Talk:Libertarianism/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
This is a controversial topic that may be under dispute. Please read this page and discuss substantial changes here before making them.
Make sure to supply full citations when adding information and consider tagging or removing uncited/unciteable information.

Archives:

i suggest removing the "radcial" before "laissez-faire" in "Criticism of libertarianism from the left tends to focus on its economic aspects, claiming that capitalism of a radical laissez-faire (free market) character undermines individual liberty, or creates poverty and harms society and the economy." because (A)it detracts from the overall objectivity of the article. In a political context, "radical" has a definate derogatory or negative connotation. For example, "radical liberal" or "radical conservative". (B)it doesnt add anything to the article. "Laissez-faire" only has one meaning- free from government intervention. Adding "radical" doesnt modify that meaning in any way. At the very least, saying "radical laissez-faire" is redundant. In my opinion, it adds a hint of bias and unnecessary opinion that detracts from the overall reliability of the article.

I dont want to touch anything myself since I'm a noob and this is otherwise a great article.

I'm not sure I agree. Rand's brand of laissez-faire capitalism is indeed more radical than many other forms endorsed by libertarians. And, in context, it's quite correct to point out that this radical nature is what leftists object to. It's NPOV. Alienus 08:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm the one that put "radical" there. I didn't mean it pejoratively. I just meant to state a fact that libertarians want radically-free markets and that's what the left doesn't like. It's one thing to say you want a laissez-faire system, but libertarians really mean it. Like Alienus just said, the radical character of their economic policies is where a lot of the criticism lies. On the other hand, I understand your point. Laissez-faire is itself radical. I can maybe word it slightly different to get the point across. RJII 15:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
This is a good point. I think we do need some way to distinguish between wanting free markets in general and wanting a laissez-faire level of freedom. If "radical" is too strong or negative a word, then we should find a better one. There are many types of free markets, including a number that are constrained by direct and indirect government intervention, so just saying that Libertarianism is for free markets is misleading. Lots of people are for some sort of free market, just not the -- dare I say it? -- radical freedom of laissez faire. Alienus 17:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Contents

List of authoritative sources on Libertarianism

If I may be so bold, I would like to list a few libertariansim who have significantly influenced libertarianism, or can provide expert commentary on libertarianism:

I think that we need to summarise what each of these people thought of Libertarianism and cite them. That's my suggestion, anyway. Incidently, I got that list from [1] and [2]. I hope it helps!.

Also, I found a site that list critiques of Libertarianism. Perhaps we could use this? See http://world.std.com/~mhuben/revisionism.html - Ta bu shi da yu 30 June 2005 12:04 (UTC)

Excellent work! We have lists (linked to from the "see also" section) but they're not authoritative. This should help tremendously. Dave (talk) July 1, 2005 02:54 (UTC)

The new paragraph about limited liability

I don't love the new paragraph about limited liability - I considered removing it because it's vague and inaccurate. I did attempt to remove the POV: the paragraph made the unqualified statement that corporations lack personal responsibility, and that most libertarians ignore this fact. It also stated as a fact that corporations are not free market actors. Could the anonymous contributor please defend this statement here? The paragraph currently cites no sources.. this needs to change. Rhobite June 30, 2005 17:02 (UTC)

It is a strangely worded and incorrect section. Most libertarians have serious concerns about limited liability, and also about special rights granted to corporations in treaties, that are not available to individuals. So it is strange to see the opposite framed as a criticism of libertarianism. I suspect this contributer is not well informed.--Silverback June 30, 2005 20:03 (UTC)
I have removed it. Dave (talk) July 1, 2005 02:52 (UTC)


Temp injunction

The arbitration committee has issued a temporary injunction, prohibiting Alfrem from editing this article pending the outcome of your arbitration case. Furthermore, It shall be presumed that any user, such as 80.131.0.46... who makes Alfrem's trademark edit, removal of the phrase "Libertarianism is a political philosophy[2]," from the article is a sockpuppet of Alfrem. Such sockpuppets may be banned indefinitely if practical. →Raul654 20:56, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

NAP

Some evidence that not all libertarians base their philosophy on the NAP [3]. Quoting from the abstract:

In 1988, only 10 percent of libertarians responding to the Liberty Poll disagreed with Ayn Rand's dictum that "no person has the right to initiate physical force against another human being." In 1998, fully 50 percent disagreed with the proposition. Based on this and other data from the surveys of libertarian opinion conducted by this magazine in 1988 and in 1998, Liberty editor and publisher R. W. Bradford concluded that there had been a substantial decline in the sort of libertarian thinking that emanated from Rand's non-aggression imperative.

Cadr 11:06, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

RFC

This page is still listed on RFC regarding the intro paragraph. I came over to say that the longer intro was better, but it looks like you've already come to that consensus. Should it be removed from the RFC? – Quadell (talk) (sleuth) 11:26, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

I removed them. Thanks for the reminder. Dave (talk) 21:51, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

NPOV tag

I can't tell from the preceding conversations what is still valid and what is not. I haven't waded into reading the article and every bit of the above yet though. But since I looked, and couldn't tell what complaints there were about the article, could whoever wants the NPOV tag on the article please summarize with evidence preferrably, or be willing to back it up with evidence, what the complaints against the article's NPOV there is? Without specificity on the complaints, the tag should be removed. - Taxman Talk 14:59, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

This is the discussion that led to the POV tag being placed on the article. The issue is the page's name. I have moved the discussion here. The user that argued for the tag has not responded to my arguments against the tag in about 10 days. I think that's long enough to justify removing the tag. Since I'm directly involved, I won't remove the tag myself. Dave (talk) 21:57, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Discussion should go in the "Arguments" section. I've taken the liberty of moving a comment there.

Summary:

The philosophy described in this article is the one most commonly called libertarian, but other philosophies that are not at all closely related claim the name. The dispute is over whether this article should be called "libertarianism" whether that is POV in favor of this kind of libertarianism. I have responded that what this article calls "libertarianism" has no other name that can be used without being misleading or POV-driven, and that the term "libertarian" is used so much more frequently for this philosophy than for any other that the placement here is justified, especially because there isn't another good name for it. Dave (talk) 22:03, July 15, 2005 (UTC)


Old arguments

I think the POV tag, or some tag, should be (re)placed.

The article conflates libertarianism in general with some(I won't say exactly what) more specific libertarian philosophy(the little bit at the beginning of the article currently describes it as "the individualist and propertarian meaning of 'libertarian' (sometimes called right libertarianism)." This is POV or at least just plain confusing because it seems to favour this one libertarian philosophy over all others and suggests that libertarian-socialism and this form of libertarianism are somehow in different worlds of libertarianism in the most general, which they aren't.

The page for libertarianism, ideally I think, should focus on the general aspects of libertarianism, and not this single conception. All philosophies which are libertarian should be linked to from this article. This would include what the current article describes(I see the term "right libertarianism" thrown out, but that doesn't seen proper, it should probably just be called "libertarianism" as well, since that's the most popular name for it) and all others, libertarian socialism, anarchist capitalism, minarchism, etc. I'll just refer to it as libertarian propertarianism for now for the sake of clarity.

As the article stands, its pretty good. It does largely focus on the general aspects of libertarianism. It says:

Pure libertarianism favors the belief that no one may initiate coercion, which they define as the initiation of physical force, the potential initiation (threat) of such, or the use of fraud to interfere with individuals' use of their person or property. This ban on initiation of force, called the non-aggression principle, is central to the philosophy of many libertarians and is related to the principle of individual sovereignty or self-ownership.

This is, I say, essentially analogous, or, at least, very similar, to how the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy describes it:

Libertarianism, as usually understood(my emphasis), is a theory about the permissible use of non-consensual force. It holds that agents, at least initially, fully own themselves and have moral powers to acquire property rights in external things under certain conditions. These property rights (in their own person and in other things) set the limits of permissible non-consensual force against a person: such force is permissible only when it is necessary to prevent that person from violating someone's rights or to impose rectification for such violation (e.g., compensation or punishment). The use of force against an innocent person is thus not permissible to benefit that person (paternalism), to benefit others (e.g., compulsory military service), or even to prevent third parties from violating the rights of others (e.g., killing innocents when necessary to prevent a terrorist attack). These limits on the use of force thus radically limit the legitimate powers of government.

This definition doesn't stake out specifically any sort of libertarianism that would, as the currect article says, "opposes" "socialism" or "communism" or "collectivism."

Anyway, in summary. Libertarian socialism, libertarian propertarianism, anarchist capitalism, etc. are all libertarian philosophies. Libertarian-propertarianism is the most popular one, agreed. However, libertarianism and libertarian propertarianism are not the same thing(*ahem*), nor are they unrelated things, and so just because it is the most popular libertarianism doesn't mean it should take the libertarianism article place. The (political) libertarianism article should be about libertarianism in general and should link to all the libertarian philosophies. I will have to say this article is not NPOV and I call for the POV tag(or, is there another tag -- the factual incorrectness one? -- that would be better?) to be replaced. Alternatively there should be a page made for the more generalized libertarianism, with a libertarianism template for that and all, and this page along with all other libertarian philosophies being part of that template, whatever's easier. --I know who my sister is. 4 July 2005 19:35 (UTC)

In light of these reasonable and addressable comments, I have replaced the {{pov}} tag. Now that we know what is not NPOV, we can work towards resolving these issues. - Ta bu shi da yu 4 July 2005 23:54 (UTC)
The article conflates libertarianism in general with some(I won't say exactly what) more specific libertarian philosophy -- correct. Libertarianism in general is also not political by default. The individual "Don't treat on me"-libertarianism is not political. --Alfrem 4 July 2005 20:21 (UTC)

A few things before I respond. First, let me say that, while I disagree with you, I found your post very refreshing compared to the issues that have been raised here recently (your arguments were well-thought-out and you avoided personal attacks, you discussed before making major changes), and I hope we can reach some sort of consensus. Second, would it be okay with you if we moved this discussion to the bottom of the page? It's confusing to have new discussions appearing in the middle like this, and I was hoping to archive a lot of the older discussion, which I can't do while discussion is going on near the top.

With those things out of the way, let's get down to your concern.

You are correct that the term "libertarian" has more than one use and that this article focuses on only one of them. That's why the article has the link at the top to libertarian socialism and a whole section on "terminology," which is largely about anarchism, libertarian socialism, and related philosophies, near the beginning of the article. There are a few reasons for putting what you call "right-libertarianism" in this space as opposed to a general article on all the philosophies you mentioned:

  1. When this issue came up before, I did a Google search on "libertarian." This was a while ago, but the results probably haven't changed too much. You can see the results here. With one exception (nazi.org), the word "libertarian" was always used the way this article uses it, unless a qualifier was added (as in "left-libertarian" or "libertarian socialism"). Wikipedia's policy is to use the most common name, and while using Google has its own problems, I think it's pretty clear that this use is overwhelmingly more common than any other. For example, the article on Apple is about the fruit, with a note at the top linking (indirectly) to Fiona Apple, Apple Computer, Apple Corporation, the Big Apple, and so on.
  2. Wikipedia policy is also to choose names for articles (and categories) based on a combination of what proponents and opponents call it. For example, no one calls him/herself a "heathen," so the article on their beliefs is under paganism (the article called "heathen" is about the term). Unfortunately, the term "right-libertarian" is never used by right-libertarians to describe themselves (some have never heard of the term, and others, including the Stanford article you cited, argue that the term is inherently misleading), and so putting the article there doesn't work.
  3. There are a thousand pages linking to this article, and all of them are talking about what you call "right-libertarianism." Changing 1000 links is a lot of work, and I don't think that there's any benefit, since it would mean using less common (and disputed) usage of the term.
  4. I noticed that you used British English spelling ("favour" with a "u"), and that reminded me of another aspect of this issue that I'd forgotten about: the term "libertarianism" is defined more broadly in Europe than in the US and other countries, and so there's also a regional aspect to this dispute. One more layer making things more complicated.
  5. Since the Stanford article you linked to is primarily about libertarian theory (as opposed to politics), you're right that there isn't much there that would indicate "opposition" to socialism, communism, etc. But the part you quoted has a few clues. First, the paragraph is all about property rights, which socialists, communists, etc. all reject. Second, none of the authors listed in the bibliography are socialists. The closest they get is Georgism (what the Stanford article calls "left-libertarianism" is what Wikipedia calls geolibertarianism and what you might call "centrist libertarianism"--property rights for everything except land). Third, there's no reference to Chomsky, a prominent libertarian socialist, or to Marxism, Socialism, or Communism. So the Stanford article really isn't all that ambiguous.
  6. Libertarian Socialism and what you call "right-libertarianism" have very little in common. The Cato Institute, Ayn Rand, and Reason Magazine have essentially no relationship to libertarian socialism, so someone going to those pages would have no interest in links to libertarian socialism-related articles on a template. Even if we do change the page name, I think the templates should be kept separate.

I hope this discussion helps. If you have an idea for getting around these issues, I'd be glad to hear it. I'd like to find a solution that pleased libertarian socialists if for no other reason than that it would mean that I wouldn't have to argue about this anymore. Dave (talk) July 4, 2005 23:14 (UTC)

By the way, if this post is not enough to convince you that the article doesn't need a {POV} tag, and if you explain why, then you'd be justified in putting it up again. Thanks for being civil and thoughtful. Dave (talk) July 4, 2005 23:17 (UTC)

Additionally, in a conversation with User:Ta bu shi da yu, I made the following arguments: As far as I know, there is no term other than "libertarianism" that libertarians can agree on, so moving the page would violate (my understanding of) policy in the same way that a category called "right-wing nuts" would. Libertarians are loath to let someone else name their philosophy, as the beginning of this article by Boaz points out.

  1. I think we can safely rule out Hayek's terminology, and agree that moving the page to "liberalism" would be a bad idea. Although continuing use of the term to mean "libertarianism" might at least justify a link.
  2. "Right-libertarianism" is misleading (see, for example, the stanford article) because it takes "left-wing" stances on social issues, has a more or less left-wing faction (georgism or geolibertarianism) and (at least claims to be) intellectually descended from liberalism. The term is used primarily by libertarian socialists, and what the article currently calls libertarians hate the term.
  3. "Libertarian capitalism" is not a very common (at least according to Google) and again seems to be used mostly by opponents.[4]
  4. "Classical Liberalism" has its own issues: non-libertarians dispute the connection between the philosophies, and even people that agree on the connection want to keep their terms for Milton Friedman separate from their terms for Thomas Jefferson (see the middle of the Boaz article.
  5. "Radical capitalism," a term derived from a statement by Ayn Rand could refer to a subarticle of libertarian economics, but doesn't seem broad enough for describing the whole philosophy.
  6. I think we'd have to have some kind of parenthetical title like Libertarianism (capitalist), but I don't feel like one word in parentheses can accurately capture the differences between two very different philosophies. And even if we did that, we'd still have to change over 1000 links...

I think that quotes like these (again, from the Boaz article) don't necessarily mean that we have to move liberalism to a neutral disambiguation page:

Libertarianism may be regarded as a political philosophy that applies the ideas of classical liberalism consistently, following liberal arguments to conclusions that would limit the role of government more strictly and protect individual freedom more fully than other classical liberals would. Most of the time, I use liberal in its traditional sense; I call today's misnamed liberals welfare-state liberals or paternalistic liberals or social democrats.

The reason is that (at least in the U.S.), libertarians lost the argument about what to call liberalism. I don't see how the issue for libertarianism is any different.

Keep in mind that [my Google search] found that the term "libertarian" is almost never used except to refer to the philosophy described in the article, unless it's qualified as in "libertarian socialism. I think if Apple can be about the fruit (instead of a disambiguation page), libertarianism can be about the philosophy of Robert Nozick.

Dave (talk) 15:12, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

New arguments

As someone who hasn't been involved previously, I think that "Libertarianism" should be used for a disambiguation page, and this article moved to the best available alternative, perhaps "Libertarianism (individualist)". There are at least five different things that someone could be searching for under the unmodified term: individualist libertarianism, socialist libertarianism, metaphysical libertarianism, civil libertarianism, or the policies of the US Libertarian Party. (To make it worse, there are Libertarian parties in other countries as well.) Ultimately the problem is that multiple parties lay claim to the term, and that issue won't go away until they are all on an equal playing field. And if that means the featured article link has to be re-pointed, so be it. --RL0919 22:23, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I think libertarian socialists would take issue with the claim that they aren't individualists themselves. See for example Libertarian_socialism#Overview. I haven't come up with a good way of distinguishing between the different terms with one word that won't offend somebody. And the fact is, the terms are not "all on an equal playing field. As I pointed out above, the fact that some libertarians call themselves "liberals" doesn't mean that "liberalism" has to be a disambiguation page, and the fact that Apple Computer, Apple Music, and Fiona Apple all call themselves "apple" doesn't mean that the article on Apple must be neutral between them. Dave (talk) 16:35, July 16, 2005 (UTC)
There is no political controversy between Apple Computer and the fruit of the same name, and thus no special concern about being neutral between them. There is such a controversy between "left" and "right" libertarians. I do suppose that a larger number of English-language readers who search for "libertarian" or "libertarianism" are probably looking for the "right" version. But I also suspect that there is a plurality of readers searching for "republican" who are looking for one of the particular meanings of that term, but nonetheless they get a disambiguation page. --RL0919 17:51, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Does anyone have any bonafide references to uses of the term "libertarian" or "libertarianism" - without any modifiers like "socialist" or "anarcho" - that refers to anything other than the political philosophy based on the non-aggression principle? Unless I'm mistaken, so-called "left libertarians" do not refer to themselves as libertarians, per se. So the comparision to "republican" above is not a good analogy, since "republican" can be, and is, used "stand alone" to reference a republican form of government, for example, as well as the GOP and its membership, platform, etc. --Serge 04:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
See, for example, the name of the 1950s Libertarian League. This article gives a relatively good history of the term from the left-libertarian perspective. In present-day usage, one does not see this as the "unmodified" usage very much, for the same reason that you rarely see the words liberalism or anarchism used in their older senses without some type of modifier or explanation — the chance of confusion with the currently more prominent meaning is too great for most authors to use the word differently without explanation. However, if you look at the articles for those other two terms, you will see that they give extensive explanations of the history behind each word and the conflicts among the various usages. In its present state, the "libertarianism" article gives only a relatively brief treatment of such issues. So perhaps an alternative solution to a disambiguation page would be for the article to be more balanced in its treatment of the two main political usages. The anarchism article is a good model in this regard. On the other hand, that sort of rewrite would be quite a lot of work, whereas a disambiguation page could be created in a matter of minutes. --RL0919 06:38, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
I think it's best to leave left and right libertarianism in their separate articles, as based on the constant edit wars the anarchism pages don't seem like a great model for anything. If this is a problem that needs to be addressed (and I'm not sure it is; current usage in English seems to be that libertarianism, as an unmodified term, generally means what is expressed in this article) then the best way to deal with it is to turn libertarianism into a disambiguation page. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:23, 2005 July 17 (UTC)
The terms' usages have changed since the 1950's. My google search (linked to above) shows that it's pretty overwhelming, so I think the status quo is justified. If you disagree, you need to do the following:
  1. Come up with a term that works (I've already explained why "right-libertarian" is a bad term. See my post directly above this section)
  2. Get consensus for it
  3. Commit to changing 1000+ links all over Wikipedia that link to this page
If you can do that, then I have no problem with changing things. I just haven't found a reasonable name for the article in its new location, and have no interest in changing 1000+ links once the article gets moved. Dave (talk) 15:06, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
As of a few years ago, the Libertarian Labor Review was still being published. However, Dave/Harry is right that the use of "Libertarian" by itself to mean libertarian socialism is increasingly rare. - Nat Krause 15:56, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
I'd be happy to work on the links. That's easy, though tedious. The hard part is coming up with the alternative name. How about "Libertarianism (contemporary)"? --RL0919 16:54, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I think folks should bear in mind that the problem here is primarily a political one (Wiki politics, that is), about how to resolve the NPOV dispute, not a lexical question. As far as I can tell, the usage in this article is the most common one in present-day usage, and I don't think even the left-libertarians themselves dispute that. Essentially, their claim is that the word is stolen from them, and the article name abets that. Now you can agree or disagree with that attitude (to be clear, I don't agree with it personally), but simply replying with the majority usage (which is subject regional variations as well) doesn't resolve the problem. I believe either of the two solutions recently discussed — more comprehensive treatment of the alternative usages in the article, or a renaming with a disambiguation page — would provide a better long-term solution. Unless, of course, people prefer simply to have this same argument over again every few months. --RL0919 16:54, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Those are some good points, though I think "contemporary" wrongly suggests that libertarian socialism no longer exists at all. Libertarianism (capitalist) or Libertarianism (propertarian) are probably about as good as we're going to get, but they're both very long titles and fairly ugly names. Left libertarianism already gets a sentence-long disambig and the first section of the article (the terminology section) so I don't think that adding more would make much difference to the libertarian socialism partisans.
Here's what I suggest:
  1. Pick a name. Libertarianism (capitalist) is my first choice right now, but there may be a better one.
  2. Put it to a vote, and settle this once and for all. If the consensus is to move, we'll move. If not, the issue will be settled (hopefully).
Dave (talk) 17:24, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
I'm fine with that approach. "Propertarian" is a left-libertarian word applied to right-libertarians, so I think that would be out as non-neutral. "Capitalist," particularly as a clarifier rather than the primary term, should be OK with most (not all, but when is anything in the world of ideology ever "all"?) right-libertarians, but I will defer to "public opinion" on that. I already suggested two other variations, if anyone likes those better. As I mentioned, if there is a move, I'm quite willing to help with the work. A quick check of backlinks to the article shows about 600 different pages (including talk pages and such) linking to it. I can help with writing the disambiguation page as well. --RL0919 18:14, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
For some reason I thought there were about 500 more pages linking to libertarianism than actually exist. I'm not sure how I miscounted (maybe I hit related changes instead of what links here?). Perhaps we should replace the POV tag on the article with a banner linking to the poll. Dave (talk) 18:20, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

I'm setting up a page at Talk:Libertarianism/Page move where we can come up with a proposal to vote on. Dave (talk) 22:19, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

I agree with RL0919's basic suggestion; the article is at the moment squatting in a name-space to which many other topics have an equal claim (professionally, for example, I use it just about equally to refer to metaphysical and general political libertarianism). Could it be moved to Libertarianism (political theory)? If it could be neutral overview, linking to the specific flavours, the Libertarianism could be general disambiguation page. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:14, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

I have not read this article, or anything but the summary of this entire argument. Why? There is only one kind of Libertarianism, and that is people who beleive in few restrictions on social issues, and few restrictions on economic issues. Libertarians who oppose gay marriage, and Libertarains who support socialism, are not Libertarians, but Libertarian-Hyphens, with a second word attached. Pellaken 23:33, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

The main discussion is at Talk:Libertarianism/Page move, where these questions are answered (though I should say that your comments are PoV and incorrect, even about political libertarianism). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:12, 24 July 2005 (UTC)


Libertarian Socialism is an oxymoron. The non coercion principle is mainly applied to economics which socialism clearly violates. Socialism must use economic coercion in order to operate its own principles of social justice. Not to mention, libertarian socialism is rarely used anywhere other than Noam Chompsky (who also calls himself an anarcho communist). (Gibby 16:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC))

Double standards

While I understand that the status of one article should not necessarily be related to another, three people with clear libertarian capitalist POV (Hogeye, Dan(dtobias), and RJ despite his claims to pure objectivity) are currently engaged in a full edit war on the anarchism article, and all of them have been involved in editing this article to some degree. They insist that anarcho-capitalism must be included in the article, that no definition in the article can reflect the historical and modern fact that anarchism is generally seen as anti-capitalist, that AC must be in the schools section, and two of the editors even insist on pictures and various links. This war is never ending, one of them has even been banned but continues to show up in violation of wiki policy using anonymous IPs, which themselves get banned every couple days.

A clear double standard is currently being applied to this article when compared with pages like anarchism. Currently, no one on any side of the anarchism article is suggesting that the article be as totally unfair to anarcho-capitalism as this article has been to libertarian socialism. The anarchism article is revolving around either including a section with anarcho-capitalism (with many links) in the article, or making a clear disambiguation, the first of which has been heavily resisted in this article when attempted with libertarian socialism, and the second of which is being voted against. The result is that this article includes no information on libertarian socialism other than a link with a superscript to another cite challenging its legitimacy almost as much as introducing it, and a brief comment implying that it is only considered a form of libertarianism to non-english speaking people. Libertarian socialism is given no section of its own, and several definitions and charts placed in the article clearly rule out libertarian socialism as a form of libertarianism. Not only is this historically inaccurate, but it demonstrates a clear POV problem when some editors focus on including anarcho-capitalism in the anarchism article but take no steps to apply the same principle here, or even resist any attempts at a neutral solution (Dan and RJ both voted against disambiguation, but do nothing to fix the problem). It should either be disambiguated as per this vote, or libertarian socialism should have its own section, or the libertarian POV warriors need to leave the anarchism article alone. It is not appropriate for the content of a wiki article to be based on the fact that fewer anarchists are willing to wage POV wars on ancillary articles. The same standards need to be applied to each article if anyone is going to even pretend to intellectual honesty here. Kev 02:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I have to laugh. This guy has been pushing his POV by deleting anarcho-capitalism from the anarchism article [5]. Now he comes here and asserts that this article is POV because it doesn't include libertarian socialism. Talk about a double standard! Some people... RJII 03:00, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
The version where I "deleted" anarcho-capitalism from the article included a clear disambiguation at the top pointing to the definition used by anarcho-capitalists. I would be happy to have that solution applied to this article. No double standard. And, of course, I should mention that I was only pushed into that solution after already accepting an AC section, with links, and a neutral definition at the begining, but you refused to settle at that and continued to edit the entire article to an AC bias. As I've said earlier, I don't care what solution is used here, but it should be applied evenly to the anarchism article. Kev 03:13, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Ah, you were "pushed" into pushing your POV. RJII 03:21, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
As I've said, I would be happy for such a solution to be applied to this article, so if it was my POV I was pushing by proposing a disambiguation there then oddly enough I'm pushing against it here. Kev 03:23, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Here are my two cents: I think that neither libertarianism nor anarchism should devote much space to the alternatives (libertarian socialism and anarcho-capitalism, respectively) because they are distinct. Libertarianism should mention it in the terminology section and in the criticism section, and Anarchism should mention it in the critique section and possibly an "anarchism and capitalism" section. We should be consistent. Dave (talk) 18:46, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Consistency is all I ask for. I would be very happy to go with the solution you've mentioned on both pages. The problem is that certain POV warriors refuse to accept a consistent solution. I'm unwilling to have anarchism be torn apart day after day by those same people just because they are unwilling to apply the same standards to that article that have already been applied to this one. So until they stop, I really so no alternative but to demand that this article be made consistent with the very kinds of edits they are pushing on anarchism. Kev 09:21, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Is RJII the only one you're referring to? I'll talk to anyone you mention and try to reach some kind of consensus. In the mean time, I don't feel it is appropriate to brand this article with a {POV} banner due to a dispute on another page. If I talk to the users you're referring to, can you take down the sign? Dave (talk) 13:32, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
I will cease to insert the POV label for as long as you (and hopefully other individuals here) are willing to work on this. I know that you can't change what other users are doing, but I feel its the combined POV warrioring of a select few with the rest "looking the other way" that has led to this. Just to be clear, I am not branding this page merely due to the dispute on anarchism, that dispute has simply cast my perspective on this page in a new light. As I said some time ago, I thought that this page was unfair in its treatment of libertarian socialism. However, at the time I was willing to compromise because individuals like yourself seemed reasonable. Atm I am no longer willing to compromise on this particular issue because I see libertarian socialism (and anarchism in turn) being misrepresented or skewed in their representation on too many pages by people with a POV axe to grind. Anyway, there are three individuals, as I listed above. RJ is the main and most obvious. Hogeye is also reverting the anarchism page and template constantly, but he is doing so through anon IPs due to his having been banned a couple weeks ago, and I don't think he will listen to reason anyway. Dtobias is the last of them, though his edits have been somewhat more limited and comparatively reasonable, he is still applying a very different standard to the anarchism page than is applied here. All three insists that there be a section on AC in the anarchism article, that it be included in schools, and that the entire article refer only to definitions of anarchism that are compatible with AC. All of that is more than has been accepted for libertarian socialism here. Kev 22:44, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
I'll talk to Dtobias and RJII. I'll let ArbCom deal with Hogeye. I'm not promising anything, but I hope that the POV banner doesn't become a permanent feature of this page. Dave (talk) 13:40, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Just randomly, here is some more evidence for the existence of libertarianism as a left-wing movement [6]. (That's not what the article is about, but if you read it there are some relavent facts and terminology). Cadr 11:00, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Recent edits

Guys, if you have to put justification for your edits in the edit summaries, that proves that you aren't attempting to reach agreement before you edit the article. Use the talk page for that kind of stuff, and please stop edit warring. Your edit summaries should only explain what you are editing, not why. The discussion of the rationale behind the edits belongs here, and the editing should only happen when we have at least rough consensus. --malathion talk 16:47, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Libertarianism's_growth

Why is this a seperate article? On its talk page it says it was moved for "space reasons." Yet the George W. Bush page is way longer that this. I think it should be merged. --pile0nadestalk | contribs 12:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

George W. Bush is much longer than Wikipedia pages are usually supposed to be. That page might benefit from having some pieces chopped out of it. Granted, Libertarianism's growth is not a very well-written page. To my mind, that's all the more reason not to merge it back in here. - Nat Krause 13:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


American individualist anarchism

When is the CIA, User:RJII and cohorts going to stop making POV articles like this one? Can't you keep the anarcho-capitalists over here??! -max rspct 12:49, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Get over it. Not all anarchism is collectivist/communist. RJII 14:39, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

My (Cadr's) last edit

This just removed a digression on Madison and the founding fathers which is not significant enough to be included in such a short section. In particular, Madison's democracy/republic distinction (even if one ignores his rather strange usage) is clearly not of central importance within classical liberalism. Otherwise, my edit just made some minor NPOV changes (e.g. previously there was a tacit assumption that libertarians are more in favour of personal and economic liberty than people of any other political persuasion, which of course is only true if one accepts libertarian ideas about what personal and economic freedom actually are). Cadr 23:26, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

In response to the comment on RJII's latest edit. There is no "misunderstanding" on my part. If you look up the dictionary definitions of "democracy" and "republic" (which haven't changed much since Madison's time), you won't find any basis for the distinction he makes. Hence, I referred to his choice of terminology as "bizarre". In particular, there is nothing in the definition of a democracy preventing it from having a constitution. Greek democracy (surely the orginal) certainly wasn't mob rule. The distinction he makes between different forms of government is perfectly valid, but not especially significant in the intellectual history of classical liberalism as expressed in four or five paragraphs. Cadr 23:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
It's extremely important to mention this topic concerning the influence of classical liberals. The liberals opposed democracy, in favor of protecting individual liberty and private property. A democracy is rule of the majority. A republic is different in that it has a constitution that protects individuals FROM democracy. The U.S. for example was designed as a "Republic," not a democracy. I know that a lot of people today call the U.S. a democracy, but what they really mean is liberal democracy. So, maybe it could use a note that Madison is using the term "democracy" in the classic sense, but it shouldn't be deleted. There is indeed a difference between democracy and republic. Let's look it up in the dictionary...we'll use Merriam-Webster..

Democracy...

  • 1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

Now let's compare with Republic...

Republic...

  • 1 a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government c : a usually specified republican government of a political unit <the French Fourth Republic>


Look at at the phrase "governing according to law." That's what sets a republic apart from a democracy. In a democracy, the majority IS the law. Whereas in a republic the majority is limited BY the law.

RJII 23:44, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

The definition there seems to support my point. "Majority rule" is perfectly consistent with constitutional government and respect for private property unless it is taken to extremes, and the (b) definition of democracy has always been at least equally prevalent. The "classic" sense of democracy comes from its literal meaning, something like "rule by the people", which certainly doesn't imply that the majority should have the right to do anything whatsoever, merely that the majority should generally get what it wants (as indeed it does in a "republic"). Your contention that the distinction made by Madison is central to classical liberalism is, I think, false. Do you have any evidence to support this claim? This is what I'm really getting at, and I'm sorry I fanned the flames somewhat by criticising Madison's terminology. As I said, the distinction he makes is perfectly valid, just not very important in the scheme of things. Cadr 23:57, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
But it is important to show the influence of of the early liberals. That's what that section is about. They were individualists, rather that collectivists, which means, in this context, that they thought individuals had rights --not groups. This is central to libertarian liberalism ...individual rights should not be transgressed by majority rule. RJII 00:06, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
Also, when you revert, you're reverting several other changes which were perfeclty valid, unreleated to the Madison issue, and which you haven't yet criticised. Cadr 23:59, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't see that. RJII
How's about a compromise? You get to keep the bit about Madison in (perhaps with a very brief qualification such as "what he regarded as the distinction between a democracy and a republic") and I get to keep my other (fairly small) edits in. Deal? Cadr 00:07, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Classical Liberalism

I wish that the person/people who added "In America" to every sentence would explain their edits in this paragraph "However, mainstream thought in America moved away from free trade and free market ideas and instead began to advocate Keynesian economic ideas. Those who are now now called "liberals" in the U.S. see the State as a way to promote positive rights, instead of limiting its role to protecting negative liberty and free markets. Hence, the distinction between "classical liberals" and "liberals" in modern America. Some modern U.S. liberals, often called Welfare Liberalism or New Liberalism, it also claims the ideological inheritance of Classical Liberalism."

Firstly mainstream liberal thought (the thought identified by the mainstream as liberal) is new liberalism - throughout the world. There should also be no POV usage of the wording, i.e. positive "rights" as opposed to negative "liberty" - use the same words for both things. Slizor 22:14, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Those were my edits. I edited it because the previous version didn't make any sense unless you're talking about a "liberal" in the colloquial use in America. In international and academic use, a liberal is not the same thing. Look at the article liberalism for more information and compare it with Liberalism in the United States artice. For example, look up the Liberal Democratic Party of Australia. They're libertarians. A U.S. modern "liberal", in colloqual usage, is not the same thing as a liberal yesterday in the U.S. --obviously. And, I don't understand what your complaint is about positive rights, etc. RJII 23:13, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to break it to you, but the use of the word liberal refers to new liberals in the rest of the world (it hasn't got the "left-wing" label that Americans have assigned it.) Look at the Liberal Democrat Party in the UK. And speaking as a Uni politics student, academic usage is the same. My complaint is that you are trying to contrast rights with freedoms, which seems to imply one isn't a form of freedom - and you are explicitly doing that since you changed my wording. NPOV would be to say positive freedom and negative freedom, or positive rights and negative rights. Slizor 12:53, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

Agree. As I said in an edit summary a little while ago, usage outside America is not as RJII claims. A "liberal" in the UK isn't a libertarian. The unqualified term "liberal" actually isn't used very much at all, but if it was it would usually refer primarily to someone who was socially liberal, without implying much about their economic views. See for example the fact that Bertrand Russell is referred to as a liberal. Cadr 15:56, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
You agree? He's saying the same thing I was saying. He's not saying that a liberal in the UK is not a pure libertarian. That liberal may or may not be. A liberal is someone who thinks the proper function of government is to protect individual negative liberty and private property. Libertarianism is a type of liberalism ...it takes it to the greatest extreme. This is not the same meaning of a "liberal" in the US, which means left-wing --someone who believes in positive rights and wealth redistribution. RJII 13:37, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Did you read what he wrote? "Sorry to break it to you, but the use of the word liberal refers to new liberals in the rest of the world..." You also asserted that in academic discourse "liberalism" does not refer to new liberalism. Silzor flatly disagreed with you: "...speaking as a Uni politics student, academic usage is the same." As someone who lives in the UK, I can assure you that it is not correct to say that "liberalism refers to free markets and capitalism in the rest of the world". As you say, liberals may believe in these things, but that's not what you wrote in the edit I just quoted. Over here, as I explained above, the word carries very weak connotations with regard to economic views. This is why Bertrand Russell can be described as a "British Liberal" even though he was a Fabian Socialist for most of his life. The Liberal Democrat party, incidentally, is more or less social democratic, and most certainly does believe in positive rights and wealth redistribution. Cadr 15:12, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Ok, it looks like I misunderstood him then. Apparently the use is the same in the UK; i can fix that. But, the reason for my edit is that previously, the paragraph said that liberals had changed. But it's not that --it's that the meaning of liberal has changed in some countries --the US is one. Here is what it said formerly "However, the mainstream of Liberal thought moved away from free trade and free market ideas and instead began to advocate Keynesian economic ideas. Liberals began utilising the concept of positive freedom and began to see the state as a way to promote freedom." See? RJII 15:38, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
That's fine, I've never objected to that wording, nor denied that new liberalism is just that, i.e. new. Not sure about "some countries", though. The native-English-speaking world is quite small. Can you point to a country within it where "liberalism" refers unambiguously to capitalism and free markets? Cadr 15:51, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
The term "liberalism" is used all over the world, including in the U.S., to refer to the classic philosophy. Just plug "liberalism" in Google. The problem is that it has two meanings. It also refers to the modern leftist philosophy. But it's also widely used in the classic sense. Just take a look at the definition in the Merriam-Webster dictionary: " b : a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard" [7] The classic sense of the word has hardly disappeared. I think it's how it's normally used in academic discourse. RJII 15:57, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
If you plug in liberalism, you do get a lot of stuff about classical liberalism, but on the other hand it's almost always referred to explicitly as "classical liberalism". Ditto "economic liberalism". However, all I'm objecting to is the statement that "liberalism" outside America isn't used to refer to new liberalism. It is. I'm not denying that "liberalism" is sometimes used to refer to classical or economic liberalism, but this is equally the case in the US and Europe and elsewhere, so far as I know. Cadr 16:28, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
I rewrote. How's that? RJII 16:36, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
OK, I'm happy with that. Cadr 17:49, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Sorry guys, but I'm really not happy with the phrase "alternative usage" because it appears to be the mainstream usage (it is much like the use of the word "Libertarian" for which thise page was not disambiguated.) However, this debate didn't show up on my watchlist so I kinda edited without consulting (I wasn't being pigheaded, just didn't see that this debate had evolved.) Feel free to revert, but I will work on the "alternative usage" part. Slizor 13:47, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
The fact is, both usages are mainstream. Liberalism still refers to limited government intervention and capitalism. It's a word that is used to label two different philosophies. RJII 15:37, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
But (see my recent edit and comment) the usage doesn't differ in the US and elsewhere. In pretty much all of the English speaking world, "liberalism" is (often, not always) used to refer to new liberalism. Please stop trying to make out that this is only the case in the US and (now, you concede) the UK, using only the name of a political party in Australia to back up this hypothesis. By the way, why once we had reached a consensus on your rewrite did you change the section again to promote this view? Cadr 20:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm glad you deleted that. I was going to delete it myself, since, while true, it's not really relevant. I don't know all the countries where "liberalism" is used colloquially to refer to "new liberalism" but I'm sure it's not all. In my political philosophy studies, liberalism has always refered to limited government and capitalism, basically. So this other usage is very odd to me. RJII 02:41, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Minarchist vs Anarcho-capitalist edit

I did a bit of editing and forgot to login prior to it (actually, I hadn't created a username yet, due to normally using a non-cookie-enabled browser on Wikipedia), sorry. 165.230.209.234 is me. There was a contradiction between this page and the one for Minarchism, for which this page was claiming all minarchists want no taxation and the Minarchism page stated (correctly) that some acknowledge taxation as necessary. I also noted that Classical Liberals tend to fall into the minarchist category (Adam Smith's acknowledgement of some governmental economic intervention being necessary, for instance, would mean that those in agreement with Adam Smith would be minarchists). Allens 05:52, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

opening sentence: EQUAL defense of individual rights

I think it is important to include, in the opening sentence defining libertarianism, the concept of equal defense and preservation of individual rights. The opening sentence currently states:

Libertarianism is a political philosophy whose highest value is defending and preserving the personal and economic liberty or freedoms of individuals.

I'm thinking of simply adding "equally" to the statement, something like:

Libertarianism is a political philosophy whose highest value is defending and preserving, equally, the personal and economic liberty or freedoms of individuals.

Or:

Libertarianism is a political philosophy whose highest value is defending and preserving the personal and economic liberty or freedoms of individuals equally.

The reason I think it's important to add this concept is because it seems to me that libertarianism is often misunderstood to be non-egalitarian. Of course, libertarianism does not stand for guaranteed equality of results (like communism tries to do), but it does stand for equal preservation of individual rights, and I think this should be emphasized in the opening sentence.

Because it's the opening sentence, even though I'm only suggesting adding one word, instead of being bold and just doing it, I'm asking for comments first. So... comments?

--Serge 01:21, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Right, what you're talking about is equivalent to Spencer's "law of equal liberty": "Every man has freedom to do all he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man." But, I would take out the defense part. Defense is another topic. The primary imperative is that people refrain from violating the liberty of other individuals, so that all individuals have equal liberty. Here's some info on equal liberty: [8] RJII 01:41, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Statue of liberty as "big government" project

The side box about the Statue of Liberty mentions that "Others" think it is ironic for Libertarians to use a "big government" project as a symbol.

Others comment on the irony of libertarians choosing "a big government statue" as the symbol of an anti-state movement.[9]

First, "Others" implies a multitude, but there is only a reference to one person stating that this is ironic. Furthermore, this person is obviously going out of his way to discredit libertarianism and provides no evidence that this was actually "big government" project. Finally, looking at the Statue of Liberty article, it seems that the American side of the project was funded voluntarily, and while the French side of the project included "public fees" (which I assume are taxes), it also had significant voluntary funding. There's no reason for Wikipedia to repeat every BS claim that anyone makes--it just clutters the content. I'm going to remove this comment from the Statue of Liberty caption, and think that if anyone wants to replace it, they should first go to the Statue of Liberty page and elaborate on how taxes were used to fund the Statue. AdamRetchless 20:32, 3 September 2005 (UTC)


Libertarianism and children (libertarian response)

Apart from the weasel wording, the response doesn't seem to make a lot of sense. If the argument for not giving children full freedom is (as appears to be implied) that they aren't fully rational, wouldn't this also argue against giving adults full freedom? (Where freedom = freedom as libertarians see it). Cadr 12:40, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

What the fuck?

" historically, the Left in Europe was a property rights, laissez-faire movement, until it turned against property rights and the free market, necessitating the invention of a new word -- "Libertarian" -- to mean this)."

What is up with that? Slizor 11:56, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

This seems strange to me too. I think it rests on two rather dubious assumptions. 1) Classical liberals were libertarians. 2) Classical liberals were left wing. (1) is false. (2) is more or less meaningless, since the left/right divide of today just doesn't apply to 18th century politics. Many who are regarded as classical liberals (e.g. Locke) were highly educated and privaledged individuals who had quite conservative and reactionary views on some topics. It seems rather odd to suggest that they were part of some kind of leftist movement. Cadr 12:48, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Also I found this interesting: "Libertarian perspectives on gay rights: Most libertarians feel that adults have a right to choose their own lifestyle or sexual preference, provided that such expression does not trample on the same freedom of other people to choose their own sexual preference or religious freedom. Yet, there has been some debate among libertarians as to how to respond to the issue of gay marriage and homosexuality in armed forces." I would like to see work sited for this. If none exsists I suggest that it be deleted.

Brief Notice

I haven't read this article in full yet. But under the Rights and the Law section, I found this:

Currently, however, many "rights" that must be provided by the actions of others ("positive rights") are now the status quo especially in politically thorny areas like racial discrimination and health care.

"Racial discrimination" appears to refer to affirmative action. One may see the two as the same, but it is disingenuous and out of place here (given the connotation of "racial discrimination") not to be forthright. It's a subtle insertion of POV.--Demflan

I agree, racial discrimination is very different than affirmative action. Unless there are objections, I'll change it shortly. -GregAsche (talk) 20:19, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and changed it. -GregAsche (talk) 02:59, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

A proposed change of focus in the intro

Right now, the intro seems to focus on the philosophical underpinnings of libertarian beliefs. Yet, as the article itself explains further down, these underpinnings are different for different libertarians. It would be much more helpful to the reader to describe libertarianism in terms of the actual things it supports: individual rights, private property and free market capitalism. This is particularly necessary since many of the philosophical justifications for libertarianism are not uniquely libertarian. The freedom to do anything you want as long as you don't infringe on the rights of others can be used to justify almost anything, depending on how you define "the rights of others". It is important to explain what the rights defended by libertarians actually are. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 19:25, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

It's says in the intro :"As libertarianism is an advocacy of negative liberty, it is asserted that no person (or government) may initiate coercion. Libertarians make "coercion" specific by defining it as the use of physical force, the threat of such, or deception (fraud) that alters, or is intended to alter, the way individuals' would use their property (including their body) if those elements were not present. Coercion is ethically permissible only when employed in defense against an initiation." I don't know how you could get anymore explicit or straightforward than that. The "rights of others" is the right for them to do what they want as long as they don't initiate coercion, as defined. Everybody has exactly the same rights. As far as private property, etc, it also says there in the intro: "Most support the existence of government but advocate reducing the size and scope of government to the essential functions of protecting individual liberty, private property, and a free market." Doesn't that cover it? RJII 19:53, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
See my edits (I accidentally edited as anonymous because I'm working from a public computer that automatically logs me out after a set period of time; sorry about that). -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 20:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
I believe my new intro has kept all the major points of the previous one (with the exception of "equal liberty", which is nonsensical; libertarianism aims for maximum liberty, and equal liberty could just as well mean that everyone is equally unfree). Please refrain from reverting out of hand. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 20:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Libertarianism is the liberty to do as one wishes as long as he doesn't use coercion to stop others from doing the same. In other words, Spencer's "law of equal liberty." That's the essence of libertarianism. Everything else, including advocting private property, is the attempted application of that principle. The intro was very adequate in laying out what's essential about libertarianism. Your changes, for lack of a better word, just screws it up. RJII 21:08, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
The problem is that "the liberty to do as one wishes as long as he doesn't use coercion to stop others from doing the same" is claimed as a foundation principle not only by libertarians, but also by most other branches of liberalism, as well as libertarian socialism and anarchism. Many would say that advocating private property does not follow from this principle. To say that "Libertarianism is a political philosophy that advocates individual rights, private property and free market capitalism", on the other hand, is uncontroversial - libertarians often define themselves in this way, and everyone (both adherents and critics of libertarianism) agrees with it. Besides, if one advocates individual rights, private property and free market capitalism - but without caring about Spencer's law - is not that person a libertarian? You seem to want a definition of libertarianism that is ambiguous, disputed, and, most of all, restrictive. It is completely unrepresentative of the thousands of libertarians out there who support individual rights, private property and free market capitalism for other reasons than Spencer's law. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 21:17, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
"If one advocates individual rights, private property and free market capitalism - but without caring about Spencer's law - is not that person a libertarian?" The answer to your question is no. He's a libertarian if he thinks a person's rights (or liberty) should be unlimited as long as that person doesn't initiate coercion on others. He's not a libertarian if he thinks people should have rights that are limited before the point where he initiates coercion on others. That's the essence of libertarianism. It's not a matter of merely having rights and private property (a lot of people believe in individual rights and private property), but to what extent you are allowed to do what you wish with yourself and your property. RJII 22:20, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Excellent point; I will add it to the intro immediately. I see now what you mean, and you are indeed correct that this is a vital aspect of libertarianism. Many ideologies support individual rights and private property to some extent, but wish to put more limits on them than libertarians would accept. A complete definition of libertarianism has to include the idea that "a person's rights (or liberty) should be unlimited as long as that person doesn't initiate coercion on others". On the other hand, the definition must also include the part about private property and free market capitalism, because, as I pointed out before, it is important to specify what rights and freedoms libertarians want to be unlimited. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 01:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
In brief, my point is as follows: One who supports individual rights, private property and free market capitalism - for whatever reason - is a libertarian. That is how the World's Smallest Political Quiz, for example, defines libertarians. Do you disagree? -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 21:25, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
That's not true. See above. You can support individual rights, private property, and free market capitalism and still not be a libertarian. It depends on the extent of those individual rights, the extent of the right to property. Also, note you can support "free market capitalism" while at the same time advocate minimal civil liberties. RJII 22:28, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Again, that is a very good point and I completely agree. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 01:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
Besides, I did mention the opposition to the initiation of force and the non-aggression principle in the first paragraph. Honestly, I have no idea what you are objecting to. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 21:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
Hopefully, now you see the problem. RJII 22:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
I do, and I think we can write a better intro working together than either of us could write separately. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 01:04, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Remember me? A request

Hey, it's Dave. I used to do a lot of work on this article and others before college sucked up my life a couple months ago. I have a request that some of you may be interested in. I'm writing a paper criticizing libertarianism, (due Wednesday morning) and I thought some of you might want to look it over, since it includes a lot of arguments from literature that's not currently covered by Wikipedia. I'd like to have feedback in the following two areas:

  1. arguments against libertarianism that I'm ignoring
  2. situations where I overgeneralize about all libertarians or ignore a good libertarian counterargument.

I'd like to be fair to both sides in this paper, and while I can't post it for online editing because it has to all be my own work, I'd appreciate any feedback you can offer. If you're interested, send me an email or reply here with your email address and I'll send it to you as an attachment. Even if you don't have a chance to read it before it's due on Wednesday, I'd like to hear what you think.

Thanks in advance, and I hope I have the time to contribute to Wikipedia again soon. I learned a lot from working with ya'all.

Dave (talk) 01:20, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps you could also post it online after it has been turned in on Wednesday? D-Rock 03:20, 25 November 2005 (UTC)
Sure. Are you interested in reading it before Wednesday? Dave (talk) 19:01, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Recent overwriting of the article with the Libertarian socialism article

Hi there,

As part of the long, repetitive and fundamentally boring anarchism POV wars, I occasionally check the status of this article. While I disagree with this article being at this position, the editorial votes have been taken and the status quo won by a long shot. Can I complement other editors on the reasonably good disambiguation at the top, and on their handling of the term's usage in contemporary US inspired politics? Well done. I think that there's US-centrism in a number of the assumptions*, but the quality is very encyclopedic. *(I'm thinking "...in most English speaking countries..." should be "some", and I'd point to the use of libertarian in Australian, NZ and British political English. 1950s-US-inspired libertarians are outnumbered and outpublished by 1890s-Labour-movement-and-following inspired libertarians. Perhaps the answer here is a page discussing regional uses of the word libertarian in English?)

In this context its a shame that idiots try and wreck what was a very slow and hard-fought movement to community consensus. The proper place to revisit those issues is of course on a talk page.Fifelfoo 01:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I wish everyone on "my side" was as magnanimous as you. Thanks for your comment. Dave (talk) 07:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Clarifying libertarianism in the disambiguation paragraph

Recently, User:Sansvoix modified the disambiguation paragraph at the top of the article to clarify that the libertarian described by this article is both an economic and a civil libertarian. The wording succinctly clarified the difference between libertarian and pure civil libertarians: both advocate civil liberties, but libertarians draw the line at doing so where economic liberties are compromised. Similarly, the wording also clarified the difference between libertarians and pure economic libertarians, where, again, both advocate economic liberties, but libertarians draw the line where civil liberties are compromised.

This article is about libertarianism, a liberal individualist philosophy favoring private property (the most common meaning of the term today in most English-speaking countries). For libertarianism as a political philosophy favouring socialism, see libertarian socialism. The article "Libertarianism (metaphysics)" deals with the concept of libertarian free will. An economic libertarian is one who advocates free markets regardless of his stance on civil liberties, and a civil libertarian is one who seeks to advance civil liberties, regardless of his or her stance on economic issues. This article covers a philosophy that encompasses both economic and civil libertarianism. For the related global political-economic policy, see neoliberalism.

User:Harry491 edited User:Sansvoix's changed, on the basis that:

"'economic libertarians' are discussed in the article already. The article does NOT cover civil libertarians; the ACLU opposes many things here, like discrimination."

I believe Harry missed the point. Libertarians are civil libertarians (though not probably not pure ACLU-card-carrying civil libertarians) as well as economic libertarians, they simply do not advocate one when it compromises the other.

The disambiguation paragraph at the top of the article currently is as follows, and I think it misses User:Sansvoix's important point to convey to first-time arrivers at this page:

This article is about a liberal individualist philosophy favoring private property. For the libertarianism political philosophy favouring socialism, see libertarian socialism. A civil libertarian promotes civil liberties, regardless of his or her stance on economic issues. The article "Libertarianism (metaphysics)" deals with a concept of free will. "Neoliberalism" describes the libertarian capitalist geopolitical agenda.

For example, libertarians generally oppose laws restricting civil liberties such as the right to use recreational drugs or to engage in certain types of consensual sexual behavior, while pure economic libertarians have no particular position on such non-economic issues. The libertarian position against slavery is also based on advocating civil liberties.

I agree with User:Sansvoix that "this article covers a philosophy that encompasses both economic and civil libertarianism".

--Serge 16:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

That wasn't Sansvoix, but me that put in the distinction between economic and civil libertarianism and "this article covers a philosophy that encompasses both economic and civil libertarianism," etc. I agree with you that it was better like that. I added that because I've seen the term "libertarian" being used in the context of discussing economics, when the person supposed to be a libertarian is not one in the full sense, but only economically. So, just like some people refer to themselves as libertarians but don't extend their libertarianism into the economic realm, some people who are only libertarians in economics (laissez-faire advocates) are referred to simply as libertarians at times. I think it makes sense to clarify to the reader, in the header, that the article is about the conjunction of economic and civil libertarianism in a single philosophy. RJII 16:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Sorry about that. I didn't realize it had been in through so many edits. I'll revert it back to Sansvoix's last edit, which included the language you originally added. Thanks for the clarification. --Serge 16:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Would this be acceptable? Note that I added that this article is about support for both civil liberties and private property.

This article is about a liberal individualist philosophy favoring both private property and civil liberties. For the libertarianism political philosophy favouring socialism, see libertarian socialism. A civil libertarian promotes civil liberties, regardless of his or her stance on economic issues. The article "Libertarianism (metaphysics)" deals with a concept of free will. "Neoliberalism" describes the libertarian capitalist geopolitical agenda.

The current version is about double that length. It links to the libertarian economic views article, which is unnecessary, it asserts without evidence that it's the most common term throughout the English-speaking world, and is extremely wordy. Can you name anyone that advocates Libertarian economic policy but not their civil rights policy? Wouldn't they be covered by neolliberalism, which is linked to in my version? Dave (talk) 18:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

"...I, perhaps like you, am an economic libertarian and a social conservative..." [10] RJII 20:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Duh... I don't know what I was thinking. You're right. I stand corrected. I believe that the disambig is still too long and can be improved. Here's the current version:
This article is about a liberal individualist philosophy favoring both private property and civil liberties. For the libertarianism political philosophy favoring socialism, see libertarian socialism. The article "Libertarianism (metaphysics)" deals with a concept of free will. An economic libertarian is one who advocates free markets regardless of his stance on civil liberties, and a civil libertarian promotes civil liberties, regardless of his or her stance on economic issues (though both are sometimes referred to simply as libertarians). This article covers the philosophy that conjoins both economic and civil libertarianism. For the related global political-economic policy, see neoliberalism.
I think that economic libertarianism could be moved from the disambig to the introduction: the Heritage Foundation's economic libertarianism isn't an alternative to "regular" libertarianism in the same way that the ACLU's civil libertarianism is to "regular" libertarianism. The Heritage Foundation might agree with Milton Friedman on every economic policy (and even some liberty issues like the drug war), whereas the ACLU would disagree with him on many civil liberties policies (such as discrimination in private accomodations). My version still makes clear that both property and civil liberties are included in this article, so I think that the extra couple of sentences are superfluous.
Still, the consensus seems to be against me on this one, and that's fine. I'm willing to stop arguing about it so we can move on tom more important things. I think that neoliberalism should not be mentioned here, though perhaps it should be mentioned at the top of economic libertarianism and somewhere on the libertarianism template; disambigs shouldn't cover so much. In my opinion, this is probably the best we can do:
This article is about a liberal individualist philosophy favoring both private property and civil liberties; economic libertarians and civil libertarians agree with the philosophy in their respective areas, but may disagree on other issues. For the libertarianism political philosophy favoring socialism, see libertarian socialism. The article "Libertarianism (metaphysics)" deals with a concept of free will.
This version is better than the one above because it's shorter and still covers all the same material. Let me know what you think. Dave (talk) 00:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

No response for about a day. I'm being bold now. 06:24, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

While it "covers the same material", it doesn't say nor hardly even imply that "this article covers the philosophy that conjoins both economic and civil libertarianism." I think it's key to be clear on this point for those encountering this article for the first time. --Serge 00:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

How about this:

This article describes the liberal individualist philosophy that conjoins both economic and civil liberties. Economic libertarians and civil libertarians generally hold libertarian views in their respective areas, but often are willing to compromise liberty in other areas. For the libertarian political philosophy favoring socialism, see libertarian socialism. The article "Libertarianism (metaphysics)" deals with a concept of free will.

--Serge 00:50, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

That wording does have advantages, but it creates a few problems of its own.
  1. "Private property" is much more specific that "economic liberties." Not everyone would call what libertarians defend "economic liberty," since they consider the employer-employee relationship to be coercive. If you need examples, I'll find you some.
  2. "compromising liberty" is a loaded phrase for similar reasons, and also implies that they are necessarily being inconsistent if they support one but not the other.
How about this:
This article is about a liberal individualist philosophy conjoining private property with civil liberties; economic libertarians and civil libertarians agree with the philosophy in their respective areas, but may disagree on other issues. For the libertarianism political philosophy favoring socialism, see libertarian socialism. The article "Libertarianism (metaphysics)" deals with a concept of free will.
Dave (talk) 01:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow, I should check these talk pages more often! I added (only) the neoliberalism link simply because outside North America, libertarianism and neoliberalism are often bunched into one ...makes a bit of sense if you think about it. Apperently in Swedish they are the same word. --sansvoix 09:57, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Small problem with wording

OK, perhaps I'm wrong here, but just wanted to get this out in the open. The author(s) of this article claim that liberals would support laws that would penalize employers for discriminating against potential employees based on anything other than ability to do the job, whereas conservatives would allow or even encourage such behavior. I think that's an extremely irresponsible statement. The way I have always understood it is in this way: liberals believe that, along with ability to do the job, additional factors must be taken into consideration when making a hiring decision - such as race, ethnic origin, gender, religion, creed, etc. Their motto is "Equality of results", in other words, the workforce should statistically reflect the society. Conservatives are the ones who believe a person should only be considered for a job based on their ability to do the job. So, if a white man gets hired for a position over a Hispanic woman or black man or Muslim person or whatever, conservatives would assume the white man had the best qualifications (I realize that statement will make many people bristle). For conservatives, the motto is "Equality of opportunity". The workforce might not statistically reflect society, but that doesn't mean there is overt discrimination taking place. I just think it's absurd to say that conservatives would allow or, especially, encourage discrimination in the workplace. I find that language very incendiary.

Re previous entry: I share your concern on this issue. The author of this section may have had in mind right-wing groups in some countries or extreme right views in America, but the idea of encouraging discrimination is outside the mainstream of contemporary American conservatism. The only instance I can think of where discrimination in employment is often encouraged by conservatives contra libertarians is the issue of illegal immigrants, but advocates of this do not lie only on one end of the political spectrum, and even on this issue conservatives are divided. Conservate views on discriminatory employment toward legal residents divide mainly along this line: paleocons take the libertarian view, and neocons take a moderate view - allowing government intervention in clear cases of employment discrimination but opposing most forms of affirmative action. Shuageo 1/12/06

Jefferson and NAP

To be clear, the following Jefferson quote does not express the non-agression principle, or any concept of negative liberty whatsoever:

unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others.

Let's say everyone is given the right to own a house, and each house is paid for by universal taxation. Everyone has their rights abridged to some extent by taxation (so their action is not entirely "unobstructed"), but since both the taxation and the right to a house are universal, this is an abridgment "within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others". Jefferson isn't (explicitly) arguing against positive liberties here. It's a straight misreading to see this quote as an articulation of any libertarian principle. Cadr 20:06, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. It's just another way of saying that a person has a right to do anything he wishes as long as he doesn't infringe on the same liberty of others. It's saying a person has a right to "unobstructed action according to [his] will" --meaning a right to do what he wants --as long as the sphere of action is contained within the limit of allowing everyone the same right to unobstructed action ..."the equal right of others." It's pure libertarianism. Here's a fuller quote: "Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limit drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law', because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual." RJII 22:29, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
But RJII, as I just explained, the concept of liberty Jefferson is describing is perfectly compatible with positive rights, which libertarians are against. Can you explain how Jefferson's definition excludes positive rights? Because I don't see that it does. Cadr 18:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I also disagree with Cadr, and agree with RJII. I will add that it's quite discouraging to see this lack of recognition of what appears to me to be blatant libertarianism expressed by Jefferson. I can't help but wonder whether we understand the statement differently, or we understand libertarianism differently, or both. --Serge 01:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Fine. Do you have any arguments to support your views? Cadr 18:08, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
And if you think Jefferson was a libertarian, check out what he wrote about property (some quotes here [11]). He certainly believed in strong property righs, but he was no doctrinare libertarian -- his views were far more tempered and sophisticated. In fact, they seem somewhat contradictorary. Sometimes, he expresses the right to porperty as a natural (even divine) right. At other times, he sees property as merely whatever a person has the ability to defend: "He who is permitted by law to have no property of his own can with difficulty conceive that property is founded in anything but force.", and "Nothing is ours, which another may deprive us of." Cadr 18:29, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

libertarian philosophy in the academy

This section is terribly written, unverifiable, and patchy. I believe I nuked it when it was initially added over the summer, but it seems to have made it back in. I don't know enough about the subject to improve it. What should we do? Dave (talk) 19:13, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Critcs

Sansvoix recently reverted my reinsertion of "Critics of libertarianism argue that the philosophy actually undermines individual liberty, or creates poverty and harms society and the economy". Now that I can see the reason for removing it, I agree. Without specific citations, this could be seen as random criticism. Alienus 22:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Very little of the intro is cited. This is normal, because intros are supposed to be summaries. Citations come later down in the article. And, if the sentence in question is removed, then there is hardly any mention left in the intro about the beliefs of critics of libertarianism. Certainly, something should be said about the views held by those critics (other than the fact that thy think libertarianism to be undesirable, which is self-evident). -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 08:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

classical liberalism

I changed the statement that libertarianism came from classical liberalism, and changed it to the effect that it IS classical liberalism. This is from the Encyclopedia Britannica article on libertarianism: "Libertarians are classical liberals who strongly emphasize the individual right to liberty." RJII 05:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

On the Talk page of the classical liberalism article you argued the opposite (that libertarianism is not classical liberalism). Make up your mind. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 08:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
You should listen to sources, not me. RJII 17:00, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Right-Leaning Libertarian Magazine

I am surprised to see Reason described as a right-leaning libertarian magazine. I always thought that Reason was considered a Left-Libertarian magazine or simply libertarian, but not right-leaning. Am I alone in thinking this? --Ian Lewis 17:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Anyone home?

I just joined the wiki community this month, and went a little wild on the edits on this page just because the "edit this page" button worked. In other words, I operated in complete ignorance of the lengthy debates that this page had previously attracted. I now realize that I may have ridden roughshod over dozens of sensitive toes, except that my changes seemed to have not drawn any reaction at all. To be sure, my intent was not to add or delete anything substantive, but to simply clarify the intro, which I felt was poorly organized. Still, I'm surprised that, given all the fuss over past, relatively minor changes that predated my arrival, not a peep has arisen since then. I'd like to think that my extensive re-writes were viewed as the sensible edits of a knowledgeable, experienced, objective man, but it seems more likely that the excitable denizens of yore have simply moved on. Anyway, I sincerely hope my additions were helpful.

Personally, I think several of the other sections could use additional editing, but I only have so much time...Mhodak 05:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

critcisms of libertarianism

This isn't an authoritativee source(its my blog), but may give you some ideas about what to add to the criticism of Libertarianism section:[12] Thanks!-Urthogie 10:34, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

accidentally removed external link

I noticed that all the footnotes were off by 2, and the first two didn't actually refer to a passage in the article, so I have moved them to the external links section. However, in the process, I was blocked from saving my edits by a spam filter, because of the previous inclusion of http://www.liberator.dk at the bottom of the section. I removed it, thinking it would be a simple matter to go throught the process of getting it removed from the spam filter later, but it's not such a simple process after all. So, if anyone's looking for it, my apologies, as it does appear to be a genuine site about Libertarianism, albeit in Danish. I'll try to get it off the spam list and back in place on the external links section. DavidJField 21:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I just tried again and got it saved. Not sure why, since I couldn't find anything that matched it on the spam list in the first place, and I hadn't yet submitted a request for it to be allowed. DavidJField 22:13 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Conservatives not supportive of discrimination

The following seems biased to me: "...liberals would typically support laws to penalize employers for discrimination on a basis unrelated to the ability to do the job, conservatives would typically allow or even encourage such discrimination, but libertarians could be expected to oppose any laws on this matter..." I don't know any voting conservatives who would discriminate against a potential on a basis unrelated to ability to do the job. I do know one non-voting (convicted felon) liberal Democrat who would never hire a black person, and only because of the color of his skin. I agree with Alienus that the line should not be merely deleted, because the intent is to show the distinction between the three viewpoints. But it should be re-worded to present a typical conservative viewpoint, and this is not it. DavidJField 21:54 24 January 2006 (UTC)


I found this article that I think explains the conservative point of view on employment discrimination pretty well: [13] This has helped me figure out how to rephrase the above paragraph without changing its meaning. I think it should say, "Here, liberals would typically support laws to penalize employers for discrimination on any basis unrelated to the ability to do the job, and conservatives would typically oppose racial or religious discrimination but would typically support laws that allow or even encourage other types of discrimination, for example, on the basis of sexual orientation. Libertarians, on the other hand, could be expected to oppose any laws on this matter..." --DavidJField 21:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I've edited the above suggestion to make it fit into the article better. I really think this is more representative of the current typical conservative view. It's more wordy than the original article, but I tried to make it as simple as possible. The conservative position is more complicated than the liberal one, and it's not fair to conservatives to simplify it as much as the original article did. I think saying that conservatives (at least today's variety) would encourage all forms of discrimination violates NPOV. Since this article doesn't seem to be as popular as it once was, I'll go ahead and make the edit I've suggested, since that's more likely to arouse comment than my message here.--DavidJField 21:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

David - The original statement about conservatives encouraging discrimination was, I agree, too much. Certainly, the era of conservatives encouraging discrimination based on race or gender is long gone, but I know many conservatives (and a number of libertarians, for that matter) who would allow it. I think the basic problem is with the distinction between what is allowed and what is encouraged. An example might be useful--maybe about gays in the boy scouts, or women in military academies. Also, each faction's characteristic view may be clarified along the very different lines of legislating discrimination vs. legislating anti-discrimination (further distinguishing between governmental and private organizations). I'll leave the edits to you or others, if you agree.Mhodak 23:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)