Talk:Libertarianism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Libertarianism article.
Article policies
Former featured article Libertarianism is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 25, 2005.
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.
Libertarianism is included in the 2007 Wikipedia for Schools, or is a candidate for inclusion in future versions. Please maintain high quality standards, and make an extra effort to include free images, because non-free images cannot be used on the CDs.
Peer review This Socsci article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated A-Class on the assessment scale (comments).
Archive
Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2
Archive 3 Archive 4
Archive 5 Archive 6
Archive 7 Archive 8
Archive 9
Archive 10
Talk:Libertarian, discussion for a page which has been merged with this article.
Talk:Libertarianism/Alfrem, discussion prior to the ArbCom decision banning User:Alfrem from this article.
Talk:Libertarianism/Page move, a July 2005 vote on a proposal to make libertarianism a disambiguation page and move this to Libertarianism (capitalist).

Contents

[edit] The many shortcomings and problems with this article

To continue with the points made in "The disambiguation page is better than this article", I absolutely agree that this article has fundamental problems, most notably, it takes as basic a definition of "libertarian" that is historically and geographically limited. Basically, the term "libertarian" was a term that started out on the radical left, specifically anarchism, a point that is touched on in this article, but barely mentioned beyond that. Until the late 1970s, "libertarian" pretty much meant the anarchist and near-anarchist currents of the political left; I believe the "libertarian" is still largely used this way in Europe. To my understanding, "libertarian" in this sense is a broad term like "socialism" – it includes everything from revolutionary anarchists to more moderate anti-authoritarian leftists. (Hence, the term was analogous to "socialism", which includes everything from revolutionary communists to social democrats.) Use of the term "libertarian" to describe a radically pro-capitalist position only began in 1955 with Dean Russell's publication of "Who Is A Libertarian?" in The Freeman and didn't become widespread until over a decade after this. Hence, the term "libertarian" has a clear history of use on the political left (long predating its use by free marketers, in fact), and does not represent some kind of new or recent synthesis of libertarianism with socialism.

Second, this article is completely inadequate in its historical coverage. It not only misses the boat on the long history of left libertarianism (eg, the Libertarian League, the Libertarian Book Club, not to mention the numerous non-US uses of the term "libertarian"), it doesn't even cover the historic evolution of right libertarianism very well. Right libertarianism's roots in American individualist anarchism (particularly Benjamin Tucker) and Austrian School economics, and Murray Rothbard's synthesis of these ideas is not covered at all. Nor the Objectivist movement and its relationship with right libertarianism. Nor even the immediate precursors of the US Libertarian Party, such as the Society for Individual Liberty, the Libertarian Caucuses of both Young Americans for Freedom and Students for a Democratic Society, etc. Nor practically anything on right libertarian thought outside of the United States.

It amazes me that this was ever a featured article. Peter G Werner (talk) 07:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It was a featured article when it was a different article. In other words this article does not have the same content it did when it was a featured article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whichmore (talk • contribs) 05:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I've also noticed that this article is unabashedly biased toward right-libertarianism, when in fact the term "libertarianism" was used by left-anarchists like Peter Kropotkin long before it was commandeered by small-government capitalists in the United States. (In fact, the first documented usage of the term was by anarcho-communist Joseph Déjacque in the 19th century.) The article reflects an enormous U.S. bias and needs a dramatic face lift. Anyone up to the task? I would love to help myself, but I sadly have no time for Wikipedia any longer. I'd be glad to give my input as best I can, though. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 04:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Well this is the English language Wikipedia. Dejacque did not use the word "libertarian". I believe also that the English language word "libertarian" was used by the early private property anarchists in the U.S. before it was used by anarchocommunists. Whichmore —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whichmore (talk • contribs)
Just because this is the English language Wikipedia does not mean that it should reflect a U.S. bias. In fact, it shouldn't even reflect an English language bias. To say otherwise is clearly in violation of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. At any rate, Déjacque did use the French word for libertarian, "libertaire," which is whence the English word arose, and in other English-speaking countries, such as England and Austrialia, the term is used in both ways. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 05:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I concur with Cielmobile. The idea that just because the term first arose in the French language, therefore the English word "libertarian" should be treated as having a separate history is an utterly desperate argument to say the least. The words "libertaire" and "libertarian" have always been understood to be equivalents, and the word "libertarian" in a political sense entered the English language in this way. And do you have any kind of reference whatsoever that "private property anarchists" (to whom are you referring, even? Benjamin Tucker?) were the first to use the term "libertarian" in the English language or that they used the term in such a way to distinguish themselves from left anarchists? You're really reaching here, Whichmore. Peter G Werner (talk) 06:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and I'll also note that the earliest use of the word "libertarian" in the English language wasn't even to describe a political philosophy, but rather a religious one, namely the idea of moral free will, back in the late 18th century. This is something else that should at least be mentioned in the article, though I don't think "libertarian" is still used in modern theology to describe this position. I could be wrong about this last point, though. Peter G Werner (talk) 06:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to do some more work on this article, Cielmobile, however, I'd like to get some kind of consensus going first, because I'd rather not contribute a bunch of work only to have it reverted. Also, in my opinion, this should be an article about libertarianism in the most general sense, with sections summarizing the different libertarian philosophies, with links to the longer articles on each. Free market libertarianism should have its own article, though its hard to say what the title should be, since "libertarian" in this sense is almost always used without modifiers. Perhaps "Libertarianism (free market)"? Peter G Werner (talk) 06:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
You can rest assured that anything you write into the article will be reverted or deleted eventually. This is Wikipedia. -Whichmore
Yes, we should try to get some consensus first. I agree that this should be an article about libertarianism in the most general sense, an introduction to the different forms of libertarianism. Perhaps the article on capitalist libertarianism should just be called "right-libertarianism." I object to the use of "free market" as a synonym for "capitalist," seeing as there are many left-libertarians (libertarian socialists) who oppose capitalism but embrace free markets. (This is true of mutualists such as Proudhon and Kevin Carson, for example.)
I'd also say to Whichmore that Benjamin Tucker and other individualist anarchists support an entirely different concept of private property than right-libertarians like Rothbard. The former group support property rights based on use, whereas the latter support capitalist notions of property rights. It is dishonest to say that Tucker and other individualists support the capitalist conception of property. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 17:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
You're calling me a liar? Wow. And you expect others to work with you for a consensus? Whichmore (talk) 21:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I am not calling you anything; I am simply stating that Tucker and other individualist anarchists do not agree with the capitalist conception of property rights. They believe in property rights based on use; just look at the Wikipedia article on Tucker. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 22:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
It's one thing to say someone is wrong but quite another to say that they're "dishonest." I think some of the early American anarchists supported private property in the normal sense. Read the individualist anarchism article. It appears that Warren, Andrews, Spooner, and Byington did not advocate property rights based on use. It depends on the anarchist. If you read the Tucker article that only applied to land and even then he changed his views over time. Whichmore (talk) 23:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, Tucker's views on economics were multifaceted – he referred to himself, variously, as a "socialist" and as a "consistent Manchesterian". Though he was probably the most capitalist-leaning of the 19th Century American individualist anarchists, his overall views on economics was something closer to mutualism than to contemporary Rothbardian laissez-faire capitalism. Overall, the 19th Century American individualists were mutualists in their economic views, and had economic ideas very close to Proudhon, though, if I'm not mistaken, they came up with those ideas entirely independent of Proudhon.
In any event, this is kind of drifting from the subject at hand – namely, your contention, Whicmore, that the term "libertarian" was developed by proto-anarcho-capitalists and so the contemporary US "libertarian" movement therefore has some special claim on the term. So far, you've come up with no even potentially citable facts to back up your claim, but merely assertions of your own opinion. Wikipedia isn't about your opinion or my opinion, its about facts from citable sources. Peter G Werner (talk) 02:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't an assertion at all. I quote myself: "I believe also that the English language word "libertarian" was used by the early private property anarchists in the U.S. before it was used by anarchocommunists." That's not an assertion. It wasn't said with certainty obviously by the fact that I premised it with "I believe." I recall reading this in a book. I don't have the time or inclination to go researching it, so I provided that comment so that anyone who does take Wikipedia seriously can go out and research it. Whichmore (talk) 05:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I have researched it, and I have not encountered any source which seriously claims that the word was first used in a political sense by anyone other than Déjacque. But thank you for suggestion. If you do believe that you are right and wish to find a source, that would always be nice. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 06:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
An anonymous IP has been reverting my edits to Template:Libertarianism to add Libertarian socialism to the template, so I'm just leaving a note here. If we should change the scope of this article, then it follows that we should change the scope of the template as well. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 03:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This article is ridiculously biased towards "capitalist", "free market" or "American" libertarianism. This use of the term "libertarianism" is more or less exclusive to the US. In the rest of the world libertarianism is more or less a synonym for anarchism, or "libertarian socialism". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.251.240.174 (talk) 23:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The disambiguation statement

Copied from User talk:Skomorokh:

[edit] Libertarianism V Utilitarianism

At the formation of the US constitution, there was a fundamental distinction between republicanism and democracy. In modern times, republicanism means little more than representative government.

In order to return to the principles of protection from government emphasized by the founders of the US constitution, a distinction must be made between libertarianism and utilitarianism. The requirement could be met with the terms liberal democracy and utilitarian democracy, with the contingency that the distinction between libertarianism and utilitarianism be based on the principle of policy method.

Currently the terms libertarianism and utilitarianism allude to liberation of the individual, and, eventhough they are under the title of libertarianism they are more greatly associated with utilitarianism, which is entirely deceptive and corrupting. Libertarianism should be separated entirely from utilitarianism based on policy methods.

Libertarianism should emphasize policy methods whereby individualism prevails over collectivism. Utilitarianism should emphasize policy methods whereby collectivism prevails over individualism.

Libertarianism is based on deontology (ethics of action), on policy methods that are negative rights, first generation rights.

Utilitarianism is based on consequentialism (ethics of outcomes), on policy methods that are either negative or positive rights, either first, second, or third generation rights.

Policy methods that employ positive rights, via social contracts, whereby the majority coerces the individual in order to attempt to "optimize" liberty, should be categorized as utilitarianism, collectivism, government conservativism, or utilitarian democracy.

Utilitarianism is characteristic of the the classic aphorism, "Good intentions pave the way to hell." GeMiJa (talk) 02:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC) GeMiJa (talk) 14:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but utilitarians can be libertarians too. Libertarianism just means belief in individuals liberty. A libertarian utilitarian believe that good consequences are maximized to the extent that individual liberty is maximized among all individuals in a society. Operation Spooner (talk) 16:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Graffiti

There's also this issue of the graffiti "You can love your country without loving your government" (or something like that) which I think does not exclusively represent a libertarian view. That graffiti could as well have been sprayed by a green or socialist who loves his country, but does not like the Bush administration. I removed it, thinking that my argument is quite strong. If you don't agree, I'd like to hear your opinion. Rocator (talk) 03:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Explanation of My Edit On Libertarianism

Although I agree that the disambig cannot be too long, merely labeling it propertarian hardly suffices, since the question for libertarians is not simply whether or not property can be held, but rather how can property be justly acquired.

I have edited it again, but made it shorter than I had made it the first time (albeit longer than your edit). It now reads, "the political philosophy holding that property can be justly acquired by individuals or voluntaryist collectives through homesteading or free trade."

I still feel this is a bit long, but I removed the mention of "little- or no-government."

I fear it's not enough to simply point out that libertarians believe in property, for what is property? Simply taking your watch doesn't make it my property, at least according to libertarianism. It could, however, imply such under other propertarian philosophies, and especially under nihilism, which does have advocate the existence of ethics.

If you can think of a way of cutting this down and making it shorter without removing the core that property must be justly acquired according to libertarianism, and not merely held, be my guest. I don't mean to set this down in stone. :)

Yours truly,
Alex Peak

Yo Alex, thanks for your diligence. I can appreciate most of what you say, but I think it's not exactly on-point. Clearly, the lede sentence of the article should say exactly what it is (i.e. propertarian political philosophy" would be appalingly inadequate); the point of the disambiguation statement is solely to make it clear to confused readers who might be looking for one of the other meanings. For example, if there were two articles roughly associated with the term "libertarian", where one of them was libertarianism", and the other one was a duck, a perfectly good disambiguation statement would be "This page is about the philosophy. For the duck, see Libertarian (duck)".
In this case, libertarianism (disambiguation) lists three articles other than libertarianism: Libertarian socialism, Civil libertarianism and Libertarianism (metaphysics). So all our disambiguation statement has to do is make it clear the libertarianism article is not about the socialist philosophy, the free speech/aclu advocacy or the stance on free will. Saying "political" gets rid of the latter, but how do we concisely differentiate libertarianism from civil and socialist libertarianism? I think a reference to private property will do exactly that. So would you be happy with
This page is about the political philosophy based on private property. For other uses of the term, see Libertarianism (disambiguation).
? Skomorokh confer 20:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Your argument is convincing. Thanks. Allixpeeke (talk) 20:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Cool, thank you for your open-minded attitude. Skomorokh confer 20:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Another editor has now lengthened the disambiguation statement in a blatantly improper manner: See policy. Skomorokh confer 13:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Libertarian is anarchism throughout the world except in US

This article is manipulating the origin of the term libertarian:

The first known use of a term that has been translated as "libertarian" in a political sense was by anarcho-communist Joseph Déjacque[19], who used the French term libertaire in a letter to Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in 1857.[20] The word stems from the French word libertaire (synonymous to "for liberty"), and was used in order to evade the French ban on liberty publications.[21] Many republicans and democrats still use the term (e.g., terms translatable as "libertarian" are used as a synonym for liberty in many non-English languages, like French, Italian and so on)

Historically, and it's true throughout the world except in US, "libertarian" is synonymous with "anarchist". This is a regional phenomenon, not the English language, since for the use that he gives in this article is already the term "liberal". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.32.213.96 (talk) 14:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Have a source for the claim that "libertarian" is synonymous with "anarchist" everywhere in the world but the U.S? I see people claim that all that time but haven't seen a source for it. Twiceline (talk) 07:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
It's merely a myth, albeit one spread rather well by some of our anarchist friends. See our List of libertarian political parties. Australia, Canada, Costa Rica, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Russia, Sweden, and (as of very recently) the U.K. all have political parties that call themselves "libertarian" (or the local translation) ... in the so-called "U.S.-only" sense of the term. --FOo (talk) 11:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
FOo, you'll never find an anarchist political party, seeing as anarchists reject the state political process in the first place, so of course all "Libertarian" political parties are libertarian in the U.S. sense of the word! I'm reverting the edits that have taken out the dispute of the word.
Honestly, I don't see why U.S. libertarians are so eager to squelch the opinions of libertarian socialists. Whatever happened to free speech? Whatever happened to NPOV? Why is it that every time I stop editing Wikipedia for a split second, some IP removed the part about the anarchist claim to the word? -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 19:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I just editing the lead and gave a source for the claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cielomobile (talk • contribs) 19:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The anarchists are at it again?

I seem to remember a year or two ago going through this very edit war where a bunch of people invade claiming to know the "true" meaning of libertarian, and I thought it was resolved by moderators etc, that the overwhelming modern use of the word is reflected in the article as a free-market and capitalistic political philosophy. If we want to go around and tell the rest of wikipedia to keep talking about old usages of terms we'd have to re-write the articles on Liberalism, Conservativism, etc. The reason modern libertarians use the word is because the word liberal was stolen from them. Language evolves, and we at Wikipedia must keep up with it. —Memotype::T 06:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

However, I wouldn't object to a section which talks about the history of the term. That being said, I believe the people who started using the term in its current definition came up with it independently as a natural conjugation of liberty. —Memotype::T 06:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
The term "libertarian" has a very long history among anarchists and left libertarians, and many still use the term. This usage is especially prevalent outside the US. This is in fact the case in spite of your utterly snotty assertion to the contrary. Peter G Werner (talk) 10:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
In Europe, most libertarians are collectivists. In the U.S. most libertarians are individualists. Operation Spooner (talk) 23:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Too simplistic – there are actually a lot of people who are economic co-operativists (or more disparagingly, "collectivists") and personal individualists. Strongly so, in fact. Peter G Werner (talk) 01:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Being a "co-operativist" doesn't make one a collectivist. A collectivist believes in communal ownership of resoures and means of production. An individualist believes in allowing ownership of these things by individuals. Libertarian individualists are co-operativists if their cooperation allows each other to own private property. Another way to say what I said above is that in Europe most libertarians are libertarian socialists, but most American libertarians are libertarian individualists. Operation Spooner (talk) 03:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Everywhere apart from the US this article is completely wrong, and looking into the history of the term in 1960s this page is also completely wrong, the easiest solution is to move this page to libertarianism(us) and put a disambig page here.From a historical context the term was used originaly in france by anarchists to avoid negative conetations of the word anarchy, in the non-us world it still means this, with it mainly being used to discribe libertarian socialism (anarchy). 77.99.171.94 (talk) 23:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
It's used as a synonym for the word "anarchism" outside the U.S. or in continental Europe, not only libertarian socialism. Operation Spooner (talk) 00:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Can we please stop changing this article to reflect an American bias?

This is beginning to get ridiculous. Most editors on this talk page seem to have expressed opposition toward making this article solely about the U.S. brand of libertarianism, so why do editors keep reverting it to the Amerocentric version? Wikipedia is not "The American Encyclopedia"; it's "The Free Encyclopedia." I cannot fathom how such editors fail to see how greatly their edits reflect an American bias. What they're doing would be tantamount to changing the liberalism article to match the modern liberalism in the United States article. Those editors might want to read the neutral point of view policy a few times over. If this continues, I am going to make a request for comment and get this thing resolved. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 18:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression that this article is supposed to be about private property libertarianism, right libertarian or libertarian individualism, not libertarian socialism. And I don't think it's American bias. This is just what nearly everyone is referring to when they talk of libertarianism in the English language, whether the U.S., the U.K., or Australia. This IS the English language Wikipedia, afterall. Operation Spooner (talk) 19:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
If the article is about private property libertarianism, then call it that. Don't call it Libertarianism which it isn't. And no, that isn't what nearly everyone is referring to. They are referring to Anarchism. q (talk) 21:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Outside of English-speaking countries, "libertarian" is a synonym for anarchism. There is already an anarchism article. You don't want to make this article about anarchism if that article already exists do you? Operation Spooner (talk) 20:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Spooner, there is an article about "right-libertarianism." It's here. Just as the article on "liberalism" reflects both the American usage and European usage of the word, so should this article reflect both the American and European usage of libertarianism. That there's already an article on classical liberalism is no reason to make the general liberalism article focus solely on modern liberalism in the United States. Additionally, as far as I know libertarian is used in both ways in English-speaking countries other than the U.S. Obviously, Libertarian political parties are all going to be "libertarian" in the U.S. sense of the word, because anarchists don't have political parties, but as far as the word is used in general, it seems to be used both ways. Murray Bookchin even asserts that outside of the U.S., it is used almost exclusively to refer to libertarian socialists.
Can you stop the edit war, please, and just agree to compromise? What I'm proposing is a compromise in itself, Spooner. I'm not asking that this article focus primarily on libertarian socialism; I'm just asking that it be a general article about all variations, like the liberalism article. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 04:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
I couldn't care less whether this ariticle is about libertarian individualism, or all libertarianism. But, the header at the top of the article indicates that it's about the individualist version, which is what I assume is meany by the "Unites States" version. So that's been my guide. As long as that's there then the article should correspond to it. If you want to change the article to being about "all variations" it doesn't bother me. Just be sure to change the header. Others will probably change it back. The way I edit the ariticle will be determined by what is indiicated by the header at any given time. Again, I have no preference one way or the other. I would think though that when the great majority of people are looking for information on libertarianism, it's information on the individualist version that they're seeking, rather than socialist or left versions. Operation Spooner (talk) 04:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Your edit that libertarians, by which you've explained that you're referring to left libertarians as well, oppose compulsory collectivism is wrong. Left libertarians often make this mandatory. They are firm that the means of production ought not to be privately owned, and many of them do not wish to allow private ownership. So that's compulsory collectivism, not voluntary. Operation Spooner (talk) 05:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
Any socialist that supports compulsory collectivization is more authoritarian than libertarian. Don't confuse opposition to private ownership of the means of production with support of forced collectivization. But this is not the appropriate forum to argue about this; this is a talk page for an encyclopedia article. I'm sure that you could head over to Infoshop.org to discuss collectivization, if you wish to do so. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 16:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
If you don't allow a person to own property, then you're not a libertarian but an authoritarian. Operation Spooner (talk) 19:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Um,,, no. A society where there is no space for the private ownership of certain categories of things (be those things people, animals, land, large production facilities, mineral resources, air, or airspace) is not authoritarian by virtue of this. In fact, a society can be said to be authoritarian because of the presence of certain kinds of ownership. Both an American style right-libertarian and a libertarian communist would agree that the ownership of people is an authoritarian institution. A Georgian (also called a geolibertarian) and a libertarian communist would agree that the institution of land ownership is authoritarian. As for the American bias, it should easily be cleared up with a single sentence in the introduction or a disambiguation page. If the article is going to actually be about the American understanding of the term, then we ought to at least acknowledge it.24.47.151.201 (talk) 01:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Can We Please Present Reliable Sources for Chnages You Want to Make?? Just asserting over and over something is true does not make it true - or more importantly usable on wikipeidia. (Anf that goes for other unsourced assertions in the article.) Carol Moore 13:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

[edit] Proposal to rename page "Libertarianism in the United States"

In light of this article's focus on the American concept of libertarianism, which has become a point of contention for several editiors who object to the exclusion of the European definition and that of other cultures, it would seem prudent to rename the article Libertarianism in the United States (it is already redirected from that title, anyway). Another article could be started under the current title which would be an overview of the various worldwide definitions and concepts of libertarianism, ranging from Anarcho-capitalism to Libertarian socialism.

This would be consistent with WP's coverage of other political philosophies which have "overview" articles under the title of an umbrella term (i.e. Conservatism and Liberalism) but also separate articles that distinguish the American concept of the term, such as Conservatism in the United States and Modern liberalism in the United States.

Discussion, anyone?--JayJasper (talk) 17:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The U.S. isn't the only location where "libertarianism" refers to this. Europeans refer to this philosophy as libertaranism too, in their respective languages. For instance, this Italian journal refers to it as "libertarismo" and includes articles by Italian libertarians: [1] Operation Spooner (talk) 18:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Libertarianism didn't always mean this in the United States either. So if you intend on making this Libertarianism in the United States, it should first start with the U.S. Libertarianism roots that mirror Anarchism, and then explain that Far Right Statists took the work in the 50's. There's actually specific evidence on this topic, and why they took the word (to mock the Libertarian movement that was crushed.) q (talk) 21:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Libertarianism in the United States

Having the first section in this article be about American "libertarianism" is like having the first section in the Christianity article be about Mormonism. --Jammoe (talk) 18:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed ad nauseam per the above. Evidently people have not presented Present Reliable Sources WP:RSfor Changes they want to make. Carol Moore 20:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC){[User:Carolmooredc|Carolmooredc]] {talk}

[edit] This is an article on Anarcho Capitalism, not Libertarianism

What actions does it take to get this fixed? This is a mockery of information, and all those that continue to give false information like this abuse the concept of wikipedia. What can we do to make this article about Libertarianism, and not Anarcho Capitalism? q (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can certainly tell you that the wrong way to go about it by making wholesale changes to the article unilaterally. That was definitely a poor choice on your part. As was the highly POV nature of your changes. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 21:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I am making changes to correct the article that many, many users have complained about. I am making many changes, and you are wholesale deleting all of them without consideration for the individual changes. It is you who are vandalizing me, and I've put a message on your talk page as well. If you have a problem with a particular change, please discuss it here with me. q (talk) 22:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
It is you who is vandalizing, sir. You do not have consensus for these changes, and my reversions have been appropriate. You have never made a single comment on this talk page prior to today, so do not act as if you have been discussing this issue for a long time and waiting patiently for changes to be made. You have made a unilateral decision to change the article to your liking, and that approach, as I said above, is inappropriate. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 22:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
What of my changes do you find inappropriate? Do you feel that I am making the issue less clear by following most every other article and talking about the topic that everyone has an issue with? I am framing the issue as multiple movements and how they are different. Quote me your problem with my edits. Thanks. q (talk) 22:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
I would like to mention that all data that I am removing is only because of where it is at in the article, and that it makes no sense to include the information anywhere in that section. I will look to readd the information I am removing into a section. I have no problem with the information but it makes a presupposition at the stage of the article I removing it. Please help to readd it to a proper section. q (talk) 22:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] A good start

I have started to rework this article. The article was entirely POV when I started. From start to finish, and that follows basic Right wing Libertarianism which believes that no one can have the word Libertarianism but themselves, even though they aren't even the first. So from there, I have started to build a real article on Libertarianism. One that doesn't push Right or Left Libertarianism, but begins to explain it.

Certainly some people will want to remove all of my changes. I urge you to keep them, and rewrite my sections to be improved. These sections are vital towards a basic understanding of what Libertarianism means, and regardless of your political views, if you believe in the idea that one group should not control history then you should assist in improving this article to not be POV.

Thank you for your assistance, and I hope you help. q (talk) 23:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

See my note on reverting all the changes. You present hardly any WP:RS for major changes throughout the document. Note that "libertarianism" is a word not a name. Please outline the changes you want to make here with your WP:RS. Also, consider copying the whole article to a wordpad file and editing it there first. But not till you have decent references. NotCaptain Janeway Carol Moore 23:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
Please indicate what references you'd like additionally. I'll start with the first section,
"The name Libertarianism has been adopted by two very different political movements. Property rights advocates have popularized the association of the term with their ideology, first using the term in May 1955 [1]. Before that, and in most of the rest of the world today, the term has been associated almost exclusively with leftists groups advocating egalitarian property rights or even the abolition of private property, such as anarchist socialists who began using the term nearly a century earlier, in 1858 [2]."
What else would you like referenced? What issues do you have with this section? Do you agree this is better than the factually incorrect version before it? Thanks q (talk) 23:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, both references I gave were the source material of the work, and are referenced in other articles on wikipedia as well. If the source material where the actual first usage occurred isn't good enough for this article, and is good enough for other articles, please explain exactly what you feel will increase the reference quality. Thanks. q (talk) 23:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
Carol, you revert all of my changes back to what it was. I then revert back, and add the information back to the article in a different section. The old article, you reverted back to. Then you reverted that and called it unsourced.
To repeat. You were removing the original article information. if you want to remove it because it's unsourced, use that as your justification, but that was the original article information I started with. Basically, you're reverting yourself at this point, and aren't following the changes enough to realize it. q (talk) 00:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
You are vandalizing the article with dozens of poorly sourced POV changes to make it difficult for people to keep up with them. I'm just going to complain to the proper authorities. Carol Moore 00:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
You haven't even followed what I've done. You stated
"the first paragraph had only one WP:OR reference and few others for these changes; please discuss WP:RS changes you want to make first on talk and explain"
The first paragraph has 2 WP:OR references, and every other change I've made has had a reference aside from deletions or moves. You have not followed each edit I've made, and are making assumptions based on your unwillingness to follow what I've done.
I know I didn't make that easy. I didn't expect to sit here and do this much work on the article. But I have, and if you actually compare the content from now, to when I started, you will see roughly 3-4 removals and 3-4 adds. Not really a huge change. Mostly moving things around, and writing an intro that replaces the factually incorrect previous intro. q (talk) 00:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Here is the relevant link, please notice while reading it the moves of data. Some data deleted was moved to other sections, or reincorporated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libertarianism&diff=214312317&oldid=214274802
I was about to move another section. Since you're the second person reverting me, I will wait until the proper authorities arrive. q (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
GOOD IDEA. You have to prove your new edits to long existing material that is the consensus of many editors is worthy or your stuff will be reverted by all the other editors who haven't gotten around to looking at it yet. If people say your material is not WP:RS you go and find a few better sources for that lead, not ask others to. All those changes look like mental confusion, at best. Frankly, you haven't convinced anyone you have a case. Throw in 7-8 good WP:RS quotes/info with sources and you'll be taken more seriously. Carol Moore 00:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
I have added the original source to the works I've done. The unsourced add you looked at was me adding the OLD article back into the edits I made. That was unsourced. If you want additional sources for the work I've added, that's fine but the stuff I added is sourced in the same exact way on other wikipedia articles, and has significantly more sources than the work that exists already. I haven't convinced anyone I have a case? Two people have looked at it, one which has left and I'd like to hear more from, and you who continues to state I'm not sourcing when I've linked the original source. The original source, which I can show you is linked on other wikipedia articles in the same way. I'm not asking you to do the work, I'm asking you to tell me specifically where your issue is so that I can improve it. Quote me a section I added that you'd like additional sources from. That's all I ask, because I am sourcing the same way as other articles. If you'd like, i can show you other pages which source the same material, specifically, "Libertarian Socialism" wikipedia page. Thanks. q (talk) 00:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Just because something is not challenged at one article doesn't mean it won't be challenged elsewhere. (Also it could be challenged in the future.) You obviously have not read WP:Original research and I advise you do so. Have You Read this Whole TaLk Page and any archives?? This Topic of adding anti-capitalist libertarianism has been discussed ad nauseum. I don't have a problem with a reference in the body to that type of libertarianism, but you are challenging a long time consensus. Other editors surely will be popping up about this. Meanwhile I'm doing a little rewriting myself. Considering the LP is having its convention this weekend, it's a good time to keep the article accurate according to consensus and not vandalized by pov pushing. Carol Moore 00:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
Looking at this article more carefully it is a MESS which is one reason I stayed away from it. Far too long, disorganized, redundant, with lots of unverified claims which should have been deleted a long time ago. Some of your changes -- which not already redundant - can be integrated. If you come up with some sources. But your scattershot method of editing makes it difficult to figure out what your edits are. I re-edit in a separate document and copy over section at a time. Carol Moore 01:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
You're correct that it's mostly unsourced information, but I was initially dealing with the fact the information is factually wrong, and is out of the world on history. I have never seen a more factually incorrect article on wikipedia in any topic. You may call that NPOV, but I see an entire article that is NPOV because it ignores all of the history of the word, and focuses on 1950-2008 while ignoring 1858-2008. It doesn't get any more NPOV than to deny anyone else the use of a word that they've used for a longer history. q (talk) 17:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Creating an article that is not 75% unsourced personal opinions

This article is 75% unsourced personal opinion AKA WP:original research and much of it should be deleted as such unless it is properly sourced. That includes the long unsourced first paragraph. Which is why I put this on top:

 This article needs additional citations for verification.
Please help improve this article by adding reliable references. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.

Remember according to wikipedia rules which we all agree to by signing on as editors, all unreferenced material -- as well as redundant, POV, WP:UNDUE and other inappropriate, unencyclopedic material -- can be deleted. I know there have been a lot of tags to that effect throughout the life of this article. I have put some time into restructuring the article per the below and have a DRAFT of a new article [at my personal sandbox]. In the future I'll reference things (WP:RS) I think need to be kept. (NOTE: Other wikipedia articles are NOT references, just navigation devices.)

  • Principles
  • Early History
  • Recent History
  • Issues
    • Rights Theory vs. Consequentialism
    • Minarchism versus anarcho-capitalism
    • Left-libertarianism
    • Objectivism
    • Rejection of Left-Right Spectrum
  • The libertarian movement
  • Libertarianism in the United States

Carol Moore 03:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

I will discuss your edit which is already an improvement. please let me know if you're prefer opinions edited to your sandbox (if that's possible) or here.
Intro = 100% fine and factually accurate, although very light on information.
Principles = Factually incorrect. I made an edit to make it factually correct in my previous revision which has been reverted. The first factually incorrect part is,
"The central tenet of libertarianism is the principle of liberty, namely individual liberty. The generally accepted definition is that individual human being are sovereign over their bodies, extending to life, liberty and property."
Property is incorrect. The original, and longer existing Libertarianism did not believe a sovereign right over property.
To correct that issue with offending the least amount of people, I removed the word property, and left the rest. That change has been reverted.
There is also an issue of "individual liberty", but I feel that it isn't factually incorrect, as much as not relevant. It's U.S. Libertarian standard propaganda, but it isn't exactly "wrong" either. It's entirely dependent on what your usage of the terms is.
So at this point Carol, do you agree with the single edit I believe needs to be made to have this article conclude with the facts. Libertarianism over it's history has always been against Private property. In the 1950's another group took on the name. So that's fine, no problem with that, but we need to state initially where agreement is, and not instead say only what the 1950's US group believes.
Thanks q (talk) 17:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
First, now that I've decided to start helping clean up this article, I'll try to make one or two changes only a day, starting with most obvious problems that few if any editors would disagree with. I'm going to keep playing with my alternative, so here you let's just talk about your specific changes and any ones I make. Specifically re: your suggestions:
  • I think the first sentence of article should be more general like the one I put up; current one is too POV, as was yours. I'll keep arguing for that.
I have no issue with your intro, and feel that it is an improvement.
  • Libertarian socialism and left libertariansm (except Sam Konkin variety) are more focused on hierarchies or resources as means to liberty. Discussions of property relevant within discussion of them. A quote proving they are concerned with liberty would help.
They are not "more focused" on anything as a means to liberty. To be honest, I don't understand what you're saying here. Libertarianism has a long history on a variety of topics including property. Discussions of property are relevant, but the point I'm making here is that Property is considered sovereign under 1950's Libertarianism and as theft under 1 branch of 1850's libertarianism, and still not sovereign under the other branch. My take is that we should focus on agreement. Both Libertarians agree with "Liberty" and have different definitions of what that means. You asked me for a quote proving they are concerned with liberty. Here is one Libertarian's quote, I can provide many more.

"The liberty of man consists solely in this: that he obeys natural laws because he has himself recognized them as such, and not because they have been externally imposed upon him by any extrinsic will whatever, divine or human, collective or individual."

- Mikhail Bakunin, God and the State

"Being free for man means being acknowledged, considered and treated as such by another man, and by all the men around him. Liberty is therefore a feature not of isolation but of interaction, not of exclusion but rather of connection...I myself am human and free only to the extent that I acknowledge the humanity and liberty of all my fellows... I am properly free when all the men and women about me are equally free. Far from being a limitation or a denial of my liberty, the liberty of another is its necessary condition and confirmation."

- Mikhail Bakunin

http://www.spunk.org/texts/writers/goldman/sp000064.html PATRIOTISM, A MENACE TO LIBERTY by Emma Goldman, 1911

"I am a fanatic lover of liberty, considering it as the unique condition under which intelligence, dignity and human happiness can develop and grow; not the purely formal liberty conceded, measured out and regulated by the State, an eternal lie which in reality represents nothing more than the privilege of some founded on the slavery of the rest; not the individualistic, egoistic, shabby, and fictitious liberty extolled by the School of J.-J. Rousseau and other schools of bourgeois liberalism, which considers the would-be rights of all men, represented by the State which limits the rights of each---an idea that leads inevitably to the reduction of the rights of each to zero. No, I mean the only kind of liberty that is worthy of the name, liberty that consists in the full development of all the material, intellectual and moral powers that are latent in each person; liberty that recognizes no restrictions other than those determined by the laws of our own individual nature, which cannot properly be regarded as restrictions since these laws are not imposed by any outside legislator beside or above us, but are immanent and inherent, forming the very basis of our material, intellectual and moral being---they do not limit us but are the real and immediate conditions of our freedom."

- Michael Bakunin, "La Commune de Paris et la notion de l'état," reprinted in Guérin, Ni Dieu, ni Maítre. Bakunin's final remark on the laws of individual nature as the condition of freedom can be compared to the creative thought developed in the rationalist and romantic traditions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notque (talk • contribs) 17:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I can provide you many more, as it's a central topic to Libertarianism. The meaning of Liberty is different between the two however.

  • A brief reference to Libertarian socialism could be added to the left-libertarian section and to more current history.
I disagree strongly with this. Libertarianism needs to be a history on Libertarianism, and not one type of it. Not any particular type, but a history starting from it's origin, and moving to the history of today. It should neither bet left (statist or anti statist) or right (statist or anti statist) but instead, talking about each with equal time through history.
  • If there is more relevant history, add it. But once the meaning of words are changed and widely accepted, that's life. Today libertarianism is accepted as being liberty and property oriented. And you have not come up with any mainstream sources that say otherwise, anywhere in the world. One or two ideologues just claiming it is not enough.
This is an encyclopedia. It should focus on the entire history of Libertarianism, and I do not find your argument compelling to omit the entire history because it's "accepted." Even if you want to focus on just U.S. Libertarianism, there's a long U.S. history of Libertarianism absent in this article starting with the Lowell Mill Girls
I am working on gathering you a comprehensive list of mainstream sources that talk about Libertarianism. I am reading the policies now, and will develop a list for you. q (talk) 18:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
  • FYI I am a libertarian decentralist (and will add that category when get various refs together) which means I don't care how socialist people are in their own communities/regions. However as a wiki editor, I do care about unsourced and poorly sourced info being used to support points. Which is problem with much of this article, not just your entries. see wp:rs Carol Moore 17:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
I am concerned with the entire history of libertarianism being in the article for Libertarianism. I am not concerned with any arguments between the groups, but equal time devoted to the history of the word. That's encyclopedic. Avoiding it because it doesn't match the political view of the majority of editors is not.

Thank you. q (talk) 17:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of references for Libertarianism before 1950

To start, every reference to Libertarianism before 1950 involves the first libertarianism. How do sources for the New York Times work for wikipedia? They have many articles talking about Libertarians before 1950, but it looks like they are pay for. Can I use those? I will get many more for you, but "mainstream sources" i am trying to follow, and that is an initial mainstream source that extends. Thanks q (talk) 18:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's an article from the Harvard Crimson from 1978 which talks about the Libertarian Party which included all Libertarians at that time. And discusses Libertarianism as it existed. Great read for this topic.

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=146716

"The largest organized group of libertarians in the Boston area is the MLP. MLP, affiliated with the National Libertarian Party which was founded in 1972, has about 100 members. Nason, the editor of MLP's newsletter, estimates that about 100 more people are involved in the party without being official members. "A lot of people don't believe in political parties," Nason explained.

"There are all kinds of people in MLP: anarcho-capitalists, anarcho-socialists, minimal statists. We're not a standard political party," Nason said. The party sponsors libertarian candidates in elections throughout the country, and serves as a mechanism for libertarians to meet other people interested in working on specific political issues, like tax reform and local civil liberties issues."

Libertarians discussed as one group, not just Anarcho-capitalists as in the article here.

Tons and Tons of paid for articles from all different time frames referencing only Libertarians as they were before 1950. Not Anarcho-Capitalists. Can I used paid for articles, I have passed over 100 in just a few minutes. Non-paid for mainstream sources are very difficult. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notque (talk • contribs) 18:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9C00E6DB103AE633A25751C1A9639C946396D6CF Free New York times article from May 12, 1912 explaining the movement, quotes some of the magazines they used, one is called "The Libertarian" q (talk) 19:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,770659,00.html Monday, Jul. 05, 1937 "Rightist propaganda announced: "In Santander 15,000 rioters have seized Government buildings and proclaimed a Communist Libertarian Republic.""

From Spanish Civil War fighters who were Libertarians against Hitler, Franco, and Mussolini. q (talk) 19:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It's also a bit difficult to separate articles because many publications connect all Anarchist information with Libertarians, because they were! So even if it doesn't specifically say Libertarian (anarchism is a subset of libertarianism), they connect them all anyway for searches. Very difficult! Still working though, I've passed maybe 500 articles on Libertarians/Anarchists I can't use. Still going for mainstream sources. q (talk) 19:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9A07E6D6123AE433A25752C3A9639C946696D6CF Anarchist/Libertarians calling conscription anti-libertarian. May 31, 1917 q (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Congrats for coming up with a list, which is relevant to history. But remember in general, people aren't too interested in lengthy dissertations on OLD definitions of words, so keeping it short and proportionate in the history section is necessary. What does MPL stand for, by the way?
At this point concentrate on adding WP:RS in proportionate manner. Then can start deleting all this nonsourced opinion stuff which may distort article in a number of ways. That's what I'll be doing :-) Carol Moore 19:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
It isn't an old definition of a word. It means the same thing in the rest of the world, the U.S. has just adopted a different version of the word, and mostly ignores the other definition. It still exists in the rest of the world, and in our history, and must be discussed. It makes it doubly important because no one is aware of it. it's part of the history, and an important history at that.
The main consideration is that this article needs a rewrite. My rewrite attempted to deal with that, and leave all content that was there, still there. That has been reverted. This article needs to clearly articulate the agreements, work through the history of what it has meant, and still means today in most of the world, then focus on the ideas and meanings of the different groups. That is my take. q (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9F06E4DD1638E333A25757C0A9649D946196D6CF Libertarian Japanese Socialist from December 4, 1910

"We are accustomed to think of the Japanese as naturally progressive, the "Yankees of the East," but I learn that Denjiro Kotoku is an "intellectual" who has devoted his abilities and energies to the spreading of libertarian ideas in Japan. As editor of the Tokio daily paper, Yorozu Cho-ho, (Thousand Morning News.) Kotoku enjoyed great popularity and appreciation." q (talk) 19:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Would it help if I start quoting from now? Uses of Libertarianism now that conform to this idea from all over the world? This is not an old usage that is gone, this is a vibrant usage in the rest of the world. The U.S. is completely out of touch with the usage of the word based on it's political leanings, and the jailing and attacking of Libertarians. There was a wish Libertarianism would be destroy in the U.S., and it succeeded in many respects. That needs to be discussed. The history of it, not just an entire article on what Libertarianism that started in the 1950's believes. q (talk) 19:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
And when I say all over the world, I am talking English speaking countries as well. This isn't a minor difference, the rest of the world uses the old pre U.S. 1950 version of Libertarianism. That is not some small difference relegated to a history section somewhere else. There are many articles that discuss what the 1950's version of Libertarianism means, from the Libertarian Party page, to the Anarcho Capitalism page, and I'm not against another Libertarianism article on Right Wing Libertarianism which includes all of this information. But it shouldn't exist like this on the Libertarianism page. You wouldn't have a slavery page that just focused on our slavery for the word slavery, would you? This seems like common sense. q (talk) 19:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Just glanced over the Slavery page, that seems like an excellent way to handle this article. I'm sure about any topic is handled better than this article, which again is one area of a topic, and 99% contains that one area of the topic ignoring everything else. q (talk) 19:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9D02EEDA1030E333A25750C1A9679D94699ED7CF Article on london meeting of libertarians from November 13, 1898 addressing the Libertarian Lecture Society of London q (talk) 19:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt//spain/ruta.html A history of Spanish libertarian youth paper 'Ruta' 1936

I can really go on forever. The sheer amount of New York Times articles on Libertarians in the U.S. is massive. q (talk) 20:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Another really useful part of this is the 1950's Libertarian attempt to take the word. The whole "left libertarian" was created by them to take the word. So that nothing was Libertarian except what they deemed it such. You can see this in Reason a lot. If we were a real non-biased encyclopedia we would deal with this fact, but I'm content just trying to get the most basic of standard non-bias article in here. q (talk) 20:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

So my first goal is only to remove all incorrect information. I will work on that, removing anything outright incorrect without adding anything. That seems reasonable. If the statement says "Libertarianism believes" and it's factually incorrect because it's only focused on 1950's us libertarianism, then I will remove it. q (talk) 20:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, that WAS my first goal before. That's why there were so many changes, and moving content. It's so factually incorrect, I have to start wholesale moving things around. Guh. What to do... q (talk) 20:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Previous verison I was working on

The previous version I had that was reverted was significantly more factually correct, and contained most of the data from the previous article. Can I get a consensus on moving to that version of the article to continue forward? All that work needs to be redone, and it can be edited to fit any issues from that step. I looked at the differences again, and they are stunning. Thanks q (talk) 20:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's just start from where we are because it's getting too confusing. Carol Moore 00:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

[edit] Archiving

Hearing no good objections I'm going to do so tomorrow with first section being "Can we please stop changing this article to reflect an American bias?" Getting too long for comfortable reading. Carol Moore 00:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

No Objections, I agree. q (talk) 05:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Less POV lead, followed by principles/cooperative editing

I had put up: Libertarianism applies to philosophies which uphold the principles of individual liberty and minimize the role of the state.(REF:FreeDictionary.com; Merriam-Webster.Com) The label is used by a broad spectrum of political philosophies.

It was reverted back to the old and now current lead which is too POV and without adequate refs either in the lead or in the text.

Now that the first two out of place sections on Rights/Consequentialism and Lib in US have been moved, principles are right on top and we can start writing a section that more accurately reflects the most common views using mainstream sources to settle the controversial issues. To me the big issue is whether to put all the differnet issues under this section or under separate issues section, i.e.: Rights Theory vs. Consequentialism; Minarchism versus anarcho-capitalism; Left-libertarianism; Objectivism; Rejection of Left-Right Spectrum - other? Hopefully some of those who edit but may not participate in talk will do so to keep this cooperative and not contentious and messy. ;-) Carol Moore 01:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

I agree with your lead in, and disagree with the factually incorrect previous lead in. This is going to be a contentious issue. That is unavoidable. 1950's U.S. Libertarian propaganda holds that there is no Libertarian but ours, and puts out many articles that say all other Libertarians don't count, because we say so. So many U.S. Libertarians are not going to allow it based on this propaganda. It's an uphill battle, but it's a battle that I feel is worthy of being fought as this is the most factually incorrect article I've ever seen on wikipedia, and it's a travesty that it cannot be delt with in the way that so many other articles are delt with. q (talk) 05:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
On your question of topics, and separation. I believe there should be a new article built called "right-libertarianism" and have most of this moved there while "Libertarianism" focuses on the broader spectrums and agreements. There's too much in this article that isn't "libertarianism", and deserves to be displayed somewhere properly cited. It just doesn't all belong here unless we want a large article. All that data that is there? Left Libertarianism easily has double. (it existed longer), and I find no compulsion to add it all for either group. I think the origins are important (the enlightenment) and should perhaps be discussed. I'm open to discussion. The origins of Libertarianism if done with a deft hand can actually fit

both Libertarians. q (talk) 17:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree and I'm sure most editors would. Once again, what matters is how libertarianism is defined today. All you havew{{WP:RS]]'d so far is how it was described before 1950. That's like saying the meaning of computer before 1970 should have equal weight to the meaning of computer today. Carol Moore 21:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
Libertarianism as defined today is the contained sum of all parts of all Libertarianism. Not just the 1950's version. I can quote specific information if you'd like. In English speaking countries it is common to intro a Libertarian article with "For those of you who are from the U.S., we are not talking about your newer Libertarianism." It's still relevant, alive, and used frequently. I have much more editing to do, and will add much more information on Libertarianism today. There are many libertarian journals and groups around the world, and each country has it's own distinct Libertarian history which extends to today. It takes time to source and research everything, and if you'd like to lend a hand we can certainly get this done much faster. It has nothing to do with the word not being in use today. It is, and vibrantly. q (talk) 21:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
There is a very long and detailed history of libertarianism. It's going to take time to construct it all in encyclopedic form with references. You could do an entire page per country that adopted it, and that actually seems like an excellent idea. q (talk) 21:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, I did add a quote which discusses this definition problem in context of today. I will add more, but that quote sums up the entire thing. It's not "old", it's vibrant as today, but ignored intentionally by a large sector of the 1950's Libertarian movement. q (talk) 22:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Featured article

I reverted back to the featured article version:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libertarianism&oldid=37475814

Somewhere along the line the article lost featured article status. This is the date where it was awarded with featured article. Whichmore (talk) 02:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

While the structure looks pretty good, the problem with that is there are even fewer refs in that article than this one. Making it mostly WP:original research which is against policy. In Jan 2006 Wiki's standards were a lot looser. So again it's a matter of deleting the most questionable, pov unsourced material and looking for sources for least controversial/probably true stuff. Plus adding some of the good sourced stuff from the newer version. What do others think? (I assume someone will jsut revert it, frankly.) Carol Moore 02:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

I'm kind of wondering what the point is of doing any editing at all on Wikipedia. Anything we put in is going to eventually be gone, over time. So what's the point. Can anyone tell me? Whichmore (talk) 03:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

This is more true on contentious articles, of course. But it is much more difficult to remove WP:RS material than opinions. Assuming anyone is watching. So it's not a perfect system. Carol Moore 21:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
Problems with new edits
  • Wikipedia:Lead#Citations says material likely to be challenged should have a citation, which is why i had one; one sentence on brood spectrum not too controversial. Obviously the further text describing it is. So until someone comes up with something cited should keep short.
I agree with your intro change, and believe it should be made. Please make it. q (talk) 22:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The word libertarian is the combination of the word "liberty" and the suffix "-ian" which literally means "of or about freedom." It is an antonym of "authoritarian." This should be in lead but with a citation; put it in when you get one. We have to stop putting in uncited material!
I will cite the material. q (talk) 22:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Questions of definition section is clumbsy and inappropriate and material belongs under left-libertarian/libertarian socialism. Chomsky statement on tradition not current status of movement from an objective source; need current WP:RS that that movement as big and widespread as the one acceptring right to property.
I disagree that it's inappropriate. I do not disagree that it is clumsy. It does not belong under left-libertarian as the word didn't even exist at that time. It's Libertarian thought, and history and deserves to be under Libertarianism. I will add current WP:RS on the Libertarian movement. It's one of those things that, it's so large that it's hard finding a particular citation that even bothers to talk about it. Whole movements exist in countries all over the world. I will work on that.
Also, I think you misread the quote. He's not talking about just tradition but now. I can cite him talking about this topic at least 10 times. This is one of the topics he covers often as he's a Classical Libertarian. Obviously, I can cite many others as well, and will do so. q (talk) 22:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Property rights advocates have popularized the term with their ideology in the United States and to a lesser extent in England. No citation from WP:RS.
I will add a citation immediately.
See my new edits when done. Carol Moore 22:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
Will do, please do not remove anything I am working on citing. q (talk) 22:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Order of headings

The history of Libertarianism should be first, as most wikipedia articles are laid out. I have not heard a sufficient justification to change that. Why should the history spanning the words lifetime not be before the principals of one group of Libertarians from 1950's? Thanks. q (talk) 22:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with history going first and integrating all that material into it. Solves a lot of problems :-) Carol Moore 22:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
Excellent. Would you mind taking the data I've written in that section, and renaming it history. Removing the Chomsky quote, and placing it in Left-Libertarianism for the moment, and I can at least focus on getting the history completed before moving onto other topics (with citations.) If you do mind, I will rewrite it into a history heading. q (talk) 23:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Let's agree on outline first- especially for history section. And don't forget the great mass of the article will remain about what great mass of citations and work and mainstream articles - and wiki editors want it to be about: pro-property libertarianism. Eventually a CITED statement of an over view of the principles could be put in the lead.
  • History
    • Early History
    • 2-4 Modern History subsections mostly about pro-property libertarianism
  • Current Issues
    • Left-libertarianism
    • Rejection of Left-Right Spectrum
    • Rights Theory vs. Consequentialism
    • Minarchism versus anarcho-capitalism
    • Objectivism
    • other
  • The libertarian movement ( with subsectionas by country, inlcuding US)
  • Criticism of libertarianism a good section that was removed; short left and right criticisms appropriate

'

Carol Moore 23:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
To respond more directly, however, we're talking about moving the existing history section up. Why don't you just see what I do with it tomorrow. I don't want to waste a lot of time on stuff that will be reverted after the weekend, though I'm getting more assertive about reverting back. Plus give others a chance to comment. Carol Moore 23:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC))Carolmooredc {talk}
I don't understand the assumptions about reverting back. This is clearly and unambiguously historical content that is important within this article. Currently the rest of the world has a different definition than the U.S. (classical), and you can see the many, many complaints about it on the talk page. I don't quite see the problem. Perhaps some more people should edit the article that aren't 1950's Libertarians as the bias is evident and massive. q (talk) 00:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Your POV to turn this into a socialist article will keep getting reverted by a variety of editors. Please give me a chance to make it a balanced article. Also most WP:RS history of what libs socialists actually have done in modern time helpful. Carol Moore 15:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
I think we should move to mediation. Do you agree? q (talk) 15:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Not at this point. I'll let others revert your under latest deletion of accurate material that I'm working on sourcing. I'm just going to continue fixing this up to an NPOV WP:RS article at my web page. I'm sure the 30 people coming here after watching CSPAN won't get too confused and think the great majority of pro-property libertarians are a smaller minority of anti-property ones. In a few days things should become more clear. Carol Moore 15:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Please add it back when you have sources and citations. All cited and sourced material is welcome. Thanks! q (talk) 15:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Libertarian Politics

This section mainly covers the United States and does not offer a fully worldwide perspective. It should either be given a subheading "in the United States" or be updated to include other examples from around the world; I've tagged the section because of these concerns.Wikischolar1983 (talk) 03:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Libertarian movement has a lot of that kind of info and info needs to be better organized between the two, plus more WP:RS info added. Carol Moore 03:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}
I agree entirely with you. I am trying to fix it, and people continue to undo my well sourced and documented changes to make this article in line with any other article on any other topic. I need your help, and hopefully you understand the process better than I do so that we can make changes that improve this article. It's factually incorrect, and people with political agendas are less concerned with the encyclopedia as they are with furthering their own agendas. It's a depressing fact that has to be delt with, and the options are ignore it and allow them to control what words mean, or work to change it even if it takes an incredible amount of effort for very little progress. I haven't decided what to do yet. 72.208.191.232 (talk) 06:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
If 72.208.191.232 is User:Notque, please sign in so it doesn't look like WP:sockpuppet. THANKS. Carol Moore 19:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

[edit] Eytmology section?

So does any one else think one is a good idea or integrate into history? Carol Moore 15:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

I think that the initial Eytmology in the introduction is good, and the rest should be listed in the history. We are trying to describe a word that had 1 meaning from 1800s till now, and then another group took the meaning to a radically different direction in 1955. I think it makes sense to explain that history in the history section, and then go into what the two groups believed with everything cited and referenced as it's a controversial topic. q (talk) 16:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Broad spectrum?

Hi, Whichmore: " . . . a few . . . " may be equally self-evident from the article itself. Point taken.

It is a quite different point, however. It is also, if true, an insufficiently significant observation, unlike " . . . a broad spectrum . . .", to be in the first sentence of the article. It now reads as merely facetious.

Please elaborate on why you find broad spectrum so unacceptable. It refers to the fact that people who call themselves libertarians are to be found right across the political spectrum - from so-called far Right to so-called far Left. And points in between. Indeed (and I didn't write it) the final section of the article, complete with 'Nolan chart,' suggests that libertarianism resides across an even wider 'gamut' of political thought.

I am puzzled by your problem. As the great Lord Buckley would have requested: Hip me!

Regards, Wingspeed (talk) 20:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Well one problem is that It's pretty unusual for people on the left to call themselves "libertarians" in the English language. Those on the left, nearly invariably, call themselves "left libertarians." But let's say for sake of argument that they are referred to as "libertarians" too. Ok, then that's one philosophy. Now what are the others ones? Can you come up with enough to constitute a "broad spectrum"? Whichmore (talk) 21:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. Far from it being pretty unusual for people on the left to call themselves libertarians in the English language, the label has frequently been adopted by far-leftists down the years, as you will see delineated if you consult the histories of the anarchist tradition written by George Woodcock, James Joll or, more recently, by Peter Marshall. Indeed, what is usually considered to have been the foremost anarchist journal in the English language, Anarchy (a monthly published in the UK during the sixties & seventies), at its inception narrowly decided against calling itself The Libertarian. In its pages alone, a whole spectrum of political & philosophical positions were expressed, all sharing a libertarian perspective: federalist, communist, egoist, syndicalist, individualist, collectivist, mutualist, pacifist & non-violent, revolutionary & aggressive, Christian & Buddhist, primitivist & technophile . . . Need I go on? Chomsky from time to time describes himself as a libertarian socialist. He represents a whole philosophical position in himself. The title of the foremost anarchist journal in French translates as Libertarian World. All that's before we even consider the category of council communist thinkers such as Pannekoek & Gorter. Check the Wikipedia entry Anarchist schools of thought & you will see, at a rough count, in excess of 20 different positions outlined. I speak myself, if pressed, as a libertarian buddhist - though, as a self-respecting libertarian, I would prefer the term non-buddhist. (There are so many "non-buddhists" in the southern part of the English county of Devon that it's become a bit of a in-joke & has even been the subject of at least one magazine article.) I am less well acquainted with the variety of philosophical positions on, for want of a better term, the libertarian Right, but the article identifies well in to double figures. Have you read the Libertarianism article right the way through? No need: the side bar at the top labeled Schools of Thought currently lists 21. You ask, 'Can you come up with enough to constitute a "broad spectrum?"' Please! Wingspeed (talk) 00:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
If it is true that there are a broad spectrum, or many, as opposed to a one, or a two, or, a few, philophies called "libertarianism," then there ought to be a source somewhere stating that. Otherwise its original research. Whichmore (talk) 00:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The unavoidable source is just one or two inches to the right of your own words, "a few." The article's sidebar itself stands in glaring and embarrassing contradiction of those words; yet such a solecism seems to trouble you not. I repeat: it lists no fewer than 21 different libertarian schools of thought. Do you wish to deny the evidence of your eyes? 1)You say that it's "pretty unusual for people on the left to call themselves "libertarians" in the English language." I have provided you above with abundant evidence to the contrary. 2)You say: "that's one philosophy. Now what are the other ones?" I have provided you with literally scores, as, indeed, does the article itself. 3)You say: "If it is true that there are [my italics] a broad spectrum" . . . A spectrum is by definition singular not plural but it contains a multiplicity. Libertarianism is not the name of one particular philosophy or "a few," as you will possibly allow, but a label for many different political positions which have this one characteristic in common: agreement on the need to prioritize indivdual liberty & minimize state power. That's the whole point. This is not "original research." I feel like I may I have inadvertently stepped into Trollville. Perhaps your problem is with the meaning & metaphorical use in the context of the word spectrum, though it's very well & long established in social scientific discourse. I can also give you a source for that. I commend to you the Wikipedia entry on this use of the term spectrum & have linked the introductory definition to it accordingly. Regards Wingspeed (talk) 11:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Have justed added a link to the Libertarianism entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy which, again, details numerous different brands of "libertarianism." So we now have not just one but two references - one internal & one external. I hope this will suffice. Wingspeed (talk) 11:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bias and lack of world perspective

This article never seems to follow the rules of Wikipedia. Despite the fact that we have an article for Modern liberalism in the United States because US politics do not reflect the world's politics, we still make this article reflect the US usage of the word libertarianism. Worldwide, libertarianism still is a synonym for anarchism; only Americans and some Britons use it the way the article describes it. Shouldn't we move this article to one with a name such as Modern libertarianism in the United States for the sake of reducing bias? -- LGagnon 15:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Update: I have added a warning about this to the article. -- LGagnon 15:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

If it's a synonym for anarchism then just make a disambiguation article. Send people to anarchism if that's what they're looking for. Whichmore (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
There is a disambiguation article; my point is that this article misleads people to think that right-wing American libertarianism is the dominant concept that the word refers to, when in fact it's in the vast minority. We don't do this for anything else on Wikipedia (at least as far as I know), so I don't see why we should allow one tiny niche to dominate a term that most of the world would not recognize as being the standard usage of it. Like I said, this article needs to be moved, as even the title is biased. -- LGagnon 01:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
How do you know the usage is in the "vast minority?" Do you have a source? Whichmore (talk) 02:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Pretty much every language that has a word for libertarian uses it to mean anarchist. Even in the US that was the case until conservatives co-opted it. This is one of those common sense things that Wikipedia only asks for sources for because of the flaws of its editing system (that is, people who are undereducated or non-experts are allowed to edit, thus they must always be appeased despite the lack of a need to do so). The case isn't any different when we have to deal with people who haven't studied international politics claiming that the American perspective is what's right and if you can't prove it isn't then we default to their perspective. That said, there are definitely sources available - there's an interview with Noam Chomsky on YouTube where he mentions this, though Wikipedia seems to think even when an expert is on YouTube you can't cite that video. -- LGagnon 17:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Common sense to me is that "libertarianism," does not usually refer to anarchism in the English language, and this IS an English language encyclopedia. If there are definitely sources available on the matter, then let's see them. Whichmore (talk) 18:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
Depends on what you mean by usually. In American English, "libertarianism" has only meant fiscal conservativism since the 1970s (not all English in the world uses that definition); before that, it was the same definition as in the rest of the world, and it is still often used that way by many anarchists today. And this is an English encyclopedia, not an American encyclopedia; thus, we should represent the word's meaning in all English speaking parts of the world. -- LGagnon 18:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I think "libertarianism" usually refers to the same thing here as it usually does in Australia. But apparently you don't get my drift. I'm saying our personal opinions don't matter. Sources are what matters. Whichmore (talk) 18:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree with LGagnon. q (talk) 15:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I can appreciate what all the fuss is about, but I feel we need to be careful here. Slapping big warning signs over the top of an article rather than calmly tapping the keys to rectify any perceived imbalance can represent more strident an expression of POV than the imbalance itself. And frighten away newcomers to the article & its important subject matter. I personally have no brief for the Libertarian right or electoral politics: since the age of 14 (I'm 61 now, for god's sake) I've regarded myself as an anarchist; I also use the label libertarian - my exchange above with Whichmore gives a pretty good indication of my political position. The article's opening section with its long quotes from Kropotkin over-prioritize, if anything, the expressly anarchist strain within what can broadly be termed "libertarianism". The fact is that in the US the anti-state tradition, and a vigorous one at that, long predates the time when shysters like Reagan & Thatcher started calling themselves libertarian: it stretches right back into the Revolution itself and the enthusiasms of people like Jefferson who, whatever his other faults, famously said, "That which governs best is that which governs least." Then there are people like Thoreau & Benjamin Tucker & Emerson and, more recently, people like Edward Abbey. Goldwater's speechwriter, Karl Hess, turned anarchist in the early 70s as did, I seem to recall (though it seems even more hard to credit now) the Young Republicans en-masse. We need to allow that political positions & categories are more complex than we may prefer. When a Libertarian is running for President, presumably bringing a lot more people to this entry, we need to reflect that. An obvious solution is to subsume as much as is appropriate under a clear sub-heading "Libertarianism in the US" - its length & breadth being a consequence of who contributes what & how much. Ditto for coverage of the libertarian tradition worldwide. Seems to me terribly un-libertarian for one particular group to try and expropriate the label. That, were it possible, would benefit nobody.Wingspeed (talk) 19:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)