Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Libertarian capitalism

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was unclear.

This discussion was moved to the "old discussions not yet closed" section where it remained for many months. In the intervening time, the article has been changed and the VfD header was quietly removed. I am archiving this discussion as a "no concensus". Rossami (talk) 20:17, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Libertarian capitalism

I'm going to start over at the top of this article. This word doesn't exist. This is not a discussion about what to do with the Libertariansm article. if you think libertarianism means something else fine... but this partucilar word has 550 hits on google, more then half of which are from wikipedia. This is an enecylopedia people, not let's define and group poltical words ourselves. This word is obviously not valid, not real and not encylopedic. and thus this article needs to be deleted. Chuck F 13:38, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Delete - The term doesn't really exist, an article made up by anti-libertarians, that moved the libertarian entry here, then changed it to be disambig. it's not a term that is used in any valid way though. Might I say I really don't see where all you people who say move libertaranism here are coming from. wikipedia is not meant to define what new words mean, it's meant to interpet the way thoese current words are used. Chuck F 13:34, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• • I moved some of chuck's comments below so we could comment on them w/o cluttering the vote area --Improv 16:35, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• I roundly opposed the moving of libertarianism to "libertarian capitalism", as you can see on Talk:Libertarianism. The arguments for that move were not convincing; it is not a term in wide use; and it would have given an immediate false impression of libertarianism — as if, say, socialism were moved to "socialist atheism" or some such. Then you and Reithy decided to have an edit war over whether libertarian capitalism should redirect to libertarianism or to anarcho-capitalism. If your edit war had kept up, it would have been a reason for Wikipedia authorities to lock the page and reprimand both of you — which I hoped to avoid. So I set it up as a disambiguation page to both articles, as a way of reconciling the issue so that everyone involved could get back to usefully contributing to Wikipedia. If you two are willing to grow up and quit having edit wars, then the disposition of this page doesn't matter. If you are going to have an edit war, then no resolution here is possible without intervention by Wikipedia authorities. I see no sign that you're coming to terms with one another, so I vote Keep. —FOo 15:37, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • No, it's as though someone wrote an article about Nazism at Socialism, and we were insisting on moving it to National Socialism. Chameleon 08:45, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• The term does indeed exist — I've seen it in print, albeit with a variety of different meanings. Keep as a redirect to anarchocapitalism or as a disambiguation page. Psychonaut 18:59, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. There are many groups that call themselves Libertarian, and the American political movement that uses the name is by no means the owner of the name. It would actually be better to have the current Libertarianism article here, and have a disambig there. In Europe, the term needs disambiguation. Avoid American bias on Wikipedia. --Improv 20:12, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • swap pages or strong keep (see my comment below) --Improv 09:37, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• As much as I despise the notion of libertarian socialism, it exists and is widespread in Europe. Therefore moving libertarian to this name is prudent. But this article prevents the move, so Delete or swap with libertarianism as a dab page. Gazpacho 05:11, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete--Josiah 06:14, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep in some form. —siroχo 08:59, Oct 31, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep in some form. It is important to stop Chuck's crusade against truth. Chameleon 12:46, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Let it sort it self out, deleting won't help in this situation, it will only hurt the merging process.
  • Anonymous votes don't count. Please sign your vote. --Improv 08:01, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep --Axon 16:49, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Keep or, if deemed necessary, swap. Deleting it because ChuckF does not know it is not really an argument; 872 Google hits should make it clear that the name exists. -- AlexR 14:22, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed swap

• I think part of what complicates this VfD is that, as Gazpacho notes, the current article, Libertarianism, really belongs as Libertarian capitalism, with something not unlike my rewritten Libertarian capitalism article at Libertarianism to disambiguate. I therefore propose we accept a swap pages verdict which would do that. --Improv 09:37, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Jeez, you won't give me a break, will you? First you guys have an edit war over moving the page back and forth. Then that settles down in talk, with a redirect at Libertarian capitalism. Then you have an edit war over the redirect. Then I take away the redirect and put up a disambiguation, and you have an edit war over that. Now you want to re-open this stuff of calling libertarianism by a name which is only really ascribed to it by its opponents. This does not make much sense to me. —FOo 17:40, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Libertarianism, capitalism and libertarian capitalism are seperate concepts and I think should each have their own pages. I think the problem is we need to define the hierarchy here, like the problem with anarchy, anarchocapitalism, anarchosocialism etc.

Perhaps it should be Anarchy, with anarchocapitalism and anarchosocialism being their own subheadings with a See also: underneeth with a blurb, same with these sub groups for libertarian capitalism. --ShaunMacPherson 22:19, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Agree w/ Improv's proposed swap. —siroχo 03:24, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)
• Swap. Chameleon 08:29, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• In the middle of an edit war across several articles, saying to delete one particular page is obviously not the way to solve this. We need the two (or more) sides to present sane proposals as to how the articles involved might collectively relate to one another. At this time, I vote keep, because I've seen deletions in this kind of situation be deliberately abused later to deny the validity of a topic rather than a particular article name. I suggest setting up a single talk page somewhere to discuss the controversy and not using VfD as a weapon. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:22, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)
• Swap --Axon 16:49, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Swap. Disambiging an international term in use for over 200 years in use in 5 of 6 continents is far superior to allowing US-bias (a term in use for 50 years in 1 of 6 continents) to swamp the encyclopedia. Fifelfoo 01:20, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC) To further my claim, please see discussion in Talk:Anarchism's archives on just this point. Fifelfoo 01:36, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• WIKIPEDIA is not here to create words for the english language, This is not is not a term that is used by anybody today, the only reason to put a page here is if you wanted to create the term yourself, which wikipedia is not in the bussiness of doing. not only that but wikipedia has pretty much decied that libertarianism means what the article means and swapping the page is going to mess up hundreds of link. your 6 continents junk is also not true.

not only that but using the miraclous techonlogy that is google page rank you can tell the first 200(I didn't look futhere behind that) for libertarianism refear to libertarianism as what it means today, Not only would you people be going against wikipedia but you'd be going against the rest of the web/world too.Chuck F 13:06, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

WTF? So you're going to go and swap it with a word that NOBODY AT ALL USES.... that's ridiclous. and we've already shown that it's all over the world Chuck F 12:55, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

The word libertarian capatalism is not in major usage. The word libertarian(meaning what the current defination of it is. I find very few libertarian socalists calling themselves libertarians. I find almost all libertarians calling themselves libertarians Chuck F 13:34, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• People who self-identify as libertarian will naturally call themselves that, whatever the term means to them. In Europe, as noted before, people distinguish libertarian capitalists from libertarian socialists (and there are a few other meanings of the term too). Where you live, that may not be the case -- the libertarian capitalists may be the most common libertarians in your area, and may have co-opted the term. They don't own it worldwide, and there are multiple movements. In any case, anarchocapitalists and groups closer to the libertarian party of the united states are definately separate movements with not quite the same goal, and you need to disambiguate them, at least, when mentioning the term. Calling one socialist, as I note you did on the page before I visited because of VfD and cleaned, is nothing but inflammatory rhetoric (personally, I am socialist, and so the term doesn't sting me, but to either group involved, they would be offended). I would suggest you consider that your definition of libertarianism is narrower than the term as used in the rest of the world, and be content to have the content of the article you want in libertarian capitalism. Your flavour of libertarianism is not a brand name, and you don't need to defend it here. Isn't it the ideas that count? --Improv 16:50, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Look, having personally never lived in America, I have no idea where you are finding people that call it by another term, Japanese transaltor devices refear to it as the defination that libertarianism is currently. If you are refearing to the fact that in some european countries they use a different word then the english speaking word that you think should be translated to as libertarian, give me a break here. Shown by the amount of libertarian parties and the amount of philosphers from across the world who use libertarian as what the article currently states, it's obvious which is the main defination of it... Just like paris isn't a disambugation page between paris france and paris texas, this doesn't belong as one either. Chuck F 03:45, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop being Antisocial here, Chuck

I moved your comment, which you decided to place at the head of this section, back to the bottom. The custom in talk pages is that you append to the BOTTOM of the section you're in, or as a comment on things you're commenting in, at the last position of that level's children. You don't add to the top of whatever section you feel like. --Improv 19:13, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Alternative?

First, I'd vote to keep the article; let others decide what they want to read and believe. Second, I have been studying libertarianism since the publication of Nozick's AS&U in '74. Until I read it here, I don't think I have ever heard of "libertarian capitalism" as an appellation for libertarianism. For many libertarians, it would imply something untrue, namely, that libertarianism is primarily an economic philosophy, as opposed to an ethical stance or a political philosophy. In any event, I wrote an article called Libertarian theory that attempts to describe libertarian thought as it exists in the English-speaking world, along with a brief description of criticisms and counter-criticisms. I also attempted to state some of the problems and discontent surrounding "ownership" of the terminology that has become so tiresome in these fora. It contains much of what is in the Libertariansim article, though it is less full of stuff unrelated to modern libertarianism as it is understood in most places, and it has more about the actual theory as propounded by its major representatives. It stands alone, and I don't propose that it substitute for anything, though I personally think it is more accurate than Libertarianism. Perhaps it could be linked to the other artilces or to a disambiguation page....others can decide. icut4u 22:29, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you. It certainly seems more organized and deals with many points that have been neglected. I like your disambiguation; it deals with the commonalities of different things called "libertarian" in different languages, as well as their differences. I hope that will help to bring people together. —FOo 00:08, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I appreciate the kind remarks, Fubar! I fear it has already become clear, however, that I have failed. I am going to leave this to others, now; I have done my best to render a factual, descriptive, NPOV on the subject. icut4u 18:33, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Libertarian_theory"

The article has already been vandalized with substantive deletions and no discussion, a most unsavory practice.icut4u 00:01, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The problem is that the term has more than one meaning. Libertarian socialism is a meaningful term, and it's important to disambiguate cleanly. Not everyone, especially not in the States (and perhaps Japan) has heard of the other term, but the term is in wide enough use that Libertarianism should not be an article just about American-style Captalist Libertarianism. --Improv 20:19, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC) --Improv 20:19, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Another proposal for disambiguation

What we have here is two totally separate political philosophies, both going by the name libertarian. Each is widely and legitimately used throughout the English-speaking world. While the socialist form often goes by "libertarian socialism" today, the original unmodified usage continues, particularly outside of the United States. Meanwhile, the more recent form is known only as "libertarianism," but it can be most easily distinguished from the earlier one as being capitalist. So why shouldn't Libertarianism be a disambiguation page, pointing both to Libertarianism (capitalist) and Libertarian socialism? RadicalSubversiv E 22:24, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure this would resolve the issues.

First, the assumption that libertarianism (in the Libertarian Party sense) is based upon capitalism is still problematic. From what I can tell, most non-Marxists do not believe that their political positions reduce to their economic beliefs. So I am still concerned that this expression "libertarian capitalism" will be taken as a biased or misrepresenting term for libertarianism.

I don't think that's the point. I don't think that most musicians can be defined as people purely by their music, yet we disambig by added "Blah Blah (musician)". It's not an attempt to reduce someone down, it's an attempt to disambiguate. Clearly the most obvious major difference between the two schools of thought is that one believes in socialism, the other capitalism. Therefore, if we are going to have a disambig page (which I don't think we should have, after going through the issue on the talk page of Libertarianism, but if we have to), it should be like that. Shane King 12:18, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

If it were the case that one meaning of "libertarianism" were confined to the U.S., then I would support placing that one at, say, Libertarianism (U.S.). (Indeed, I proposed that on Talk:Libertarianism a while ago, when that seemed to be the case, and asked for editors to contribute more data on the usage of the term "libertarianism".) However, it does not now seem to be the case, as exemplified by the libertarian movements in Costa Rica and other places. The term "libertarianism" is pretty widely recognized to refer to the sort described in that article, and this usage is not actually confined to the U.S. as was previously held.

As far as I can tell, the existing situation is not truly ambiguous in the sense of it being difficult to find material in Wikipedia. The disambiguation links take care of that. The article libertarianism addresses the subject matter which is most commonly called "libertarianism" in English. It also provides disambiguation links to libertarian socialism, anarchism, and so forth.

This line of inquiry seems fruitful. Libertarianism (U.S.) is obviously defunct due to the Costa Rican example, and more over the miniscule political sects located in other English speaking countries. Libertarianism (Capitalist) seems to be internally inconsistent with the ideology of libertarianism (as practiced by the US Libertarian Party), and more over doesn't reflect international social conceptions of the US Libertarian Party style movement. Libertarianism (1971) and Libertarianism (Nolan) may provide alternatives reflecting the actual historical composition of the movement. Libertarianism (free market) may reflect the internal economic ideology of the primarily US based movement, without constraining the movement with external ideological terms (ie: capitalism, which is not generally positive ideology). Further Libertarianism (civil liberties) should probably be created to reflect the activities of civil libertarians as a structured grouping, probably with an ironic note that Communist Parties were often involved in the foundation of civil liberties unions. Fifelfoo 01:48, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Further, from Libertarian theory which also probably needs disambiging, there arises a strong focus (ideology even) of individual rights, as individualist anarchism lies somewhere between the two conflicting libertarianisms, and is often used as a source for the US style movement's ideas, we can probably try the idea of Libertarianism (individual rights).Fifelfoo 01

54, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm still concerned that the motivation behind this whole fuss is that some folks are discontented with the fact that "libertarianism" has come to have a particular meaning in the English language. I can understand that discontent. There are certainly people who wish that the word "democracy" were not associated with the Democratic Party, or that "nationalism" did not bring to mind the National Front and the Nazis, or what-have-you. There are, likewise, many people who are discontent with the fact that English lacks a gender-neutral pronoun and who would like it if every gender-neutral use of "he" or "he/she" or "she" were replaced with "sie" or "e" or the like.

Unfortunately, Wikipedia is not a place for revising the English language. We should use words as they are most widely used in the relevant fields, and provide disambiguation when they are similar or confusing. I think the status quo ante has this going for it. --FOo 22:56, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

why are we even having this discussion - there's a dismambig already at the top of libertarinism... this is what the phrase has come to mean in the english language and is so far beyond the prevelant use that it deservers the article with only a small disambig(as was there) at the top. Chuck F 15:53, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.