudreaux Brennan Caplan Carson Chartier Chodorov Ebeling Epstein Franklin D. Friedman M. Friedman P. Friedman R. Friedman Galambos Garrett George Griffin Gordon Harper Hazlitt Heinlein Hess Hoppe Hospers Huemer Jefferson Kinsella Konkin R. Lane LeFevre Machan Mencken Menger Mises Nock Nozick Paterson Rand Read Robertson Rockwell Rothbard Samuels Schulman Sciabarra Scott Skousen Smith Somin Sowell Sutton Szasz Thiel Thoreau Tuccille Tucker Volokh Wilder Williams Wilson Commentators Chamberlain Gillespie Gutfeld Jones Kauffman McElroy Postrel Pugsley Rogan Smith Soave Stone Stossel Welch Will Woods Politicians Amash Burt Cleveland Coolidge Johnson Jorgensen Massie McAfee Nolan Oliver Paul Polis Sarwark Ventura Issues Abortion Capital punishment Criticism Foreign affairs Immigration Intellectual property Internal debates LGBT rights Objectivism Political parties Politics State Theories of law Culture Come and take it Gadsden flag Ben Garrison Libertarian science fiction Ron Swanson Organizations Cato Institute Federalist Society Free State Project Foundation for Economic Education International Alliance of Libertarian Parties Libertarian Party Liberty International Mises Institute Reason Foundation Reason (magazine) Students for a Democratic Society Students for Liberty Young Americans for Liberty Literature The Anarchist Cookbook Anarchy, State, and Utopia The Betrayal of the American Right The Case Against Education Civil Disobedience Conceived in Liberty The Creature from Jekyll Island Defending the Undefendable The Discovery of Freedom End the Fed The Ethics of Liberty For a New Liberty Free to Choose The Future and Its Enemies The God of the Machine It Usually Begins with Ayn Rand Liberty The Machinery of Freedom Man, Economy and State The Moon is a Harsh Mistress The Mainspring of Human Progress The Market for Liberty The Myth of the Rational Voter No, They Can't No Treason New Libertarian Manifesto Our Enemy, the State The Problem of Political Authority Progress and Poverty Protection or Free Trade Radicals for Capitalism Seeing Like a State To Serve and Protect The Unconstitutionality of Slavery See also American militia movement Boogaloo movement Conservatism in the United States Cowen Dark Enlightenment Jacobs Jillette Koch (Charles) Koch (David) Left-libertarianism Liberalism in the United States Libertarian conservatism Libertarian Democrat Libertarian Republican Libertarian socialism Libertarianism in Hong Kong Libertarianism in South Africa Libertarianism in the United Kingdom New Right Objectivism On Democracy in America Outline of libertarianism Prince Napolitano Right-libertarianism Sovereign citizen movement Spooner Taleb Teller Wilson Liberalism portal Conservatism portal Libertarianism portal United States portal v t e Right-libertarianism, or right-wing libertarianism, is a political philosophy that advocate civil liberties, natural law, laissez-faire capitalism and a major reversal of the modern welfare state. Right-libertarians strongly support private property rights and defend market distribution of natural resources and private property. This position is contrasted with that of left-libertarianism, with which it is often compared to, hence the name. As a term, it refers to a collection of political philosophies that support laissez-faire capitalism. This is because libertarianism in the United States has deviated from its political origins to the extent that in the United States the common meaning of the term libertarianism is different from elsewhere, where it continues to be widely used to refer to anti-state socialists such as anarchists and more generally libertarian communists and libertarian socialists. Right-libertarian political thought is characterized by the strict priority given to liberty, with the need to maximize the realm of individual freedom and minimize the scope of public authority. Right-libertarians typically see the state as the principal threat to liberty. This anti-statism differs from anarchist doctrines in that it is based upon an uncompromising individualism that places little or no emphasis upon human sociability or cooperation. Right-libertarian philosophy is also rooted in the ideas of individual rights and laissez-faire economics. The right-libertarianism theory of individual rights generally stresses that the individual is the owner of his person and that people have an absolute entitlement to the property that his labor produces. Economically, right-libertarians emphasize the self-regulating nature and mechanisms of the market, portraying government intervention and attempts to redistribute wealth as invariably unnecessary and counter-productive. Although all right-libertarians oppose government intervention, there is a division between those who adhere to the anarcho-capitalism position, who view the state as an unnecessary evil; and minarchists who recognize the necessary need for a minimal state, often referred to as a night-watchman state. While influenced by classical liberal thought, with some viewing right-libertarianism as an outgrowth or as a variant of it, there are significant differences. Edwin van de Haar argues that "confusingly, in the United States the term libertarianism is sometimes also used for or by classical liberals. But this erroneously masks the differences between them". Classical liberalism refuses to give priority to liberty over order and therefore does not exhibit the hostility to the state which is the defining feature of libertarianism. Subsequently, right-libertarians believe classical liberals favor too much state involvement, arguing that they do not have enough respect for individual property rights and lack sufficient trust in the workings of the free market and its spontaneous order leading to support of a much larger state. Right-libertarians also disagree with classical liberals as being too supportive of  central banks and monetarist policies. ^ Rothbard, Murray (1 March 1971). "The Left and Right Within Libertarianism". Originally published in WIN: Peace and Freedom Through Nonviolent Action. Reprinted at LewRockwell.com. ^ 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". ^ 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". Newman, Saul (2010). The Politics of Postanarchism. Edinburgh University Press. p. 53. ISBN 978-0-7486-3495-8. It is important to distinguish between anarchism and certain strands of right-wing libertarianism which at times go by the same name (for example, Murray Rothbard's anarcho-capitalism). There is a complex debate within this tradition between those like Robert Nozick, who advocate a 'minimal state', and those like Rothbard who want to do away with the state altogether and allow all transactions to be governed by the market alone. From an anarchist perspective, however, both positions—the minimal state (minarchist) and the no-state ('anarchist') positions—neglect the problem of economic domination; in other words, they neglect the hierarchies, oppressions, and forms of exploitation that would inevitably arise in a laissez-faire 'free' market. Anarchism, therefore, has no truck with this right-wing libertarianism, not only because it neglects economic inequality and domination, but also because in practice (and theory) it is highly inconsistent and contradictory. The individual freedom invoked by right-wing libertarians is only a narrow economic freedom within the constraints of a capitalist market, which, as anarchists show, is no freedom at all. "Libertarismo y deber. Una reflexión sobre la ética de Nozick" . Revista de ciencias sociales (in Spanish). 91: 123–128. ISSN 0210-0223. Miller, Fred (15 August 2008). "Natural Law". The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism. Retrieved 31 July 2019. Baradat 2015, p. 31. Kymlicka 2005, p. 516. "Right-wing libertarians argue that the right of self-ownership entails the right to appropriate unequal parts of the external world, such as unequal amounts of land". Vallentyne 2007. "The best-known versions of libertarianism are right-libertarian theories, which hold that agents have a very strong moral power to acquire full private property rights in external things. Left-libertarians, by contrast, hold that natural resources (e.g., space, land, minerals, air, and water) belong to everyone in some egalitarian manner and thus cannot be appropriated without the consent of, or significant payment to, the members of society". Rothbard, Murray (2009) . The Betrayal of the American Right (PDF). Mises Institute. 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. Bookchin, Murray (January 1986). "The Greening of Politics: Toward a New Kind of Political Practice". Green Perspectives: Newsletter of the Green Program Project (1). "We have permitted cynical political reactionaries and the spokesmen of large corporations to pre-empt these basic libertarian American ideals. We have permitted them not only to become the specious voice of these ideals such that individualism has been used to justify egotism; the pursuit of happiness to justify greed, and even our emphasis on local and regional autonomy has been used to justify parochialism, insularism, and exclusivity – often against ethnic minorities and so-called deviant individuals. We have even permitted these reactionaries to stake out a claim to the word libertarian, a word, in fact, that was literally devised in the 1890s in France by Elisée Reclus as a substitute for the word anarchist, which the government had rendered an illegal expression for identifying one's views. The propertarians, in effect – acolytes of Ayn Rand, the earth mother of greed, egotism, and the virtues of property – have appropriated expressions and traditions that should have been expressed by radicals but were willfully neglected because of the lure of European and Asian traditions of socialism, socialisms that are now entering into decline in the very countries in which they originated". Cite error: The named reference Nettlau was invoked but never defined (see the help page). Cite error: The named reference Fernandez was invoked but never defined (see the help page). Cite error: The named reference Chomsky was invoked but never defined (see the help page). Cite error: The named reference Ward was invoked but never defined (see the help page). Cite error: The named reference Graham was invoked but never defined (see the help page). Cite error: The named reference Marshall was invoked but never defined (see the help page). "150 years of Libertarian". "160 years of Libertarian". ^ Heywood 2004, p. 337. Newman 2010, p. 43 harvnb error: multiple targets (3×): CITEREFNewman2010 (help) "It is important to distinguish between anarchism and certain strands of right-wing libertarianism which at times go by the same name (for example, Murray Rothbard's anarcho-capitalism). There is a complex debate within this tradition between those like Robert Nozick, who advocate a 'minimal state', and those like Rothbard who want to do away with the state altogether and allow all transactions to be governed by the market alone. From an anarchist perspective, however, both positions—the minimal state (minarchist) and the no-state ('anarchist') positions—neglect the problem of economic domination; in other words, they neglect the hierarchies, oppressions, and forms of exploitation that would inevitably arise in a laissez-faire 'free' market. Anarchism, therefore, has no truck with this right-wing libertarianism, not only because it neglects economic inequality and domination, but also because in practice (and theory) it is highly inconsistent and contradictory. The individual freedom invoked by right-wing libertarians is only a narrow economic freedom within the constraints of a capitalist market, which, as anarchists show, is no freedom at all". Goodman, John C. (20 December 2005). "What Is Classical Liberalism?". National Center for Policy Analysis. Retrieved 26 June 2019. Archived 9 March 2009 at the Wayback Machine. van de Haar 2015, p. 71. ^ van de Haar 2015, p. 42. van de Haar 2015, p. 43.

Right-libertarianism's full page proposal (titles are bolded to avoid having sections appear as subsections in the talk page)

Extended content

Political ideology supporting laissez-faire capitalism Part of a series on Liberalism History Age of Enlightenment List of liberal theorists (contributions to liberal theory) Principles Consent of the governed Due process Democracy Economic liberalism Economic globalization Equality Gender Legal Federalism Freedom Economic Market Trade Press Religion Speech Harm principle Internationalism Invisible hand Labor theory of property Laissez-faire Liberty Negative Positive Limited government Market economy Natural monopoly Open society Permissive society Popular sovereignty Property Private Public Rights Civil and political Natural and legal To own property To bear arms Rule of law Secularism Secular humanism Separation of church and state Separation of powers Social contract Social justice Social services Welfare state Whig history Philosophers Milton Locke Spinoza Montesquieu Voltaire Rousseau Smith Kant Turgot Burke Priestley Paine Beccaria Condorcet Bentham Korais De Gouges Wollstonecraft Staël Say Humboldt Constant Ricardo Guizot List Bastiat Martineau Emerson Tocqueville Mill Spencer Arnold Acton Weber Hobhouse Croce Cassirer Mises Ortega Keynes Collingwood Čapek Hu Hayek Popper Aron Berlin Friedman Rawls Sen Nozick Kymlicka Badawi Politicians Jefferson Kołłątaj Madison Artigas Bolívar Broglie Lamartine Macaulay Kossuth Deák Cobden Mazzini Juárez Lincoln Gladstone Cavour Sarmiento Mommsen Naoroji Itagaki Levski Kemal Deakin Milyukov Lloyd George Venizelos Ståhlberg Gokhale Rathenau Madero Einaudi King Roosevelt Pearson Ohlin Kennedy Jenkins Balcerowicz Verhofstadt Obama Macron Organizations Africa Liberal Network Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Party Arab Liberal Federation Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats European Democratic Party European Liberal Youth International Alliance of Libertarian Parties International Federation of Liberal Youth Liberal International Liberal Network for Latin America Liberal parties Liberal South East European Network Regional variants Europe Latin America Albania Armenia Australia Austria Belgium Bolivia Brazil Bulgaria Canada Chile China Hong Kong Colombia Costa Rica Croatia Cuba Cyprus Czechia Denmark Ecuador Egypt Estonia Finland France Georgia Germany Greece Venizelism Honduras Hungary India Iran Israel Italy Liberism Japan Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Mexico Moldova Montenegro Netherlands New Zealand Nicaragua Nigeria North Macedonia Norway Panama Paraguay Peru Philippines Poland Cracovian Portugal Romania Russia Senegal Serbia Slovakia Slovenia South Africa South Korea Spain Sweden Switzerland Taiwan Thailand Tunisia Turkey Ukraine United Kingdom Cobdenism Gladstonian Manchester Whiggism United States Arizona School Classical Jeffersonian Modern Uruguay Venezuela Zimbabwe Related topics Anti-authoritarianism Anti-communism Bias in American academia Bias in the media Capitalism Democratic Centrism Radical centrism Economic freedom Egalitarianism Empiricism Humanism Individualism Anarchist Land value tax Libertarianism Left Right Pirate Party Progressivism Sexually liberal feminism Utilitarianism Schools Classical Conservative Cultural Feminist Equity Green Internationalist Muscular National Neoclassical Neo Ordo Radical Religious Christian Catholic Islamic Jewish Secular Social Techno Third Way Liberalism portal Politics portal v t e This article is part of a series on Libertarianism in the United States Schools Agorism Anarcho-capitalism Austro Autarchism Bleeding-heart Christian Consequentialist Feminist Fusionism Geo Green Market anarchism Minarchism Natural-rights Neo Paleo Panarchism Paternalist Propertarianism Techno Transhumanist Voluntaryism Principles Anti-imperialism Civil libertarianism Constitutionalism Counter-economics Decentralization Departurism Economic freedom Evictionism Free banking Free market Free-market environmentalism Free migration Free trade Free will Freedom of association Freedom of contract Freedom of speech Homestead principle Individuality Individualism Liberty Limited government Localism Marriage privatization Natural rights and legal rights Non-aggression principle Non-interventionism Non-politics Non-voting Open border Polycentric law Private defense agency Private property Public choice theory Restorative justice Right to bear arms Right to privacy Rugged Individualism Self-ownership Single tax Small government Spontaneous order Stateless society Tax resistance Title-transfer theory of contract Voluntary association Voluntary society History Age of Enlightenment Abolitionism in the United States Classical liberalism Anti-Federalism Transcendentalism Individualist anarchism in the United States Old Right New Left Freedom School Economics Austrian School Economic liberalism Fiscal conservatism Georgism Laissez-faire Neoliberalism Supply-side economics Intellectuals Andrews Barnett Block Boudreaux Brennan Caplan Carson Chartier Chodorov Ebeling Epstein Franklin D. Friedman M. Friedman P. Friedman R. Friedman Galambos Garrett George Griffin Gordon Harper Hazlitt Heinlein Hess Hoppe Hospers Huemer Jefferson Kinsella Konkin R. Lane LeFevre Machan Mencken Menger Mises Nock Nozick Paterson Rand Read Robertson Rockwell Rothbard Samuels Schulman Sciabarra Scott Skousen Smith Somin Sowell Sutton Szasz Thiel Thoreau Tuccille Tucker Volokh Wilder Williams Wilson Commentators Chamberlain Gillespie Gutfeld Jones Kauffman McElroy Postrel Pugsley Rogan Smith Soave Stone Stossel Welch Will Woods Politicians Amash Burt Cleveland Coolidge Johnson Jorgensen Massie McAfee Nolan Oliver Paul Polis Sarwark Ventura Issues Abortion Capital punishment Criticism Foreign affairs Immigration Intellectual property Internal debates LGBT rights Objectivism Political parties Politics State Theories of law Culture Come and take it Gadsden flag Ben Garrison Libertarian science fiction Ron Swanson Organizations Cato Institute Federalist Society Free State Project Foundation for Economic Education International Alliance of Libertarian Parties Libertarian Party Liberty International Mises Institute Reason Foundation Reason (magazine) Students for a Democratic Society Students for Liberty Young Americans for Liberty Literature The Anarchist Cookbook Anarchy, State, and Utopia The Betrayal of the American Right The Case Against Education Civil Disobedience Conceived in Liberty The Creature from Jekyll Island Defending the Undefendable The Discovery of Freedom End the Fed The Ethics of Liberty For a New Liberty Free to Choose The Future and Its Enemies The God of the Machine It Usually Begins with Ayn Rand Liberty The Machinery of Freedom Man, Economy and State The Moon is a Harsh Mistress The Mainspring of Human Progress The Market for Liberty The Myth of the Rational Voter No, They Can't No Treason New Libertarian Manifesto Our Enemy, the State The Problem of Political Authority Progress and Poverty Protection or Free Trade Radicals for Capitalism Seeing Like a State To Serve and Protect The Unconstitutionality of Slavery See also American militia movement Boogaloo movement Conservatism in the United States Cowen Dark Enlightenment Jacobs Jillette Koch (Charles) Koch (David) Left-libertarianism Liberalism in the United States Libertarian conservatism Libertarian Democrat Libertarian Republican Libertarian socialism Libertarianism in Hong Kong Libertarianism in South Africa Libertarianism in the United Kingdom New Right Objectivism On Democracy in America Outline of libertarianism Prince Napolitano Right-libertarianism Sovereign citizen movement Spooner Taleb Teller Wilson Liberalism portal Conservatism portal Libertarianism portal United States portal v t e Right-libertarianism, or right-wing libertarianism, is a political philosophy that advocate civil liberties, natural law, laissez-faire capitalism and a major reversal of the modern welfare state. Right-libertarians strongly support private property rights and defend market distribution of natural resources and private property. This position is contrasted with that of left-libertarianism, with which it is often compared to, hence the name. As a term, it refers to a collection of political philosophies that support laissez-faire capitalism. This is because libertarianism in the United States has deviated from its political origins to the extent that in the United States the common meaning of the term libertarianism is different from elsewhere, where it continues to be widely used to refer to anti-state socialists such as anarchists and more generally libertarian communists and libertarian socialists. Right-libertarian political thought is characterized by the strict priority given to liberty, with the need to maximize the realm of individual freedom and minimize the scope of public authority. Right-libertarians typically see the state as the principal threat to liberty. This anti-statism differs from anarchist doctrines in that it is based upon an uncompromising individualism that places little or no emphasis upon human sociability or cooperation. Right-libertarian philosophy is also rooted in the ideas of individual rights and laissez-faire economics. The right-libertarianism theory of individual rights generally stresses that the individual is the owner of his person and that people have an absolute entitlement to the property that his labor produces. Economically, right-libertarians emphasize the self-regulating nature and mechanisms of the market, portraying government intervention and attempts to redistribute wealth as invariably unnecessary and counter-productive. Although all right-libertarians oppose government intervention, there is a division between those who adhere to the anarcho-capitalism position, who view the state as an unnecessary evil; and minarchists who recognize the necessary need for a minimal state, often referred to as a night-watchman state. While influenced by classical liberal thought, with some viewing right-libertarianism as an outgrowth or as a variant of it, there are significant differences. Edwin van de Haar argues that "confusingly, in the United States the term libertarianism is sometimes also used for or by classical liberals. But this erroneously masks the differences between them". Classical liberalism refuses to give priority to liberty over order and therefore does not exhibit the hostility to the state which is the defining feature of libertarianism. Subsequently, right-libertarians believe classical liberals favor too much state involvement, arguing that they do not have enough respect for individual property rights and lack sufficient trust in the workings of the free market and its spontaneous order leading to support of a much larger state. Right-libertarians also disagree with classical liberals as being too supportive of  central banks and monetarist policies. Philosophy Right-libertarianism developed in the United States in the mid-20th century from the works of European writers like John Locke, Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises and is the most popular conception of libertarianism in the United States today. It is commonly referred to as a continuation or radicalization of classical liberalism. The most important of these early right-libertarian philosophers was Robert Nozick. While often sharing the left-libertarians' advocacy for social freedom, right-libertarians also value the social institutions that enforce conditions of capitalism while rejecting institutions that function in opposition to these on the grounds that such interventions represent unnecessary coercion of individuals and abrogation of their economic freedom. Anarcho-capitalists seek complete elimination of the state in favor of private defense agencies while minarchists defend night-watchman states which maintain only those functions of government necessary to safeguard natural rights, understood in terms of self-ownership or autonomy. Right-libertarians are economic liberals of either the Austrian School or Chicago school and support laissez-faire capitalism. Non-aggression principle Main article: Non-agression principle The non-aggression principle (NAP) is often described as the foundation of present-day right-libertarian philosophies. It is a moral stance which forbids actions that are inconsistent with capitalist property rights. The principle defines aggression and initiation of force as violation of these rights. The NAP and property rights are closely linked since what constitutes aggression depends on what libertarians consider to be one's property. Because the principle redefines aggression in right-libertarian terms, use of the NAP as a justification for right-libertarianism has been criticized as circular reasoning and as rhetorical obfuscation of the coercive nature of libertarian property law enforcement. The principle has been used rhetorically to oppose such policies as victimless crime laws, taxation and military drafts. Property rights Main article: Property rights (economics) While there is debate on whether left-, right- and socialist libertarianism "represent distinct ideologies as opposed to variations on a theme", right-libertarianism is most in favor of private property and property rights. Right-libertarians maintain that unowned natural resources "may be appropriated by the first person who discovers them, mixes his labor with them, or merely claims them—without the consent of others, and with little or no payment to them". This contrasts with left-libertarianism in which "unappropriated natural resources belong to everyone in some egalitarian manner". Right-libertarians believe that natural resources are originally unowned and therefore private parties may appropriate them at will without the consent of, or owing to, others (e.g. a land value tax). Right-libertarians are also referred to as propertarians as they hold that societies in which private property rights are enforced are the only ones that are both ethical and lead to the best possible outcomes. They generally support the free market and are not opposed to any concentrations of economic power, provided it occurs through non-coercive means. State Main articles: Anarchism and Night-watchman state There is a debate amongst right-libertarians as to whether or not the state is legitimate. While anarcho-capitalists advocate its abolition, minarchists support minimal states, often referred to as night-watchman states. Minarchists maintain that the state is necessary for the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract and fraud. They believe the only legitimate governmental institutions are the military, police and courts, although some expand this list to include fire departments, prisons and the executive and legislative branches. They justify the state on the grounds that it is the logical consequence of adhering to the non-aggression principle and argue that anarchy is immoral because it implies that the non-aggression principle is optional and that the enforcement of laws under anarchism is open to competition. Another common justification is that private defense agencies and court firms would tend to represent the interests of those who pay them enough. Right-libertarians such as anarcho-capitalists argue that the state violates the non-aggression principle by its nature because governments use force against those who have not stolen or vandalized private property, assaulted anyone, or committed fraud. Others argue that monopolies tend to be corrupt and inefficient and that private defense and court agencies would have to have a good reputation in order to stay in business. Linda and Morris Tannehill argue that no coercive monopoly of force can arise on a truly free market and that a government's citizenry can not desert them in favor of a competent protection and defense agency. Right-libertarian philosopher Moshe Kroy argues that the disagreement between anarcho-capitalists who adhere to Murray Rothbard's view of human consciousness and the nature of values and minarchists who adhere to Ayn Rand's view of human consciousness and the nature of values over whether or not the state is moral is not due to a disagreement over the correct interpretation of a mutually held ethical stance. He argues that the disagreement between these two groups is instead the result of their disagreement over the nature of human consciousness and that each group is making the correct interpretation of their differing premises. According to Kroy, these two groups are not making any errors with respect to deducing the correct interpretation of any ethical stance because they do not hold the same ethical stance. Taxation as theft Main article: Taxation as theft The idea of taxation as theft is a viewpoint found in a number of political philosophies. Under this view, government transgresses property rights by enforcing compulsory tax collection. Right-libertarians see taxation as a violation of the non-aggression principle. Schools of thought Anarcho-capitalism Main article: Anarcho-capitalism Anarcho-capitalism is a political philosophy which advocates the elimination of the state in favor of individual sovereignty in a free-market capitalism. In an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts and all other security services would be provided by privately funded competitors rather than through taxation and money would be privately and competitively provided in an open market. As a result, personal and economic activities under anarcho-capitalism would be regulated by privately run law rather than through politics. The most well-known version of anarcho-capitalism was formulated in the mid-20th century by Austrian School economist and paleolibertarian Murray Rothbard. Rothbard coined the term and is widely regarded as its founder. He combined the free market approach from the Austrian School with the human rights views and a rejection of the state he learned from 19th-century American individualist anarchists such as Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker, although he rejected their anti-capitalism, along with the labor theory of value and the normative implications they derived from it. In Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism, there would first be the implementation of a mutually agreed-upon libertarian "legal code which would be generally accepted and which the courts would pledge themselves to follow". This legal code would recognize sovereignty of the individual and the principle of non-aggression. Many writers deny that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism at all, or that capitalism itself is compatible with anarchism, regarding it instead as right-libertarian. Classical liberalism Main article: Classical liberalism Classical liberalism is a political philosophy that advocate civil liberties under the rule of law, with an emphasis on economic freedom. Closely related to economic liberalism, it developed in the early 19th century, building on ideas from the previous century as a response to urbanization and to the Industrial Revolution in Europe and the United States. Notable individuals whose ideas contributed to classical liberalism include John Locke, Thomas Robert Malthus, Jean-Baptiste Say and David Ricardo. It drew on the classical economic ideas espoused by Adam Smith in Book One of The Wealth of Nations and on a belief in natural law, utilitarianism and progress. The term classical liberalism was applied in retrospect to distinguish earlier 19th-century liberalism from the newer social liberalism. Right-libertarianism has been influenced by this school of liberalism and has been viewed as an outgrowth or as a variant of it and it is commonly referred to as a continuation or radicalization of classical liberalism. Conservative libertarianism Main article: Conservative libertarianism See also: Fusionism Conservative libertarianism is a political philosophy that combines laissez-faire economics and conservative values. Conservative libertarianism advocates the greatest possible economic liberty and the least possible government regulation of social life, but harnesses this to a belief in a more traditional and conservative social philosophy emphasizing authority and duty. Conservative libertarianism prioritizes liberty as its main emphasis, promoting free expression, freedom of choice and laissez-faire capitalism to achieve socially and culturally conservative ends as they reject liberal social engineering, or in the opposite way yet not excluding the above conservative libertarianism could be understood as promoting civil society through conservative institutions and authority such as family, fatherland, religion and education in the quest of libertarian ends for less state power. In American politics, fusionism is the philosophical and political combination or fusion of traditionalist and social conservatism with political and economic right-libertarianism. The philosophy is most closely associated with Frank Meyer. Minarchism Main article: Minarchism Minarchism is a political philosphy supportive of a night-watchman state, or minarchy, a model of a state whose only functions are to provide its citizens with the military, the police and courts, protecting them from aggression, theft, breach of contract and fraud and enforcing property laws. 19th-century Britain has been described by historian Charles Townshend as standard-bearer of this form of government among European countries. Robert Nozick received a National Book Award in category Philosophy and Religion for his book Anarchy, State, and Utopia, where Nozick argues that only a minimal state limited to the narrow functions of protection against "force, fraud, theft, and administering courts of law" could be justified without violating people's rights. Neoliberalism Main article: Neoliberalism Traditionally, liberalism's primary emphasis was placed on securing the freedom of the individual by limiting the power of the government and maximizing the power of free market forces. The philosophy emerged as a response to the Industrial Revolution and urbanization in the 19th century in Europe and the United States, advocated a limited government and held a belief in laissez-faire economic policy. Built on ideas that had already arisen by the end of the 18th century such as selected ideas of Locke, Smith, Malthus, Say and Ricardo, liberalism stressed the belief in natural law, utilitarianism and progress. These liberals were more suspicious than conservatives of all but the most minimal government and adopted Thomas Hobbes's theory of government, believing government had been created by individuals to protect themselves from one another. Neoliberalism emerged in the era following World War II during which social liberalism and Keynesianism were the dominant ideologies in the Western world. It was led by economists such as Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman, who advocated the reduction of the state and a return to classical liberalism, hence the term neo-classical liberalism. However, it did accept some aspects of social liberalism such as some degree of welfare provision by the state, but on a greatly reduced scale. Hayek and Friedman used the term classical liberalism to refer to their ideas, but others use the term to refer to all liberalism before the 20th century, not to designate any particular set of political views and therefore see all modern developments as being by definition not classical. Right-libertarianism has been commonly referred to as a continuation or radicalization of classical liberalism and referred to as neo-classical liberalism. Neolibertarianism Main article: Neolibertarianism The concept of neolibertarianism gained a small following in the mid-2000s among commentators who distinguished themselves from neoconservatives by their support for individual liberties and from libertarians by their support for foreign interventionism. Paleolibertarianism Main article: Paleolibertarianism Paleolibertarianism is a poltical philosophy developed by theorists Murray Rothbard and Lew Rockwell that combines conservative cultural values and social philosophy with a libertarian opposition to government intervention. Paleolibertarianism is a controversial current due its connections to the Tea Party movement and the alt-right. However, these movements are united by an anti-Barack Obama stance, their support of the right to keep and bear arms and as a result an anti-gun control stance in regard to gun laws and politics instead of further ideological overlaps. In the essay "Right-Wing Populism: A Strategy for the Paleo Movement", Rothbard reflected on the ability of paleolibertarians to engage in an "outreach to rednecks" founded on social conservatism and radical libertarianism. He cited former Louisiana State Representative David Duke and former United States Senator Joseph McCarthy as models for the new movement. In Europe, former European Union-parliamentarian Janusz Korwin-Mikke supports both laissez-faire economics and anti-immigration and anti-feminist positions. Propertarianism Main article: Propertarianism Propertarianism, is an ethical philosophy that advocates the replacement of states with contractual relationships. Propertarian ideals are most commonly cited to advocate for a state or other governance body whose main or only job is to enforce contracts and private property. Contention over placement on the political spectrum Corey Robin describes right-libertarianism as fundamentally a conservative ideology united with more traditionalist conservative thought and goals by a desire to retain hierarchies and traditional social relations. However, many who have been labeled right-libertarians reject associations with conservatism and often reject its positioning on the traditional left–right line scale, favoring its center-north placement on the two-dimensional Nolan Chart, supporting both personal and economic liberty. Nonetheless, others also describe it as a reactionary ideology for its support of laissez-faire capitalism and a major reversal of the modern welfare state. In the 1960s, Rothbard started the publication Left and Right: A Journal of Libertarian Thought, believing that the left–right political spectrum had gone "entirely askew" since conservatives were sometimes more statist than liberals. Rothbard tried to reach out to leftists. In 1971, Rothbard wrote about his view of libertarianism which he described as supporting self-ownership, property rights and free trade. He would later describe his brand of libertarianism as anarcho-capitalism. Anthony Gregory points out that within the libertarian movement "just as the general concepts 'left' and 'right' are riddled with obfuscation and imprecision, left- and right-libertarianism can refer to any number of varying and at times mutually exclusive political orientations". He writes that one of several ways to look at right-libertarianism is its interest in economic freedom, preference for a conservative lifestyle, view that private business is "a great victim of the state", favoring a non-interventionist foreign policy sharing the Old Right's "opposition to empire". Some pro-property libertarians reject association with either the right or the left. Leonard E. Read wrote an article titled "Neither Left Nor Right: Libertarians Are Above Authoritarian Degradation". Harry Browne wrote: "We should never define Libertarian positions in terms coined by liberals or conservatives—nor as some variant of their positions. We are not fiscally conservative and socially liberal. We are Libertarians, who believe in individual liberty and personal responsibility on all issues at all times". Tibor R. Machan titled a book of his collected columns Neither Left Nor Right. Walter Block's article "Libertarianism Is Unique and Belongs Neither to the Right Nor the Left" critiques libertarians he described as left and right, the latter including Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Edward Feser and Ron Paul. Block wrote that these left and right individuals agreed with certain libertarian premises, but "where we differ is in terms of the logical implications of these founding axioms". Criticism See also: Criticism of libertarianism Criticism of right-libertarianism includes ethical, economic, environmental and pragmatic concerns, including the view that right-libertarianism has no explicit theory of liberty. For instance, it has been argued that laissez-faire capitalism does not necessarily produce the best or most efficient outcome, nor does its philosophy of individualism and policies of deregulation prevent the abuse of natural resources. Right-libertarianism has been criticized by the political left for being pro-business and anti-labor, for desiring to repeal government subsidies to the disabled and the poor and being incapable of addressing environmental issues, therefore contributing to the failure to slow global climate change. Furthermore, Noam Chomsky has repeatedly accused right-libertarian ideologies as being akin to corporate fascism because of how they remove all public controls from the economy, leaving it solely in the hands of private corporations. Chomsky has also argued that the more radical forms of right-libertarianism such as anarcho-capitalism are entirely theoretical and could never function in reality due to business' reliance on state infrastructure and subsidies. Among others, Chomsky reject the distinction between positive and negative rights as right-libertarians believe that negative rights should be recognized as legitimate, but positive rights should be rejected. Some left-libertarians have criticized right-libertarianism due its propertarianism, with Ursula K. Le Guin contrasting in The Dispossessed (1974) a propertarian society with one that does not recognize property rights in an attempt to show that property objectified human beings. Other non-propertarian left-libertarians such as Murray Bookchin have been called anti-propertarians. Bookchin objected to propertarians calling themselves libertarian. Bookchin described three concepts of possession, namely property itself, possession and usufruct, i.e. appropriation of resources by virtue of use. Anarchist critics such as Brian Morris reject right-libertarianism's sincerity in supporting a limited or minimal state, or no state at all, arguing that anarcho-capitalism does not in fact get rid of the state and that they "simply replaced the state with private security firms, and can hardly be described as anarchists as the term is normally understood". Anarchist Peter Sabatini noted: Within Libertarianism, Rothbard represents a minority perspective that actually argues for the total elimination of the state. However Rothbard's claim as an anarchist is quickly voided when it is shown that he only wants an end to the public state. In its place he allows countless private states, with each person supplying their own police force, army, and law, or else purchasing these services from capitalist vendors. Rothbard sees nothing at all wrong with the amassing of wealth, therefore those with more capital will inevitably have greater coercive force at their disposal, just as they do now. Likewise, Bob Black argues that right-libertarians are conservatives and that anarcho-capitalists want to "abolish the state to his own satisfaction by calling it something else". He states that they do not denounce what the state does, they just "object to who's doing it". From the political right, the American traditionalist conservative philosopher Russell Kirk criticized libertarianism in the United States, quoting T. S. Eliot's expression "chirping sectaries" to describe them. Kirk had questioned fusionism between libertarian and traditionalist conservatives that marked much of the post-war conservatism in the United States. Kirk stated that "although conservatives and libertarians share opposition to collectivism, the totalist state and bureaucracy, they have otherwise nothing in common" and called the libertarian movement "an ideological clique forever splitting into sects still smaller and odder, but rarely conjugating". Believing that a line of division exists between believers in "some sort of transcendent moral order" and "utilitarians admitting no transcendent sanctions for conduct", he included the libertarians in the latter category. He also berated libertarians for holding up capitalism as an absolute good, arguing that economic self-interest was inadequate to hold an economic system together and that it was even less adequate to preserve order. Kirk believed that by glorifying the individual, the free market and the dog-eat-dog struggle for material success libertarianism weakened community, promoted materialism and undermined appreciation of tradition, love, learning and aesthetics, all of which in his view were essential components of true community. Author Carl Bogus states that there were fundamental differences between libertarians and traditionalist conservatives in the United States as libertarians wanted the market to be unregulated as possible while traditionalist conservatives believed that big business, if unconstrained, could impoverish national life and threaten freedom. Libertarians also considered that a strong state would threaten freedom while traditionalist conservatives regarded a strong state, one which is properly constructed to ensure that not too much power accumulated in any one branch, was necessary to ensure freedom. Michael Lind has observed that of the 195 countries in the world today, none have fully actualized a society as advocated by American libertarians, arguing: "If libertarianism was a good idea, wouldn't at least one country have tried it? Wouldn't there be at least one country, out of nearly two hundred, with minimal government, free trade, open borders, decriminalized drugs, no welfare state and no public education system?" Furthermore, Lind has criticized it for being incompatible with democracy and apologetic towards autocracy. In response, American libertarian Warren Redlich argues that the United States "was extremely libertarian from the founding until 1860, and still very libertarian until roughly 1930". Nancy MacLean has argued that it is a radical right ideology that has stood against democracy. According to MacLean, American libertarian-leaning Charles and David Koch have used anonymous, dark money campaign contributions, a network of libertarian institutes and lobbying for the appointment of libertarian, pro-business judges to United States federal and state courts to oppose taxes, public education, employee protection laws, environmental protection laws and the New Deal Social Security program. See also Anarcho-capitalism Anti-egalitarianism Austrian School Classical liberalism Conservative liberalism Constitutionalism Criticism of democracy Cultural conservatism Debates within libertarianism Economic liberalism Fiscal conservatism Freedom of association Free market Fusionism Laissez-faire Left-libertarianism Labor mobility Liberal conservatism Libertarian conservatism Libertarianism in the United States Market fundamentalism Minarchy Mises Institute Outline of libertarianism Paleolibertarianism Patriot movement Propertarianism Reaganomics Republican Liberty Caucus Ron Paul Revolution Taxation as theft Thatcherism References ^ Rothbard, Murray (1 March 1971). "The Left and Right Within Libertarianism". Originally published in WIN: Peace and Freedom Through Nonviolent Action. Reprinted at LewRockwell.com. ^ 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". ^ 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". ^ Newman, Saul (2010). The Politics of Postanarchism. Edinburgh University Press. p. 53. ISBN 978-0-7486-3495-8. It is important to distinguish between anarchism and certain strands of right-wing libertarianism which at times go by the same name (for example, Murray Rothbard's anarcho-capitalism). There is a complex debate within this tradition between those like Robert Nozick, who advocate a 'minimal state', and those like Rothbard who want to do away with the state altogether and allow all transactions to be governed by the market alone. From an anarchist perspective, however, both positions—the minimal state (minarchist) and the no-state ('anarchist') positions—neglect the problem of economic domination; in other words, they neglect the hierarchies, oppressions, and forms of exploitation that would inevitably arise in a laissez-faire 'free' market. Anarchism, therefore, has no truck with this right-wing libertarianism, not only because it neglects economic inequality and domination, but also because in practice (and theory) it is highly inconsistent and contradictory. The individual freedom invoked by right-wing libertarians is only a narrow economic freedom within the constraints of a capitalist market, which, as anarchists show, is no freedom at all. "Libertarismo y deber. Una reflexión sobre la ética de Nozick" . Revista de ciencias sociales (in Spanish). 91: 123–128. ISSN 0210-0223. Miller, Fred (15 August 2008). "Natural Law". The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism. Retrieved 31 July 2019. ^ Baradat 2015, p. 31. Kymlicka 2005, p. 516. "Right-wing libertarians argue that the right of self-ownership entails the right to appropriate unequal parts of the external world, such as unequal amounts of land". Vallentyne 2007. "The best-known versions of libertarianism are right-libertarian theories, which hold that agents have a very strong moral power to acquire full private property rights in external things. Left-libertarians, by contrast, hold that natural resources (e.g., space, land, minerals, air, and water) belong to everyone in some egalitarian manner and thus cannot be appropriated without the consent of, or significant payment to, the members of society". Rothbard, Murray (2009) . The Betrayal of the American Right (PDF). Mises Institute. 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. ^ Bookchin, Murray (January 1986). "The Greening of Politics: Toward a New Kind of Political Practice". Green Perspectives: Newsletter of the Green Program Project (1). "We have permitted cynical political reactionaries and the spokesmen of large corporations to pre-empt these basic libertarian American ideals. We have permitted them not only to become the specious voice of these ideals such that individualism has been used to justify egotism; the pursuit of happiness to justify greed, and even our emphasis on local and regional autonomy has been used to justify parochialism, insularism, and exclusivity – often against ethnic minorities and so-called deviant individuals. We have even permitted these reactionaries to stake out a claim to the word libertarian, a word, in fact, that was literally devised in the 1890s in France by Elisée Reclus as a substitute for the word anarchist, which the government had rendered an illegal expression for identifying one's views. The propertarians, in effect – acolytes of Ayn Rand, the earth mother of greed, egotism, and the virtues of property – have appropriated expressions and traditions that should have been expressed by radicals but were willfully neglected because of the lure of European and Asian traditions of socialism, socialisms that are now entering into decline in the very countries in which they originated". Cite error: The named reference Nettlau was invoked but never defined (see the help page). Cite error: The named reference Fernandez was invoked but never defined (see the help page). Cite error: The named reference Chomsky was invoked but never defined (see the help page). Cite error: The named reference Ward was invoked but never defined (see the help page). Cite error: The named reference Graham was invoked but never defined (see the help page). Cite error: The named reference Marshall was invoked but never defined (see the help page). "150 years of Libertarian". "160 years of Libertarian". ^ Heywood 2004, p. 337. Newman 2010, p. 43 harvnb error: multiple targets (3×): CITEREFNewman2010 (help) "It is important to distinguish between anarchism and certain strands of right-wing libertarianism which at times go by the same name (for example, Murray Rothbard's anarcho-capitalism). There is a complex debate within this tradition between those like Robert Nozick, who advocate a 'minimal state', and those like Rothbard who want to do away with the state altogether and allow all transactions to be governed by the market alone. From an anarchist perspective, however, both positions—the minimal state (minarchist) and the no-state ('anarchist') positions—neglect the problem of economic domination; in other words, they neglect the hierarchies, oppressions, and forms of exploitation that would inevitably arise in a laissez-faire 'free' market. Anarchism, therefore, has no truck with this right-wing libertarianism, not only because it neglects economic inequality and domination, but also because in practice (and theory) it is highly inconsistent and contradictory. The individual freedom invoked by right-wing libertarians is only a narrow economic freedom within the constraints of a capitalist market, which, as anarchists show, is no freedom at all". ^ Goodman, John C. (20 December 2005). "What Is Classical Liberalism?". National Center for Policy Analysis. Retrieved 26 June 2019. Archived 9 March 2009 at the Wayback Machine. van de Haar 2015, p. 71. ^ van de Haar 2015, p. 42. van de Haar 2015, p. 43. Carlson (2012). p. 1007. ^ Lester, J. C. (22 October 2017). "New-Paradigm Libertarianism: a Very Brief Explanation". PhilPapers. Retrieved 26 June 2019. ^ Boaz, David (1998). Libertarianism: A Primer. Free Press. pp. 22–26. ^ Conway, David (2008). "Freedom of Speech". In Hamowy, Ronald (ed.). Liberalism, Classical. The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications; Cato Institute. pp. 295–98 at p. 296. doi:10.4135/9781412965811.n112. ISBN 978-1-4129-6580-4. LCCN 2008009151. OCLC 750831024. Depending on the context, libertarianism can be seen as either the contemporary name for classical liberalism, adopted to avoid confusion in those countries where liberalism is widely understood to denote advocacy of expansive government powers, or as a more radical version of classical liberalism. "About the Libertarian Party". Libertarian Party. Retrieved 27 June 2019. "Libertarians strongly oppose any government interference into their personal, family, and business decisions. Essentially, we believe all Americans should be free to live their lives and pursue their interests as they see fit as long as they do no harm to another". Newman, Saul (2010). The Politics of Postanarchism. Edinburgh University Press. p. 43. ISBN 0748634959. "It is important to distinguish between anarchism and certain strands of right-wing libertarianism which at times go by the same name (for example, Rothbard's anarcho-capitalism)". Marshall, Peter (2008). Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism. London: Harper Perennial. p. 565. "In fact, few anarchists would accept the 'anarcho-capitalists' into the anarchist camp since they do not share a concern for economic equality and social justice, Their self-interested, calculating market men would be incapable of practicing voluntary co-operation and mutual aid. Anarcho-capitalists, even if they do reject the State, might therefore best be called right-wing libertarians rather than anarchists". Nozick, Robert (1974). Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Basic Books. Raico, Ralph (2012). Classical Liberalism and the Austrian School. Auburn, Alabama: Mises Institute. p. 376. ISBN 9781610160032. Barnet, Phred (14 April 2011). "The Non-Aggression Principle". Americanly Yours. Retrieved 22 November 2011. "Join the Libertarian Party". Libertarian Party. Retrieved 26 June 2019. I certify that I oppose the initiation of force to achieve political or social goals. Kinsella, Stephan (4 October 2011). "The relation between the non-aggression principle and property rights: a response to Division by Zer0". Mises Wire. Retrieved 26 June 2019. Kinsella, Stephan (21 August 2009). "What Libertarianism Is". Mises Daily. Retrieved 7 July 2012. "Libertarians are Huge Fans of Initiating Force". Demos. 17 November 2013. Retrieved 19 August 2016. Carlson 2012, p. 1007. Vallentyne, Peter (20 July 2010). "Libertarianism". In Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Stanford University. Retrieved 26 December 2012. Becker, Lawrence C.; Becker, Charlotte B. (2001). Encyclopedia of Ethics. 3. New York: Routledge. p. 1562. Rothbard, Murray (1998). The Ethics of Liberty. New York: NYU Press. ISBN 978-0814775066. von Mises, Ludwig (2007). Human Action: A Treatise on Economics. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund. ISBN 978-0865976313. ^ Gregory, Anthory (10 May 2004). "The Minarchist's Dilemma". Strike The Root. Retrieved 26 June 2019. "What role should certain specific governments play in Objectivist government?". Peikoff.com. 7 March 2011. Retrieved 26 June 2019. "Interview with Yaron Brook on economic issues in today's world (Part 1)". Peikoff.com. 10 March 2011. Retrieved 26 June 2019.} Holcombe, Randall G. "Government: Unnecessary but Inevitable" (PDF). {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help) Long, Roderick T. (16 February 2009). "Market Anarchism as Constitutionalism". Molinari Institute. Retrieved 26 June 2019. Plauché, Geoffrey Allan (27 August 2006). "On the Social Contract and the Persistence of Anarchy" (PDF). American Political Science Association. Baton Rouge, Louisiana: Louisiana State University. Archived from the original (PDF) on 10 September 2008. Tannehill, Linda; Tannehill, Morris (1970). The Market for Liberty. p. 81. Retrieved 26 June 2019. Kroy, Moshe (21 September 2010). "Political Freedom and Its Roots in Metaphysics". Mises Institute. Retrieved 26 June 2019. Feserm, Edward (Fall 2000). "Taxation, Forced Labor, and Theft" (PDF). The Independent Review: 219–235). Retrieved 10 July 2012.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: year (link) Tame, Chris R. (1989). "Taxation Is Theft" (PDF). Libertarian Alliance Political Note (44). Retrieved 2 September 2012. Chodorov, Frank. "Taxation Is Robbery". Mises Institute. Retrieved 10 July 2012. Reprint from Chodorov, Frank (1962). Out of Step: The Autobiography of an Individualist. New York: The Devin-Adair Company. pp. 216–239. Morris 2008, pp. 13–14. Caplan 2008, pp. 194–195. Stringham 2007, p. 51. Tannehill, Linda; Tannehill, Morris (1993). The Market for Liberty (PDF). San Francisco: Fox & Wilkes. pp. 105–106. ISBN 978-0-930073-08-4. Retrieved 30 June 2011. "Review of Kosanke's Instead of Politics – Don Stacy" (2011). Libertarian Papers. 3 (3). Miller 1987, p. 290. "A student and disciple of the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises, Rothbard combined the laissez-faire economics of his teacher with the absolutist views of human rights and rejection of the state he had absorbed from studying the individualist American anarchists of the nineteenth century such as Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker". Rothbard, Murray (1973). For A New Liberty. "The Public Sector, III: Police, Law, and the Courts". Mises Institute. Retrieved 26 June 2019. Conway, p. 296. sfn error: no target: CITEREFConway (help) Hudelson, Richard (1999). Modern Political Philosophy. M. E. Sharpe. pp. 37–38. ISBN 9780765600219. Dickerson, Flanagan & O'Neill, p. 129. sfn error: no target: CITEREFDickersonFlanaganO'Neill (help) ^ Steven M. Dworetz (1994). The Unvarnished Doctrine: Locke, Liberalism, and the American Revolution. Appleby, Joyce (1992). Liberalism and Republicanism in the Historical Imagination. Harvard University Press. p. 58. ISBN 9780674530133. Gaus, Gerald F.; Kukathas, Chandran (2004). Handbook of Political Theory. SAGE Publications; Cato Institute. p. 422. ISBN 9780761967873. ^ Hunt, p. 54. sfn error: no target: CITEREFHunt (help) Richardson, p. 52. sfn error: no target: CITEREFRichardson (help) Heywood 2015, p. 37. sfn error: no target: CITEREFHeywood2015 (help) Piper, J. Richard (1997). Ideologies and Institutions: American Conservative and Liberal Governance Prescriptions Since 1933. Rowman & Littlefield. pp. 110–111. ISBN 0847684598. ISBN 978-0847684595. Hoppe, Hans-Hermann (28 September 2018). "Getting Libertarianism Right". Mises Institute. ISBN 978-1-61016-690-4. Dionne Jr., E. J. (1991). Why Americans Hate Politics. New York: Simon & Schuster. p. 161. Meyer, Frank S. (1996). In Defense of Freedom and Other Essays. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund. Peikoff, Leonard. "What role should certain specific governments play in Objectivist government?". 7 March 2011. Retrieved 23 March 2019. Peikoff, Leonard (3 October 2011). "Interview with Yaron Brook on economic issues in today's world (Part 1)". Peikoff.com. Retrieved 26 June 2019. Townshend, Charles (2000). The Oxford History of Modern War. Oxford University Press. p. 15. ISBN 0-19-285373-2. "National Book Awards – 1975" (1975). National Book Foundation. Retrieved 8 March 2012. Archived 9 September 2011 at the Wayback Machine. Feser, Edward. "Robert Nozick (1938—2002)". Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved 13 March 2017. Hamowy, ed. (2008). p. xxix. Hudelson, Richard (1999). Modern Political Philosophy. M. E. Sharpe. pp. 37–38. ISBN 9780765600219. Dickerson, M. O. et al. (2009). An Introduction to Government and Politics: A Conceptual Approach. p. 129. Bronfenbrenner, Martin (1955). "Two Concepts of Economic Freedom". Ethics. 65 (3): 157–217. doi:10.1086/290998. JSTOR 2378928. Appleby, Joyce (1992). Liberalism and Republicanism in the Historical Imagination. p. 58. Gaus, Gerald F.; Kukathas, Chandran (2004). Handbook of Political Theory. p. 422. Quinton, A. (1995). "Conservativism". In Goodin, R. E.; Pettit, P. eds. A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. p. 246. Richardson, James L. (2001). Contending Liberalisms in World Politics: Ideology and Power. Lynne Rienner Publishers. p. 43. ISBN 9781555879396. Mayne, Alan James (1999). From Politics Past to Politics Future: An Integrated Analysis of Current and Emergent Paradigmss. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 124. ISBN 0-275-96151-6. ^ Freund, Charles Paul (1 April 2005). "You Know You're Neolibertarian If..." Reason. Retrieved 12 October 2018. Franks, Dale (10 November 2012). "Bryan Pick's Suggestions for the GOP". QandO. Retrieved 12 October 2018. Rockwell, Lew. "The Case for Paleo-libertarianism" (PDF). Liberty (January 1990): 34–38. Sanchez, Julian; Weigel, David. "Who Wrote Ron Paul's Newsletters?". Reason Foundation. Rothbard pointed to David Duke and Joseph McCarthy as models for an "Outreach to the Rednecks," which would fashion a broad libertarian/paleoconservative coalition by targeting the disaffected working and middle classes. Lansford, Tom, ed. (2014). Political Handbook of the World 2014. CQ Press. p. 1157. Papierz, Magda (8 April 2015). "Korwin-Mikke: Potrzebujemy takich przywódców jak Margaret Thatcher!" . Najwyższy Czas! (in Polish). Retrieved 15 March 2017. Graham-Harrison, Emma (8 November 2014). "Nigel Farage's new friend in Europe: 'When women say no, they don't always mean it'". The Guardian. Retrieved 27 June 2019. Cain, Edward (1963). They'd Rather Be Right: Youth and the Conservative Movement. Macmillan. pp. 32–36. ASIN B0000CLYF9. Bader, Ralf M.; Meadowcroft, John (eds.). The Cambridge Companion to Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia (2011). Cambridge University Press. p. 151. Robin, Corey (2011). The Reactionary Mind: Conservatism from Edmund Burke to Sarah Palin. Oxford University Press. pp. 15–16. ISBN 0199793743. Raimondo, Justin (2000). An Enemy of the State. Chapter 4: "Beyond left and right". Prometheus Books. p. 159. Gaus, Gerald Gaus; D'Agostino, Fred (2012). The Routledge Companion To Social And Political Philosophy. Routledge. p. 225. ISBN 978-0-415-87456-4. Retrieved 1 June 2013. Casey, Gerard; Meadowcroft, John, ed. (2010). Murray Rothbard: Major Conservative and Libertarian Thinkers. 15. London: The Continuum International Publishing Group, Inc. p. ix. Read, Leonard E. (January 1956). "Neither Left Nor Right". The Freeman. 48 (2): 71–73 Browne, Harry (21 December 1998). "The Libertarian Stand on Abortion". HarryBrowne.Org. Retrieved 26 June 2019. Machan, Tibor R. (2004). "Neither Left Nor Right: Selected Columns". 522. Hoover Institution Press. ISBN 0817939822. ISBN 9780817939823. Block, Walter (2010). "Libertarianism Is Unique and Belongs Neither to the Right Nor the Left: A Critique of the Views of Long, Holcombe, and Baden on the Left, Hoppe, Feser, and Paul on the Right". Journal of Libertarian Studies. 22. pp. 127–170. Liu, Eric; Hanauer, Nick (21 February 2016). "Complexity Economics Shows Us Why Laissez-Faire Economics Always Fails". Evonomics. Retrieved 26 June 2019. Matthew, Schneider-Mayerson. Peak Oil: Apocalyptic Environmentalism and Libertarian Political Culture. Chicago. ISBN 9780226285573. OCLC 922640625. Ames, Mark (16 November 2012). "When Congress Busted Milton Friedman (and Libertarianism Was Created By Big Business Lobbyists)". NSFWCORP. Retrieved 26 June 2019. Greco, Tony (17 January 2012). "Four Reasons to Reject Libertarianism". Daily Kos. Kos Media, LLC. Retrieved 26 June 2019. Schneider-Mayerson, Matthew (2015). Peak Oil: Apocalyptic Environmentalism and Libertarian Political Culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 9780226285436. "On Anarchism: Noam Chomsky interviewed by Tom Lane". Chomsky.info. 23 December 2006. Retrieved 9 January 2016. Birch, Paul (1998). "Anarcho-capitalism Dissolves Into City States" (PDF). Libertarian Alliance. Legal Notes. 28 (4). ISSN 0267-7083. Retrieved 5 July 2019. Reeder, John P. (1988). Source, Sanction, and Salvation: Religion and Morality in Judaic and Christian Traditions. Pearson College Div. p. 113. Le Guin, Ursela K. (2003). The Dispossessed: A Novel. HarperCollins. ISBN 0-06-051275-X. Davis, Laurence; Stillman, Peter G. (2005). The New Utopian Politics of Ursula K. Le Guin's The Dispossessed. Lexington Books. p. xvii. Delany, Samuel R. (November 1990). "On Triton and Other Matters: An Interview with Samuel R. Delany". Science Fiction Studies. 52. Clement, Ellie; Oppenheim, Charles (January 2002). "Anarchism, Alternative Publishers and Copyright". Journal of Anarchist Studies. Morris, Brian. "Global Anti-Capitalism". Anarchist Studies. 14 (2): pp. 170–176. Sabatini, Peter (Fall/Winter 1994–1995). "Libertarianism: Bogus Anarchy". Anarchy: A Journal of Desire Armed (41). Black, Bob (1984). "The Libertarian As Conservative". The Abolition of Work and Other Essays. p. 144. Somin, Ilya (9 December 2006). "Russell Kirk, Libertarianism, and Fusionism". The Volokh Conspiracy. Retrieved 26 June 2019. ^ Bogus 2011, p. 17. Kirk, Russell (Fall 1981). "Libertarians: the Chirping Sectaries" (PDF). Modern Age. Wilmington, Delaware: Intercollegiate Studies Institute. pp. 345–51. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2 September 2009. Kirk, Russell (1981). "Libertarians: Chirping Sectaries". Retrieved 26 June 2019. ^ Bogus 2011, p. 16. Lind, Michael.  (4 June 2013.). "The Question Libertarians Just Can't Answer". Salon. Lind, Michael. "Why libertarians apologize for autocracy". "Was America Ever Libertarian". Independent Political Report. 25 April 2017. Retrieved 6 October 2018. MacLean, Nancy (2017). Democracy in Chains, The Deep History of the Radical Right's Stealth Plan for America. Penguin Books. ISBN 9781101980965. Bibliography Baradat, Leon P. (2015). Political Ideologies. Routledge. ISBN 978-1317345558. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) Bogus, Carl T. (2011). Buckley: William F. Buckley Jr. and the Rise of American Conservatism. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 1-596-91580-3. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) Caplan, Bryan (2008). "Friedman, David (1945–)". In Hamowy, Ronald (ed.). The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications; Cato Institute. doi:10.4135/9781412965811.n117. ISBN 978-1412965804. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) Carlson, Jennifer D. (2012). "Libertarianism". In Miller, Wilburn R. (ed.). The Social History of Crime and Punishment in America. London: SAGE Publications; Cato Institute. ISBN 1412988764. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) DeLeon, David (1978). The American as Anarchist: Reflections on Indigenous Radicalism. Johns Hopkins University Press. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) Goodway, David (2006). Anarchist Seeds Beneath the Snow: Left-Libertarian Thought and British Writers from William Morris to Colin Ward. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. ISBN 978-1846310256. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) Heywood, Andrew (2004). Political Theory, Third Edition: An Introduction. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 0-333-96180-3. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) Kymlicka, Will (2005). "libertarianism, left-". In Honderich, Ted (ed.). The Oxford Companion to Philosophy (New ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0199264797. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) Long, Roderick T.; Machan, Tibor R. (2008). Anarchism/minarchism: is a government part of a free country?. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. ISBN 978-0-7546-6066-8. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) Miller, David (1987). The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Thought. Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 978-0-631-17944-3. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) Morris, Andrew (2008). "Anarcho-Capitalism". In Hamowy, Ronald (ed.). The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications; Cato Institute. ISBN 978-1-4129-6580-4. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) Newman, Saul (2010). The Politics of Postanarchism'. Edinburgh University Press. ISBN 978-0748634958. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) Vallentyne, Peter (2007). "Libertarianism and the State". Liberalism: Old and New: Volume 24. New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0521703055. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) Stringham, Edward (2007). Anarchy And the Law: The Political Economy of Choice. Transaction Publishers. ISBN 978-1412805797. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) van de Haar, Edwin (2015). Degrees of Freedom: Liberal Political Philosophy and Ideology. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers. ISBN 1-412-85575-6. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) v t e Libertarianism Origins Age of Enlightenment Anarchism Aristotelianism Liberalism classical radical Schools Libertarian capitalism (Right-libertarianism) Anarcho-capitalism Autarchism Christian libertarianism Conservative libertarianism Consequentialist libertarianism Fusionism Libertarian transhumanism Minarchism Natural-rights libertarianism Neo-classical liberalism Bleeding-heart libertarianism Paleolibertarianism Propertarianism Voluntaryism Libertarian socialism (Left-libertarianism) Anarchism collectivist communist free-market agorism green individualist insurrectionary libertarian communism mutualism philosophical social syndicalist Autonomism Communalism Guild socialism Libertarian Marxism Syndicalism 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 Philosophers Left-wing Bakunin Bookchin Camus Chomsky Cleyre Déjacque Fourier Godwin Goldman Guérin Hodgskin Kropotkin Marcuse Öcalan Proudhon Warren Tucker Right-wing Bastiat Block Brennan Emerson D. Friedman M. Friedman R. Friedman Goldwater Hayek Herbert Hoppe Jillette Kinsella Korwin-Mikke Lane Locke von Mises de Molinari Nock Nozick Paterson Rand Read Rothbard Simon Spencer Stossel Other George Hess Konkin III de La Boétie McElroy Paine Spooner Stirner Szasz Thoreau Politicians Cleveland Coolidge Farage Gandhi Johnson Jorgensen Korwin-Mikke Milei Paul Sarwark 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 Works Atlas Shrugged (1957) The Market for Liberty (1970) For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto (1973) Law, Legislation and Liberty (1973–1979) Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974) Free to Choose (1980) Related 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 Outline of libertarianism v t e Capitalism Aspects and perspectives General Anarchy of production Business cycle Centralization Competition Depression Deregulation Economic bubble Economic development Economic liberalism Economic planning Entrepreneurship Ecopreneurship Externality Financial crisis Financial Revolution Globalization History of capitalist theory Industrial Revolution Invention Market economy Market failure Merchantilism Meritocracy Multinational corporation Nationalization Oligopoly Perspectives on capitalism by school of thought Privatization Profit Property rights Recession Regulation Wage labour Wealth Ideology Anglo-Saxon Authoritarian Conservative Corporate Democratic Dirigist Free-market Humanistic Laissez-faire Liberal Libertarian Market Mercantilist Mixed Monopoly National Neo Neoliberal Nordic Private Raw Regulated market Regulatory Rhine Social State State-sponsored Welfare Cultural aspects Advertising American Dream Black Friday Consumerism Decentralization Economic freedom Economic mobility Individualism Liberalism Liberty Mainstream Philanthropy Private foundation Private property Rule of law Social alienation Spontaneous order Social aspects Corporatism Economic inequality Employment Freedom of association Labour market flexibility Labour supply Productivity Prosperity Syndicate Social venture capital Unemployment Criticism Anti-capitalism Capitalist propaganda Critique of political economy Critique of work Market fundamentalism Marxism Wage slavery Antithesis Anarchism Anarcho-communism Anarcho-primitivism Anarcho-syndicalism Collectivist anarchism Communalism Communism Economic democracy Eco-socialism Free-market socialism Green anarchism Individualist anarchism Libertarian socialism Market anarchism Market socialism Mutualism Post-capitalism Post-scarcity economy Sharing economy Social anarchism Socialism Syndicalism v t e Conservatism Schools by region International Authoritarian Corporatist Cultural Fiscal Green Liberal Moderate National Paternalistic Populist Pragmatic Progressive Reactionary Religious Social Traditionalist Ultra Asia China Chiangism Confucianism Neo New Neoauthoritarianism Iran Khomeinism Monarchist Principlist Israel Fundamentalist Jewish Kahanism Zionism Neo Religious Revisionist Japan Minzoku Neo Nippon Kaigi Shōwa Statism State Shinto South Korea Ilminism New Right Turkey Democratic Erdoğanism Neo-Ottomanism Other Bangladesh Hong Kong India Malaysia Pakistan Ziaism Singapore Taiwan Chiangism Europe France Action Française Bonapartism Gaullism Integral nationalism Legitimism Maurrassisme Nouvelle Droite Orléanism Révolution nationale Sarkozysm Ultra-royalism Germany Agrarian Hegelian Historical School Neue Rechte Ordoliberalism Prussianism Cameralistic Socialist Revolutionary Young Ritter School Romanticism State Socialism Völkisch Italy Berlusconism Historical Right Italian school of elitism Neo-Bourbonism Sanfedismo Poland Golden Liberty Kaczyzm National Democracy Sarmatism Russia Duginism Eurasianism Monarchist Black-hundredism Tsarism Putinism Slavophilia Pochvennichestvo Spain Alfonsism Carlism Carloctavismo Carlo-francoism Francoism National Catholicism Integrism Mellismo Maurism Neocatholicism Noucentisme United Kingdom Cameronism Civic Compassionate Muscular liberalism Jacobitism Neo-Jacobite Revival Neo One-nationism Powellism Thatcherism Toryism High Red Social Other Austria Belgium Rexism Denmark Finland Georgia Monarchist Greece Metaxism Populist Hungary Iceland Luxembourg Netherlands Norway Portugal Miguelist Integralismo Lusitano Romania Monarchist Serbia Monarchist Sweden Switzerland Ukraine Latin America Argentina Federal Peronism Maurrasismo Menemism Nacionalismo Orthodox Peronism Brazil Bolsonarism Coronelism Integralism Janismo Monarchist Patrianovism Populism Chile Gremialismo Pinochetism Other Belize Colombia Rojismo Uribism Cuba Guatemala Mexico Cristero Panama Peru Fujimorism  Odriismo Uruguay Herrerism Venezuela Perezjimenismo North America Canada Populism Trumpism Clerico-nationalism Social Toryism Blue Red Pink United States Compassionate Libertarian Fusionism Paleo Tea Party Movement Neo Old Right Paleo Reaganism Social Traditionalist Trumpism Oceania Australia Centre Right National Right New Zealand Philosophy Principles Ancestral worship Authority Traditional Class collaboration Consociationalism Clericalism Collective identity Confessionalism Cultural assimilation Cultural heritage Cultural values Culture of life Pro-Life Discipline Duty Elitism Aristocracy Meritocracy Noblesse oblige Ethical order Familialism Family values Fundamentalism Gender role Complementarianism Honour Imperialism Loyalty Monarchism Royalist Natural law Natural Order Norms Conventions Customs Mores Ordered liberty Organicism Organized religion Orthodoxy Patriotism Nationalism Personalism Philosophical realism Moral realism Private property Protectionism Public morality Rule of law Social hierarchy Social institutions Social order Solidarity Sovereignty State religion Stewardship Subsidiarity Tradition Intellectuals Bainville Barruel Belloc Bonald Buckley Jr. Burke Burnham Carlyle Chateaubriand Chesterton Coleridge Comte Cortés Dávila Dostoevsky Eliot Evola Fardid Gentz Haller Hitchens Hume Iorga Johnson Jünger Karamzin Kirk Kuehnelt-Leddihn La Mennais Le Bon Le Play Leontiev Lewis Maistre Mansfield Maurras Menéndez More Müller Newman Nisbet Novalis Oakeshott Corrêa de Oliveira Peterson Ranke Renan Rivarol Röpke Santayana Savigny Schlegel Schmitt Scruton Solzhenitsyn Sowell Spann Spengler Stahl Strauss Taine Tocqueville Uvarov Voegelin Politics Organisations European Conservatives and Reformists Party European People's Party Identity and Democracy International Democrat Union International Monarchist League Muslim Brotherhood Tradition, Family, Property Politicians Abe Adams Adenauer Andreotti Berlusconi Bismarck Bolsonaro GW Bush Canning Chiang Churchill Diefenbaker Disraeli Dmowski Dollfuss Erdoğan Franco Fujimori de Gaulle Harper Horthy John Paul II Kaczyński Khamenei Khomeini Kohl Le Pen Lee Macdonald Mannerheim Marcos Maurras Menzies Metaxas Metternich Mobutu Modi Netanyahu Orbán Park Pérez Jiménez Pinochet Pitt Powell Prat de la Riba Putin Reagan Salazar Salisbury Smith Stolypin Suharto Thatcher Trujillo Trump Vajpayee de Valera Zia Zemmour Religion Christian democracy Christian politics Theonomy Christian right Theoconservatism Confucianism Hindutva Jewish conservatism Religious Zionism Islamism Islamic economics Theravada Buddhist economics Traditionalist Catholicism Catholic social teaching Distributism Integralism Ultramontanism Traditionalist School Historical background Ancien régime Bourbon Restauration Congress of Vienna Concert of Europe Conservative Order Counter-Enlightenment German Romanticism Holy Alliance Ultra-royalism Related Ideologies Agrarianism Clerical fascism Communitarianism Conservative liberalism Corporatism Localism Anti-communism Anti-gender movement Anti-Masonry Aristocracy Black conservatism United States Desecularization Postsecularism Conservative feminism Conservative wave Counter-revolutionary Elite theory Ethnopluralism Hispanic and Latino conservatism in the United States LGBTQ conservatism Neo-feudalism Neo-medievalism Para-fascism Political Evangelicalism in Latin America Political theology Radical right Europe United States Reactionary Neo- Right realism Right-wing politics Authoritarianism New European Small-c conservatives Conservatism portal Politics portal v t e Conservatism in the United States Schools Compassionate Fiscal Fusion Libertarian Moderate Movement Neo- Paleo- Postliberal Progressive Social Traditionalist Principles American exceptionalism Anti-communism Christian nationalism Classical liberalism Communitarianism Constitutionalism Familialism Family values Federalism States' rights Gender essentialism Complementarianism Judeo-Christian values Individualism Law and order Limited government Militarism Moral absolutism Natural law Ordered liberty Patriotism Protectionism Republicanism Right to bear arms Rule of law Tradition People Presidents Adams (John) Adams (John Quincy) G. H. W. Bush G. W. Bush Cleveland Coolidge Harding Hoover McKinley Nixon Reagan W. H. Taft Trump Washington Jurists Alito Barrett Bork Burger Colson George Goldsmith Gorsuch Harlan II Kavanaugh Kennedy O'Connor Parker Rehnquist Roberts Scalia Sessions Sutherland Taft Thomas Vermeule Yoo Intellectuals Adams Anton Babbitt Bacevich Bell Bellow Bloom Boorstin Buckley Burnham Calhoun Chambers Conquest Deneen Eastman Eliot Genovese Gottfried Hanson Hazony Hoppe Hurston Jaffa Kendall Kimball Kirk Kirkpatrick Kreeft Kristol Kuehnelt-Leddihn Lasch Lind Lovecraft Loury Lukacs Mansfield Mencken Meyer Molnar Murray Nisbet O'Connor Ong Ransom Rieff Santayana Sowell Strauss Viereck Voegelin Washington Weaver Yarvin Other figures Ailes Atwater Beck Breitbart Carlson Cheney Coulter Cruz DeSantis Dilling Elder Falwell Gingrich Giuliani Goldwater Hannity Ingraham Limbaugh Lindbergh Lodge Lovecraft McCain McCarthy McConnell Novak O'Reilly Palin Rand Paul Ron Paul Pence Perot Quayle Romney Rove Rumsfeld Ryan Sessions Schlafly Shapiro Stone Robert A. Taft Booker T. Washington Parties American Party American Independent Party Conservative Party of New York State Constitution Party Republican Party Anti-Masonic Party Constitutional Union Party Democratic Party (historically, factions) Boll weevils Conservative Democrats Dixiecrats Reagan Democrats Southern Democrats Rhode Island Suffrage Party Federalist Party National Republican Party Native American Party Whig Party Movements Alt-right Asian and Pacific Islander Black Christian right Dark Enlightenment Female Green Hispanic and Latino LGBT Libertarian Republicans Militia movement Patriot movement Christian Radical Right Reactionary feminism Tea Party movement Trumpism Think tanks Acton Institute AdTI AEI CSP Center for the National Interest Claremont Institute CEI CSPC EPPC FRI Gatestone Institute Heartland Institute The Heritage Foundation Heritage Action Mandate for Leadership Project 2025 Hoover Institution Hudson Institute ISI James Madison Program Leadership Institute Manhattan Institute Mises Institute PRI Project for the New American Century (Defunct) Ripon Society R Street Institute Rockford Institute SPN Sutherland Institute Tax Foundation Witherspoon Institute Historical factions Bourbon Democrats Dixiecrats Loyalists Old Right Redeemers Southern Agrarians Literature Democracy in America (1835–1840) Democracy and Leadership (1924) I'll Take My Stand (1930) Our Enemy, the State (1935) The Managerial Revolution (1941) Ideas Have Consequences (1948) God and Man at Yale (1951) The Conservative Mind (1953) The Conscience of a Conservative (1960) A Choice Not an Echo (1964) Losing Ground (1984) A Conflict of Visions (1987) The Closing of the American Mind (1987) The Bell Curve (1994) A Republic, Not an Empire (1999) Hillbilly Elegy (2017) The Benedict Option (2017) Why Liberalism Failed (2018) See also American nationalism Bibliography of conservatism in the United States List of American conservatives National conservatism Southern strategy Conservatism portal v t e Neoliberalism Ideas Austerity Balanced budget Denationalization Deregulation Economic freedom Economic integration Economic interdependence Economic liberalization Foreign direct investment Free markets Free trade (area) Globalization Intellectual property Laffer curve Marketization Mundell–Fleming model Private property Privatization Public–private partnership School vouchers Single market Supranationalism Tax cuts Economics Austrian School Chicago School Neoclassical Monetarism Reaganomics Rogernomics Trickle-down Supply-side Movements Fiscal conservatism Thatcherism Third Way New Democrats Governance Association of Southeast Asian Nations Bank for International Settlements European Central Bank European Union Federal Reserve Greater Arab Free Trade Area International Monetary Fund MERCOSUR North American Free Trade Agreement Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership World Bank World Economic Forum World Trade Organization Organizations Chicago boys Third Way People Milton Friedman Friedrich Hayek Ludwig von Mises James M. Buchanan Augusto Pinochet Margaret Thatcher Ronald Reagan Alan Greenspan Bill Clinton Related topics Anti-capitalism Anti-globalization Alter-globalization Authoritarian capitalism Criticism of capitalism Criticism of intellectual property Market fundamentalism v t e Liberalism Ideas Consent of the governed Due process Democracy Economic liberalism Economic globalization Equality Gender Legal Federalism Freedom Economic Market Trade Press Religion Speech Harm principle Internationalism Invisible hand Labor theory of property Laissez-faire Liberty Negative Positive Limited government Market economy Natural monopoly Open society Permissive society Popular sovereignty Property Private Public Rights Civil and political Natural and legal To own property To bear arms Rule of law Secularism Secular humanism Separation of church and state Separation of powers Social contract Social justice Social services Welfare state Whig history Schools Classical Economic Fiscal Neo Equity feminism Georgist Radical Anti-clerical Civic nationalism Republican Utilitarian Whig Physiocratic Encyclopaedist Conservative Liberal conservatism National Ordo Social Green Liberal feminism Ecofeminism Liberal socialism Social democracy Progressivism Third Way Other Constitutional Constitutional patriotism Cultural Corporate International Libertarianism Left-libertarianism Geolibertarianism Neoclassical liberalism Paleolibertarianism Right-libertarianism Radical centrism Religious Christian Islamic Secular Techno By region Africa Egypt Nigeria Senegal South Africa Tunisia Zimbabwe Asia China Hong Kong India Iran Israel Japan South Korea Anti-Chinilpa Centrist reformist Progressive Philippines Turkey Europe Albania Armenia Austria Belgium Bulgaria Croatia Cyprus Czech lands Denmark Estonia Finland France Orléanist Georgia Germany Greece Hungary Italy Berlusconism Liberism Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Macedonia Moldova Montenegro Netherlands Norway Portugal Romania Russia Serbia Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Turkey Ukraine United Kingdom Gladstonian Libertarian Manchester Muscular Radical Whiggist Latin America and the Caribbean Bolivia Brazil Lulism Chile Colombia Cuba Ecuador Honduras Mexico Nicaragua Panama Paraguay Peru Uruguay North America Canada United States Jacksonian Jeffersonian Libertarian Modern Progressive Oceania Australia Small-l New Zealand Philosophers Milton Locke Spinoza Montesquieu Voltaire Rousseau Smith Kant Turgot Burke Priestley Paine Beccaria Condorcet Bentham Korais De Gouges Wollstonecraft Staël Say Humboldt Constant Ricardo Guizot List Bastiat Martineau Emerson Tocqueville Mill Spencer Arnold Acton Weber Hobhouse Croce Cassirer Mises Ortega Keynes Collingwood Čapek Hu Hayek Popper Aron Berlin Friedman Rawls Sen Nozick Kymlicka Badawi Politicians Jefferson Kołłątaj Madison Artigas Bolívar Broglie Lamartine Macaulay Kossuth Deák Cobden Mazzini Juárez Lincoln Gladstone Cavour Sarmiento Mommsen Naoroji Itagaki Levski Kemal Deakin Milyukov Lloyd George Venizelos Ståhlberg Gokhale Rathenau Madero Einaudi King Roosevelt Pearson Ohlin Kennedy Jenkins Balcerowicz Verhofstadt Obama Macron Organisations Africa Liberal Network Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Party Arab Liberal Federation Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats European Democratic Party European Liberal Youth International Alliance of Libertarian Parties International Federation of Liberal Youth Liberal International Liberal Network for Latin America Liberal parties Liberal South East European Network Related topics Anti-authoritarianism Anti-communism Bias in American academia Bias in the media Capitalism Democratic Centrism Radical centrism Economic freedom Egalitarianism Empiricism Humanism Individualism Anarchist Land value tax Libertarianism Left Right Pirate Party Progressivism Sexually liberal feminism Utilitarianism Liberalism Portal

Final thoughts

I could be wrong, but I would like to point out that libertarianism was first coined in political terms as a new philosophy, in that case libertarian communism (with its opposition to all authority and herarchies, including the market and property), regarded as the consistent view of anarchism. In the 1890s, it became associated to anarchism as a whole, including in the United States, where in the 20th century it also became used as a synonym for classical/19th century liberalism rather than some new philosophy. Indeed, it was only in the 1950s and truly after the 1970s that libertarianism in the United States became what it's today, parting ways with the classical liberal school due to the latter refusing to give priority to liberty over order and not exhibiting the hostility to the state which American libertarianism has ("Classical liberalism refuses to give priority to liberty over order and therefore does not exhibit the hostility to the state"). That's why it could be just as easily proposed that Libertarianism should be only about classical libertarianism.

If on the left it isn't much used as on the right, it's simply because it's literally seen as a synonym of anarchism, hence why Anarchism and Libertarianism could be just as easily merged, if it wasn't for the fact that Libertarianism contains much useful information which deserve to have its own article, perhaps moving Libertarianism's Modern American libertarianism and American libertarianism sections to Libertarianism in the United States and Liberalism pages since it should be considered a school of liberalism and as it came out from the liberal tradition, not being much different (indeed, American libertarianism is seen as the European liberalism within the right, compared to the American social liberalism which is seen in Europe within the centre/centre-left). I'm not going to really propose all this because I'm fine the way things stand now, but that would still be better than turning this page into a disambiguation page because someone doesn't like it.

@JLMadrigal: @North8000: @Pfhorrest:--Davide King (talk) 18:11, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

The page currently entitled "right-libertarianism" describes the taxonomy which is common to 25% of the US population. For this reason, it needs to be retitled. The current title is ambiguous and confusing to most people - except for the small group that calls itself "left-libertarian" who use it to describe the antitheses to their nuanced view regarding property. This usage needs to be clarified (made less ambiguous). JLMadrigal @ 19:53, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@JLMadrigal: Thank you very much for your reply. I think this just further convinced the suspictions I stated above. Left-libertarianism isn't a "small group"; it's the majority of libertarians worldwide. It's only in the United State where they're the minority, a minority itself in that it mainly refers to left-wing market-oriented libertarians and the Steiner–Vallentyne school which mainly differ from right-libertarians due its egalitarian approach to natural resources. However, the page isn't titled Right-libertarianism in the United States or Left-libertarianism in the United States; they're written without any country's bias but internationally, i.e. left-libertarianism referring to libertarian socialist and other left-leaning ideologies and the broad libertarian left opposed to the use of the state and authortarianism in left-wing politics, rather than just left-libertarianism in the United States; and right-libertarianism referring to modern American-style libertarianism which expanded globally in the 1970, not to cultural conservatives American libertarians like you may think. Please, check my full right-libertarianism page proposal I posted above which removed the History and People sections which are already in the Libertarianism in the United States article. This way it would be structured the same way like Left-libertarianism and it wouldn't include the People section you believe aren't warranted to be included since they simply label themeselves as libertarians. I reiterate what the topic should be and what the article should be talking about:

• Libertarianism: broad as it is now.
• Left-libertarianism: libertarian socialist and other left-leaning ideologies, including the ones which reject the private ownership of natural resources and that are called left-libertarianism in the United States; and the broad libertarian left opposed to the use of the state and authortarianism in left-wing politics.
• Right-libertarianism: American-style libertarianism (i.e. radical economic liberalism that in some ways part ways, no pun intended, from liberalism in its opposition to the state in some form and being even more critical of government and state intervention, especially in the economy) that has expanded around the world, or more specifically the libertarian ideologies which support free-market/laissez-faire/liberal capitalism and the private ownership of both natural resources and capital; and the broad libertarian right, opposed to both economic and social intervention).
• Libertarianism in the United States, the libertarianism you and @North8000: seem to be actually talking about and referring to and which is the page that truly need to be discussed and improved, such as follows:
  • Let's add a Definition, Etymology or Typology section in Libertarianism in the United States rather than delete or merge Right-libertarianism and/or Left-libertarianism or create a Libertarian (disambiguation) when there's already Libertarianism (disambiguation) for that.
  • Let's also add a Definition section in Right-libertarianism much like it's done in Left-libertarianism#Definition.--Davide King (talk) 20:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

P.S. In short, I'm for an improved status quo, i.e. keeping things as they are but improve them by adding further sourced content rather than remove it, creating for instance a new section (or improve an existing one) which better describe and clarify what it's talking about.--Davide King (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I also reiterate here—to make it more accessable and not make it look lost in the wall of text I've written above—what I further propose for Libertarianism in the United States:

1. New informations to the lead that better describe and summarise it. A History section that better describe its double origins, namely how Joseph Déjacque, the one to first coin the political word, lived in New York City and published a book on the topic and a journal and how it was used by anarchists in the United States to distinguish themselves from state socialism (much like in the rest of the world); and its origins as synonym for classical liberalism.
2. The whole page mainly talks only in the sense of libertarian being a more radical form of classical and economic liberalism. Besides clarifying the origins of the term, how it differs from what's understood in much of the world outside the United States, there're no mentions of the origins of and debate/issues between communist and indvidualist American anarchists about one being the true libertarian and accusing the other other of being authoritarian/statist and how that led to the end of 19th-century individualist anarchism heyday; no mentions of left-wing market anarchism or other left-libertarians in the United States; and no mention or section that talk about 19th–21st century anarchist/libertarian socialist movements in the United States.--Davide King (talk) 22:19, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

One final thing while we're at it. If I understood well, one concern of @North8000: is that people simply don't know the term (other proposed terms were either biased in favor of a specific form of libertarianism or terms just as less well known anyway), but I'm sure American people searching Liberalism or Conservatism on Misplaced Pages may expect to see what's actually written in the Modern liberalism in the United States and Conservatism in the United States. I'm sure American people searching Libertarianism would likewise expect what's actually written in Libertarianism in the United States. Either way, I don't think this justify a name change and American people aren't special or above other people. This isn't the United States or American (English) Misplaced Pages but the English Misplaced Pages, which I personally see as the international Misplaced Pages since English is the most widespread language. As Wintson Churchill famously said, "Right-libertarianism is the worst title of a Wikipedian article except all those other titles that have been proposed from time to time", or simply as it may not be the best name but it's the best choice/best (possible/working) title.--Davide King (talk) 23:10, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your extensive and thoughtful comments, Davide. I hope you get unblocked soon, I'd love to have you back participating in the encyclopedia. I also think your suggestions here are better than my merger proposal, which was always just a compromise to try to wrap up this dispute in some way or other without biasing the encyclopedia. --Pfhorrest (talk) 21:04, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I challenge you, Davide, to provide proof of your claim that left-libertarianism is a majority view. Even if you combine the population of all adherents of this philosophy around the globe, it is still only a small fraction of the 1/4 of Americans who identify as libertarians of the variety described in the article (some 82 million). JLMadrigal @ 04:07, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@JLMadrigal: Thank you again for your reply, but I have to apologise because it seems like I didn't explainn myself good or clear. Either that, or you haven't read in full the whole thing I wrote (please, do it when you can and feel free to ask for ay clarification, etc.). I'm saying this because I literally say I agree with that, namely that left-libertarians are the minority in the United States, which could be said to be dominated by liberalism since modern liberalism, conservatism and American libertarianism are all part of the same liberal tradition. However, left-libertarianism also refers to the original libertarianism; Left-libertarianism does't refer only to left-libertarianism in the United States (otherwhise it would have been title Left-libertarianism in the United States) but also to its anarchist/socialist wing which it's still the biggest worldwide form of libertarianism. You already made this argument months ago and, as I also stated in my original message here, "Even if you combine the population of all adherents of this philosophy around the globe" is simply wrong; the anarchist/socialist wing of left-libertarianism rejects electoral politics, so we can't just make up some numbers about parties and their membership; and that's not how it works. Reliable sources say it exists since the 19th century and continues to this day. I also don't understand why you and North8000 keep mentioning those so-called one fourth of Americans identifying as libertarians. I don't dispute that, but I don't see how that's relevant to the Right-libertarianism article, which I repeat is about a specific form of libertarianism that expanded worldwide since the 1970s and not just Libertarianism in the United States, or even what each responder understood libertarian to mean, or whether the responder was left-libertarian, right-libertarian, or any other type of libertarian. Indeed, there's literally a phrase in Libertarianism#American libertarianism stating: "However, a 2014 Pew Poll found that 23% of Americans who identify as libertarians have no idea what the word means". Source: Kiley, Jocelyn (25 August 2014). "In Search of Libertarians". Pew Research Center. "14% say the term libertarian describes them well; 77% of those know the definition (11% of total), while 23% do not (3% of total). See also these 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".
• 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".--Davide King (talk) 06:20, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

OK Davide, I'll make it super easy for you. Provide ANY statistic proving your claim that left-libertarianism is the majority view. JLMadrigal @ 13:40, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@JLMadrigal: I don't think that's how Misplaced Pages works; Misplaced Pages works by reliable sources and not by some number statistics, which would also be impossible to verify. Libertarianism is a tradition that goes back to at least the 19th century; all anarchists and most libertarian socialists have been and are part of it; and as such, they don't have parties and don't support electoral politics. Are you denying this? We can't just act like over hundred years of libertarian history didn't exist. American liberals (social liberals), conservatives (liberal conservative) and libertarians (classical liberals) all come from the liberal school and can be considered part of the broad liberalism tradition; however, since the 19th century libertarianism has been part of the anarchist and libertarian socialist and communist tradition. In coining the term, Déjacque literally called Proudhon a mere liberal, a moderate anarchist. Anyway, see George Woodcock's Anarchism: A History of Libertarian Ideas and Movements (1962) and also the following sources:

Ward, Colin (2004). Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press. p. 62. "For a century, anarchists have used the word 'libertarian' as a synonym for 'anarchist', both as a noun and an adjective. The celebrated anarchist journal Le Libertaire was founded in 1896. However, much more recently the word has been appropriated by various American free-market philosophers."; Marshall, Peter (2009). Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism. p. 641. "The word 'libertarian' has long been associated with anarchism, and has been used repeatedly throughout this work. The term originally denoted a person who upheld the doctrine of the freedom of the will; in this sense, Godwin was not a 'libertarian', but a 'necessitarian'. It came however to be applied to anyone who approved of liberty in general. In anarchist circles, it was first used by Joseph Déjacque as the title of his anarchist journal Le Libertaire, Journal du Mouvement Social published in New York in 1858. At the end of the last century, the anarchist Sebastien Faure took up the word, to stress the difference between anarchists and authoritarian socialists". Ever since that, libertarianism has been used, and still is, to refer to anarchists and libertarian socialists and communists; and hence, it's more notable.--Davide King (talk) 19:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)