Talk:Libertarianism

Template:FixBunching

Template:FixBunching Template:V0.5 Template:FixBunching

Request we go to formal mediation

Given the problems that have been identified not only in the short term, but in the long term, with different views of libertarianism, I request of other editors we request formal mediation, with the request to be made on September 1st if, despite a cooperative editing environment, we cannot resolve differences. If there is continued soapboxing with no attempt to discuss sources, and various hostile behaviors, then we will request it sooner. Any thoughts? CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

agree, i suggest the request be moved up to the earliest possible date. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. Sooner is even better. BigK HeX (talk) 17:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Good. One of you can request it if you want it right now. Just remember to use NPOV language in describing the issues. Sometimes it does take a few weeks. Meanwhile WP:RS editing should continue. I'm doing some right now on a related article which I will then integrate here. :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

bigK hex, it is up to you, my monitor cracked after seeing the 3 of us agree on something. 17:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Alrighty .... I'll try to put something together by Friday night. I've never entered into mediation, so I'll have to do a bit of research. BigK HeX (talk) 17:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Informal mediation is the first step... Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal. As you can see, I requested informal mediation over a week ago. I had no idea that it would take so long for somebody to take up our case...otherwise I would have mentioned it before now. That's interesting though that the rest of you eventually came to the same conclusion. --Xerographica (talk) 22:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, please add my name to the list of those involved. I guess the next step is to wait until it's accepted by a mediator? --Born2cycle (talk) 23:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Informal mediation is best first step since it can take longer to get formal mediation. Best to wait to see what proceeds. However, as I know from experience on wikipedia, not all mediators are very skilled at dealing with either behavioral or content problems, which can be frustrating. But at least we are giving it a shot, which is a good sign. And we might get lucky with a good mediator. 207.172.88.133 (talk) 12:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC) [later signed] CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE: A very biased (and rather dull sounding) requestion was put in here. Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-08-02/Libertarianism. I gave my view on the talk page of the request being biased and disruption of editing being a major problem. I'm not sure how to change requests so for now will leave my commenting at that. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I just edited the request to give both sides of the story, since the request was biased to support idea of breaking up the article and/or making it reflect one variety of libertarianism. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Its kind of like this. Here is a spectrum, from right to left: ???--->Anarchist-->Libertarian-->"Right"-->Republican-->????---->????---->>Democrat--->"Left"---->Socialist---->Communist---->????, or something like that. The source of the latter spectrum is Ron Paul, by the way. Where, indeed, ARE the sources when it comes to modern political philosophy? Well, the politicians of course! That's an important point. Should academics REALLY be able to define political agendas? Isn't that for politicians or pundits or editorialists, etcetera? Look guys, no body wants to look like an extremist, and that is why I, and many others feel that the socialist and anarchist interests attempting to associate themselves with "libertarianism" (viz. personal freedom) is sabotaging the OFFICIAL, if not singular, philosophy of libertarian policy. OK, so here's the question. Do libertarians care more about themselves and their friends and families, OR do they care more about EVERYBODY IN THE COUNTRY in addition to the state itself. Statism is socialism. And we are not socialists. WE are libertarians. And our point is quite legitimate. The formal grounding is in the Ron Paul spectrum. If you do not understand the latter argument, please read into the political philosophies of Ron Paul, who, due largely to the exact same antagonists mentioned previously (anarchists and socialists) who have attempted to attach themselves to the libertarian movement, has been labeled erroneously as an extremist. For other sources, see the CATO Institute in Washington, D.C., a libertarian think-tank. I'll be contacting them soon for more support on this issue, someone must remind of the incredible importance of wikipedia, extremist academics, and the zoo of opinion. More on this later.

For the time being, here's a little football for the regulars to argue about: IS Glenn Beck an anarchist? Cheers.68.59.4.188 (talk) 22:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Another bit on MODERN political philosophy. And this IS philosophy, by the way. I'm sure you already knew that. This one is from Thomas Jefferson, arguably a moderate libertarian on the ideological plane, which is at once conservative and progressive, in some ways. Think of MODERN political philosophy, and if the Europeans still insist on being associated with anarchists and socialists so be it, but American Libertarianism is based ALL around Thomas Jefferson and the rest of the Democratic-Republican anti-Federalists. Anyway, this one can be seen on the 4th panel of the Jefferson Monument in DC:

"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."

What am I trying to say here? I'm trying to say here that OLD political philosophy is BUNK, or at best, up for review, always. Our politicians represent our political interests, and that is that. The academic theorists, especially the ones from 1850-1950 are prone to extremism, and we must learn to listen, but not necessarily trust our ancestors on ALL matters. 68.59.4.188 (talk) 22:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

And my identity? NO. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO I AM. All that matters is my VOICE. Think for yourself. That what PHILOSOPHY is all about. Aristotle, he was just there at the right time, etc etc. Seriously guys, didn't you go to Harvard too? Lol68.59.4.188 (talk) 22:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

HEY "Big K"! Cool name. Yes, this is a discussion. The original page is NOT A FORUM, but THIS IS. Clearly, not a Harvard man, eh? This is CALLED a "discussion page". You're acting like a North Korean censor, stop doing that. Liberty, the FIRST amendment, hmmmm.....?68.59.4.188 (talk) 10:26, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Stop censoring discussions, we are adults, NOT children. Children are extremists, and censorers, adults believe in free discourse. You shall not monopolize the discussion with "mediation" nonsense. "Neutral political opinions" do not exist. Librarians rarely write books, unless of course, they are books about other books. Stay in your place. Any legitimate discussion, however, is welcome. I would like to note to the general public that I have been censored in this article 3 times already. Am I being controlled by "parents" or "children" or MENTAL PATIENTS? The question is still out in the open.68.59.4.188 (talk) 13:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

the lede will change on august 23rd

this debate is only concerning the lede. this forum understands there are rs for all views. the intent is to coalesce the different meanings of the term into the most broadly understood version as of today. Please only comment under the title which you support, submit objections under the critique only, misplaced comments will be moved. New sub-sections are encouraged, should your view not be represented. Please sign your post with 1-7 of Poll: Common groundshould you support any of the statements.

exclude left/right, anacho-capitalist, libertarian socialist

A short description including the most widely read/accepted dictionaries and encyclopedias. 1234567 Darkstar1st (talk) 05:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

They already have their own dedicated articles. It's not censorship if we exclude those topics from this article. It's called good organization. --Xerographica (talk) 01:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Definitely exclude the left-right distinction of Libertarianism, (because the identification of Libertarianism as incorporating left-wing ideologies is farcical doublespeak), and definitely exclude the Libertarian Socialism, (because it has absolutely nothing to do with Libertarianism whatsoever (except for the absurdly inappropriate use of the word "Libertarian" in its label)). While I see that Anarcho-Capitalism has some obvious relevance in the Libertarian Article itself, the lede is not the place for a reference to it. BlueRobe (talk) 07:52, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

critique of this section

it was created by darkstar1st, and everyone knows he is a loon. stop pushing you're pov, soapbox and quit being a sock/meat puppet. you are ignorant, go educate yourself. if you do not, you will be banned from wp as well as every one on your ip block. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:50, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

This talk page section is moronic.^* BigK HeX (talk) 05:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

wp:idontlikeit, please read and modify your comment Darkstar1st (talk) 06:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you even know how to properly invoke WP:IDONTLIKEIT?? BigK HeX (talk) 06:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Darkstar1st, can you please provide a reliable source that indicates what should be included. TFD (talk) 06:16, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

i doubt either one of these are considered "reliable" to wp, but when i Googled it, lp.org, and www.libertarianism.com were at the top. my pov/or tells me the broadest understood definition lies here. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

You missed the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.[1] Anyway party websites are only sources for what they say about themselves. TFD (talk) 06:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Darkstar1st: What did you Google...? BigK HeX (talk) 07:05, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

ice cream, but i am in vienna at the moment so everything is in viennese, just logging into mcd wlan was a struggle. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

<backdent> Darkstar1st's initial edit is just disruptive - to show good faith, dark star should collapse it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Carolmooredc, please learn to format properly with colons. BlueRobe (talk) 07:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

When there are too many colons in a row (or sometimes when topic greatly changes), one can back dent. Common practice. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:55, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

Here are some key Libertarian concepts from reliable sources...

Encyclopedia of Libertarianism

It is a basic principle of libertarian politics that no one should be forcibly prevented from acting in any way he chooses provided his acts are not invasive of the free acts of others.

Encyclopædia Britannica

Libertarians believe that individuals should have complete freedom of action, provided their actions do not infringe on the freedom of others.

Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy...

(1) it provides significant moral liberty of action, (2) it provides significant moral protection against interference from others, and (3) it is sensitive to what the past was like (e.g., what agreements were made and what rights violations took place).

Problems of market liberalism: Social philosophy and policy...

By the term "libertarian" I mean a belief in and commitment to a set of methods and policies that have as their common aim greater freedom under law for individuals. The term "freedom" in this context means not only a commitment to civil liberties, such as freedom of expression, but also to economic liberties, including a commitment to a laissez-faire policy of free entreprise and free trade between countries. Libertarians, therefore, are committed to the absolute minimum state intervention in the economy as well as in people's private lives. In a world constrained by these libertarian principles, people should be permitted to do as they please, constrained only by rules that prevent them from encroaching on the liberty of others.

Encyclopedia of Political Theory...

These theories are animated by a set of distinctive and common concerns. Among them are a deep suspicion of central government and coercion; a favorable view of the market, which may go as far as regarding its outcome as beyond the scope or conceptual concern of distributive justice; and a view of private property rights as either exhaustive of all individual rights or at least the most significant right of them all.

The Challenge of Democracy: Government in America...

Libertarianism opposes all government action except that which is necessary to protect life and property.

Economic analysis and moral philosophy...

Libertarians are defenders of political liberty, property rights, and economic freedoms.

Libertarianism: for and against...

Now, of course, there is general agreement that the state has the obligation to protect national security and to protect all citizens from force and fraud; to maintain systems of contract and property rights; to ensure; in general, that the rule of law prevails over anarchy. Anyone who ponders these areas of life will see that personal freedom does not mean the absence of state action.

If you compare these key concepts to what is currently mentioned in the intro of this article then it should be abundantly clear that these essential tenets have been cast aside as a result of certain editors pushing/advertising their extreme ideologies. And it's been going on for a really long time. Any ideologies that run contrary to any of these tenets should not be mentioned in the introduction. This article is not an entire book...if anything it's single chapter dedicated to a single topic that people are most likely to want to read about (WP:PRIMARYTOPIC}. Listing the extreme ideologies either on the disambiguation page or the See Also section is not censorship...it's the equivalent of creating a table of contents. --Xerographica (talk) 01:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

What is clear is that NONE of the stuff in the lead "casts aside" any of the key concepts. What is abundantly clear is that you've been imputing your own POV onto what is actually there and it consistently blinds you from that fact. BigK HeX (talk) 02:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, since I've got a few minutes, I'll illustrate how your invocation of these generalizations about libertarianism have done little other than to highlight your willful blindness. To make your narrow thinking on this matter blindingly apparent, I'll take the first few of the sources that YOU have decided to cherry-pick from, and show how they discuss that anarchist ideals are a significant part of the broader libertarian philosophy, even though you have endeavored to have anarchism stripped from the article.

1. Encyclopedia of Libertarianism: page 10. Libertarianism puts sever limits on morally permissible government actions. If one takes these strictures seriously, does libertarianism require the abolition of government, logically reducing the position to anarchism? ... the question [is raised] of what, if anything, the state and its officials may do... Libertarian political philosophers have extensively debated the question and many conclude the answer is 'Nothing.'
2. Encyclopædia Britannica Some American libertarians, such as Lysander Spooner and Murray Rothbard, have opposed all forms of government.
3. Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Libertarianism, then, is not only critical of the modern welfare state, but of states in general.
4. Problems of market liberalism: Social philosophy and policy page 379: There are, of course, two wings of libertarian thought, one anarchist, the other minimalist.

I hope this makes my point. What you wish libertarianism to be is irrelevant to the way sources prompt us to describe it. BigK HeX (talk) 03:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, no one has indicated which of these numerous definitions he believes the article should use. Could he please tell us. TFD (talk) 07:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Any of the ones I listed would be better than this article's current intro/lead. None of them contradict any of the others...so you can mix and match key concepts from each one. --Xerographica (talk) 08:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The point of the first group of sources was to emphasize the importance of the Harm principle. The point of the second group of sources was to focus on the importance of private property. Yeah, ouch, your "counter arguments" really shot down those key concepts. Next time just ask me first if you have any doubt what to argue against. LOL

But since you did bring up Anarchy here's a relevant passage from Libertarianism: Bogus Anarchy...

This explicit rejection of anarchism is evidence of the basic liberalist ideology that Libertarians hold dear. But more specifically, within the movement itself there exist factional interests.[27] There are Libertarians who emphasize lifestyle issues and civil liberties (an amplification of John Stuart Mill's On Liberty). They want the state out of their "private" lives, e.g., in drug use and sexual activity. Others are chiefly concerned with economics. They champion laissez-faire/"free-market"/ neoclassical economics, and fault the state for corrupting "natural" capitalism. Although both groups despise the state intensely, neither wants to completely do away with it.

[...]

Lastly to be addressed is the apparent anomaly of Murray Rothbard. Within Libertarianism, Rothbard represents a minority perspective that actually argues for the total elimination of the state.

We could go back and forth...there's lots of evidence both ways. However, the most appropriate article for that debate is the article on Anarcho-capitalism and minarchism. This article should focus on the perspective of the majority. --Xerographica (talk) 07:44, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

A) What policy is it that says articles "focus only on the perspective of the majority"?

B) Pray tell ... what evidence do you even have about "the perspective of the majority"? Quote a highly reliable source or two, if you would. BigK HeX (talk) 08:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

A) Undue weight / Primary topic

B) "Rothbard represents a minority perspective". --Xerographica (talk) 08:54, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

A) Undue weight says absolutely NOTHING about "only focusing on the perspective of the majority".

B) I asked for whatever evidence you have of your so-called "majority perspective" and you give me an unsourced assertion, and, moreover, that assertion isn't about the majority at all, but is only telling me about Rothbard being in the minority??? Ummm.... BigK HeX (talk) 09:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Because of your recent edits the lead is unintelligible/contradictory and still says nothing about the Harm principle which figures significantly in the definitions that I offered. The assertion on what the majority believes was found in the quote from "Libertarianism: Bogus Anarchy"...."Although both groups despise the state intensely, neither wants to completely do away with it." --Xerographica (talk) 09:39, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Please do point out precisely what you find to be "unintelligible" in the lead. Quote from the lead and then explain your opinion of the text for us here. Thanks. BigK HeX (talk) 09:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

1. The most important thing to point out is that you're trying to accomplish the same thing as the disambiguation page...but the bullet point format of the disambiguation page is considerably more readable than your paragraph format.

2. Your paragraphs are too large and they are not logically organized. You're going to need four or more paragraphs...and I really have no idea how you can effectively organize such disparate information.

3. Not everything mentioned in the intro is even discussed in the article. For example...the left/right issue is mentioned in the intro but there's no section dedicated to the issue. Disagreements regarding the size/role of the government are mentioned in the intro but there's no section dedicated to the issue. You're running a ton of different topics together tricking the reader into thinking that the article will clarify the connections between the topics but no connections are clarified. Instead, there are two sections that are so poorly written that I haven't been able to read them.

4. Until the scope of this article is narrowed the intro is always going to be a mess. This article should focus primarily on the variety of Libertarianism that most closely follows Classical Liberalism. Offshoots should be mentioned where appropriate...but certainly not in the intro. --Xerographica (talk) 11:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

You still have not said what you think libertarianism is. Do you think for example that the Cato Institute is libertarian and everyone who disagrees with them is something else? TFD (talk) 14:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Xerographica states: "This article should focus primarily on the variety of Libertarianism that most closely follows Classical Liberalism."

A) What variety of libertarianism most closely follows classical liberalism?

B) How is it that you justify this being the variety of libertarianism that the article should "focus" on? Present reliable sources, if you have them.

C) What does "focus" mean in your comments here? What do we do about material for the other varieties. Approximately how many paragraphs of text should each variety of Libertarianism, such as anarchist and left-lib, receive in this Libertarianism article?

BigK HeX (talk) 16:48, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Classical liberals were divided on many issues: slavery, universal suffrage, regulation, and universal education, to name a few. TFD (talk) 17:16, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The Cato Institute and the Libertarian Party are the most well known and politically relevant Libertarian organizations. Chances are really good that when somebody does a Google Search for Libertarianism that's the variety of Libertarianism that they are looking for. The other varieties of Libertarianism are not well known outside a relatively small circle of academics. On the off-chance an academic does a Google search and utilizes Wikipedia they will search using the specific name of the variety that they are looking for.

The challenge here is making the concept of Libertarianism accessible yet informative. Personally, what initially helped me to understand Libertarianism was the following simple analogy...the freedom to swing your fist ends where somebody else's nose begins. That's the Harm principle. Honestly, if we replaced this entire article with that one analogy we would be helping more people understand the basic concept of Libertarianism.

That the intro still does not include the Harm principle is proof positive that some of you still do not grasp what Libertarianism is. It's not unlimited liberty. It's understanding where your liberty ends and somebody else's liberty begins. The first group of definitions that I shared makes this point very very clear. Of course, some of you are so focused on highlighting the disagreements in the intro that the point just flew over your heads. The disagreements are inevitable given how broad the scope is of this article...which is exactly why the scope needs to be narrowed. --Xerographica (talk) 21:31, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

So... to sum up your lengthy comment, basically: "The Cato Institute and the Libertarian Party ... WP:ORx40". Is that about right? BigK HeX (talk) 22:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

RE: "Personally, what initially helped me to understand Libertarianism was the following simple analogy...the freedom to swing your fist ends where somebody else's nose begins."

Maybe your self-education is part of the problem with why your understanding runs counter to the article that has been built from informed experts in reliable sources. Just a thought.... BigK HeX (talk) 23:59, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia policy..."in encyclopedias it is perfectly proper to have separate articles for each different definition of a term". The Cato Institute is the 5th most influential think tank in the world and the Libertarian Party has nearly 100,000 fans on facebook. Chances are pretty good that when somebody runs across a reference to "Libertarianism" it will be in association with one of those two organizations. Therefore, this article should be dedicated to the most relevant definition of the term. --Xerographica (talk) 00:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Well ... you're on the talk page for Libertarianism defined as "advocacy for liberty". Feel free to start a new page, if you find a different definition.

As for your facebook WP:OR ... lol. By the way, libertarian socialist Noam Chomsky has well over 100,000 fans. I guess his idea of libertarianism must be the "most relevant definition", amirite? Can you help me start rewriting the Wiki article to "dedicate" it to libertarian socialism. kthx! BigK HeX (talk) 00:34, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

We actually already have articles on the Cato Institute and the Libertarian Party of the United States. TFD (talk) 01:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

In that situation the word "Libertarian" is an adjective meant to modify the noun "socialist". Therefore, "Libertarian socialism" is a variety of socialism. Maybe if the word was "Socialist libertarian" I might be inclined to agree. In any case it's a pretty good example of why the scope of this article needs to be narrowed. --Xerographica (talk) 01:11, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Could you please provide a reliable source for that statement. TFD (talk) 01:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

If he had said that in the phrase "black umbrella" "black" is an adjective meant to modify the noun "umbrella", would you have asked for a reliable source for that statement? It's a fact of English grammar. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

When I visited Chomsky's fan page I noticed two of my facebook friends are fans of him... my uncle and my brother's ex-girlfriend. They are two of the most hardcore liberals I know. They would call me crazy if I called them Libertarians. A definition of Libertarianism that is so broad that it applies to both them and myself is completely useless and communicates nothing.

Reliable sources are not the answer. In fact, they are probably the biggest part of the problem. The only solution seems to be to provide a large dose of common sense. Sadly, unlike reliable sources, common sense seems to be in very short supply. --Xerographica (talk) 01:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

lol ... something told me that you'd backtrack pretty quickly from the facebook criteria that YOU invented for us here, when it turns out not to support your argument. In any case, if reliable sources are a problem for YOUR (self-taught?) understanding of libertarianism, then one of these days maybe you'll admit the possibility that it is not actually the sources that are the problem, but rather your understanding that is the problem. In any case, I'm done with this completely asanine "ignore the reliable sources" discussion. Really, it has no place here. BigK HeX (talk) 02:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

How can I backtrack from a non sequitur? We were discussing the definition of Libertarianism and you brought up Chomsky. See the disambiguation link at the top of the article? It's not there for decoration. Please click on it and see if you can't discern which article Chomsky might be most relevant to. You'll probably need a hint so feel free to refer to my simple cheat sheet... reliable vs relevant. --Xerographica (talk) 08:17, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

It's rather amusing that you only recognize non sequiturs when someone uses your own "logic" against you. YOU are the one who suggested that the article should be "dedicated" to the libertarianism of the Libertarian Party of the US, because it has "almost 100,000 fans" on facebook. It's amazing how your own "logic" suddenly became invalid when I substituted Noam Chomsky and his 130,000+ facebook fans. Your self-serving fallacious arguments are excessively unproductive. As for your "reliable vs relevant" cheatsheet, please note that it is superceded by my "cheatsheet" here, and then see the only useful cheatsheet on this talk page: Talk:Libertarianism#Citation_for_broad_usage BigK HeX (talk) 09:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

How many of Chomsky's fans would identify themselves as Libertarians? Chomsky's fans are left of liberals and yet you think they are relevant to this article. This is a great discussion though because it clearly emphasizes the need to narrow the scope of this article.

Regarding broad usage...obviously nobody uses the word "Libertarianism" to simultaneously refer to both Left and Right...given that the two sides are mutually exclusive. But let's take a look at those "broad" sources...

• Encyclopedia of Ethics: states that right-libertarianism is the traditional form of Libertarianism.
• The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: states that right-libertarianism is the better known version.
• Encyclopedia of Political Theory: states regarding egalitarianism..."This contrasts with equality of opportunity or equality before the law - ideas more commonly associated with modern libertarianism and classical liberalism - where the freedom and rights of the individual are paramount and of utmost concern in matters of political affairs."
• Liberalism: old and new: indicates that the best known form is right-libertarianism and then just uses the word "libertarianism" to refer to right-libertarianism
• "Right and Left Wings in Libertarianism": "Today, interpretations of right-libertarian ideological complex are most popular in the scientific literature and in the popular imagination."
• Contemporary debates in political philosophy: it's an academic debate.

This article should only focus on right-libertarianism because generally that's what people mean when they use the word "Libertarianism". If they want to talk about left-libertarianism then they use the word "left-libertarianism" and if they want to read about left-libertarianism then they can read the article on left-libertarianism. If you think the debate has any relevance outside academic circles then feel free to create an article on the debate.--Xerographica (talk) 12:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Born2cycle, I asked for a reliable source and you provided me with a rule of English grammar which is original research. TFD (talk) 07:08, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Hear Hear. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

wp:idontlikeit. please reread and adjust your comment. Darkstar1st (talk) 12:53, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Xerographica, notice the wording used: "traditional form", "better known version", "best known form". It is not different schools of thought with the same name but the same school of thought with different "forms" or "versions". Conservatism, liberalism and socialism have different forms as well, but we have articles about them anyway. This may not appear to be obvious to you because poltical debate in the U.S. usually refers to libertarian principles. TFD (talk) 16:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

For example in the slavery debate, liberal defenders claimed that slaves had freely entered into a contract, based on their reading of Locke. Since they had been captured legally through war, the victors had contracted with the prisoners to spare their lives in return for service. Depriving owners of their slaves would be government intervention into a private contract. Liberal opponents however challenged the legality of the contract. (See for example The debate over slavery: antislavery and proslavery liberalism in antebellum America.) Conservatives and socialists were also divided on slavery, but they argued from different principles. TFD (talk) 16:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

In the show "Spartacus", Varro willingly becomes a slave/gladiator to pay off gambling debts. Right out of high school I willingly signed a contract to become Government Issue (G.I.). The keyword is "willingly". When somebody has a gun to your head the keyword is "unwillingly". The freedom to swing your fist ends where somebody else's nose begins. How can we tell where my fist ends and your nose begins? DNA. DNA does't work with land though. California back in the day was all about the gold rush. People were staking claims (defining their property) and striking it rich. That's why it was called a "gold rush". The book..."The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else" provides a ton of evidence that correlates strong property rights with developed countries. If people formally own their property they can use it as collateral for business loans. When Chairman Mao collectivized farms (removed property rights) he completely destroyed the incentive to produce. The end result was 20 million dead.

The difference between a gold rush/walk...between a country developing/languishing...and between 20 million people living/dying is exactly the same amount of difference between right-libertarianism and left-libertarianism. That's why "right-libertarianism" is the "traditional form", "better known version", "best known form"...and why "Libertarianism" is commonly understood to mean "right-libertarianism" ...and why "right-libertarianism" should be the sole topic of this article. --Xerographica (talk) 00:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

slavery is not libertarian, offering someone death or a yoke is not a rational bargain. ergo the trouble with this article, madness. Darkstar1st (talk) 03:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

(out) You may not agree, but that was the libertarian argument for slavery. The title of Americans to land is based on conquest, they alienated property rights from aboriginals through violence, which was in accordance with natural law. They also enslaved people based on the same principles. They argue among themselves based on the same principles. Can an individual alienate property from common ownership or alienate the freedom of an individual? These are all arguments among libertarians, all based on freedom of contract and freedom of the individual. Darkstar1st seems to take a middle road - one may deprive an individual of property rights through conquest but not their freedom. Darkstar1st apparently disagrees with the right-libertarian view that property rights is the only right that really matters. BTW Spartacus is a Communist movie. TFD (talk) 04:35, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

true, the overlords did use the communist phrase: enemies of the state are known, arrests are being made, the prisons begin to fill, said Marcus Licinius Crassus. Here is one they left out of the film: sooner the whole nation die of hunger than allow free trade in grain, Lenin. The title of Americans to land is based on conquest, "americans", which i think tfd meant the usa, actually fought imperialist england for the land, not "aboriginals". didn't aboriginals poke other aborigines with sharp sticks and "appropriate the land" mere hours before the Mayflower made landfalls? wasn't most of the usa was bought from France, Russia, and Spain? ironically, all now socialist, and all now and broke. they used the $ we gave them to conquest each other, and ended up just destroying everything over there a few different times. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:19, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Ultimately the original basis for all private property in the U.S. is conquest, regardless of whether the U.S. conquered the property or acquired it through treaty with another conquering power. A title deed issued by England, France or Spain is still valid. Xerographica was referring to a new show not the movie. However, Darkstar1st, I am surprised you could not see the obvious Communist ideology in the movie. It was in fact based on a novel by Howard Fast. TFD (talk) 14:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Which country has private property not obtained by conquest? I thought the moral of Spartacus, was for man to be free, not told which job he should have, where he could live, what books he could read. One of my favorites, "Dr. Zivago" was forbidden in Russia, as were several other authors. Did you know that only a small minority of people in the soviet union were "allowed" to join the sole political party? The rest were subjugated to the rule of the minority. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

You can read a review of the book in pro-Communist Masses & Mainstream, a magazine Fast wrote for and the successor of The New Masses and The Mainstream.[2] Fast left the CPUSA because as you point out the Soviet Union did not promote communist values, such as the ones expressed in Spartacus. Pitcairn Island and Bermuda were terra nulla at the time of settlement, and some aboriginal property in the U. S., particularly Eskimo land, was obtained by mixing labor with the soil. TFD (talk) 15:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

so if the rest of the world was settled by conquest, why not say the world, instead of saying america(specifically you meant the usa)? also, slavery was imported from asia, africa, and finally europe, so your use of the word "they" is a bit odd. anyway, the article is about libertarianism as understood by the most people today. the lpusa has more members than all the other "forms" mentioned combined and squared. on the 24th, the lede will be corrected. the undo weight given past, fringe, and disputed forms libertarianism will be purged from the lede, and later from the article entirely. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The article is about libertarianism, not the Libertarian Party (United States). In the same sense, the articles on republicanism, democracy, prohibition, natural law and socialism, etc. are not based on the U. S. parties that call themselves after those concepts. TFD (talk) 16:29, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

true, but those articles are all centered around the most widely held belief of the term currently. undo weight has been given to the libertarianism article incorporating terms the majority of libertarians do not believe. the sources are not at issue here, just the weight. so if the lpusa has the most members, then it should have the greatest weight. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Tendentiousness

Darkstar1st states, "the undo weight given past, fringe, and disputed forms libertarianism will be purged from the lede, and later from the article entirely."

Given that the weight has been supported by a multitude of reliable sources, I'd suggest drastic alteration as an unwise course of action. BigK HeX (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

the sources are not in question, rather the weight. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Please demonstrate which forms of libertarianism are "past, fringe, and disputed", and discuss specific improvements you'd like to make, backed by reliable sources. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 17:53, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

you comments and critique is welcome here. proof appears to be elusive on the page, so we are left to consensus. a pending mediation is in the works, so do not spend to much time here, it may all be for naught. for more info, please review the archieves here, too much material to bring you up to speed.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Libertarianism#the_lede_will_change_on_august_23rd
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Libertarianism#Poll:_Common_ground Darkstar1st (talk) 18:18, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

BigK HeX, the reliable sources you refer to for your justification of the Orwellian doublespeak used to poison the Libertarianism article, with absurd notions that "Libertarianism" entails variations of Anarchism and Socialism, are little more than a club of self-important left-wing academics who have made careers out of their mutual endorsements for their obfuscation of the concept of "Libertarianism" in the minds of the ignorant.

Most of the advocates of left-Libertarianism are Anarchists or Socialists whose beliefs have nothing in common with Libertarianism. But, they purport that Anarchism and/or Socialism embody Libertarianism, using their revisionist concept of "freedom", usually by referencing Isaiah Berlin's Positive Liberty (see Two Concepts of Liberty). This is doublespeak at its worst.

There are countless ideologies and labels owned by the left. Why do you feel the need to poison the definition of "Libertarianism", a central term for individualists and freedom-lovers of the right, if not as part of an exercise to render the term moot for the purpose of intelligent philosophical discussion? BlueRobe (talk) 02:23, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

If you disagree with reliable sources presented, please present alternatives. TFD (talk) 02:58, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

TFD, some extremely reliable sources have been presented by Xerographica (see above). BlueRobe (talk) 03:43, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Good ... present them in the article. They do not "cancel out" the prominent views of the WP:RS that you don't like, though. If you don't like the way Wikipedia gives ALL prominent views of a concept coverage within the same Wiki article, then you are free to start a different project. BigK HeX (talk) 05:38, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Left-Libertarianism is not a prominent view. Left-Libertarianism is an exercise in doublespeak designed to sabotage the Libertarianism article with pointless tangents about Anarchism and Socialism. Shame on you. BlueRobe (talk) 06:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

what is obvious to me is self-described non-libertarians are bent on editing this page to reflect undo weight. this means the core ideas are spreading, otherwise, why would they even bother. i welcome each disruption as a sign we are nearing perfection of this article. Tomorrow i will set about purging the lede of the undo material as described in talk exactly 1 week to the day. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

<backdent>Libertarian socialism and left libertarianism have been in and left in this article for more than three years, so it is dozens of editors who have accepted them during that time, not a few lately. Also, your comments of last week didn't make sense and looked like just an insult section. It would be nice to present them here first so we can discuss. If your edits are really bad, obviously they will be quickly reverted. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

no insult intended, rather a search for truth. the disambiguation page and the libertarianism page all include the same topics. what is being disambiguated there? if geo libertarianism is a form of libertarianism, rather than a totally different topic, isn't it redundant to list them in both places? Darkstar1st (talk) 10:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

If that was the point you were making, it did not come through at all. If redundancy is a policy problem, then we should scrap the disambiguation page. Otherwise it is a useful short cut. Please cite relevant policy. CarolMooreDC (talk) 11:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

carol there already is support for scraping the disambiguation page, you opposed it here Oppose for reasons explain Ad nauseam in reply to dozens of WP:SOAPBOX (and a number of personal attack) posts, including by AnonIps and at least two sock puppets. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC). on redundancy and policy, you are right, there is not a policy against redundancy, what a shame if we needed such a policy. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:24, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

If I opposed it in the past, that was because no clear case was made for getting rid of it. I don't particularly support getting rid of it, but at least I understand the argument now. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:42, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

No consensus on purging some forms of libertarianism so please stop disrupting editing with demands

<backdent>Darkstar's comment above what is obvious to me is self-described non-libertarians are bent on editing this page to reflect undo weight assumes non-libertarians are out to sabotage the page. First, nonlibertarians can edit and one should not automatically assume their edits are sabotage. Second, self-styled libertarians who disagree with you about what WP:RS say also should not be assumed to be sabotaging page. But most importantly, after 6 months of constant harping on your desire to change this article, supported by all sorts of insulting Anon IPs and first time editors (plus two sock puppets) with the exact same POV, enough long-time editors have objected to foil any such consensus. Therefore your demands should be dropped so we can deal constructively with the couple legitimate issues you have raised. I really think it's time for some sort of intervention to stop the disruption. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:08, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

It is patently obvious that a handful of left-wing ideologues have banded together to sabotage the Libertarianism article. The claims that Libertarianism entails any kind of Socialism are utterly absurd and can only lead to innocent readers being tragically misinformed about the true nature of Libertarianism. And, while there is some overlap between Libertarianism and Anarchism (especially Anarcho-Capitalism), it is absurd to claim that "Libertarianism" is a synonym for "Anarchism", as some of the saboteurs have suggested. And who is the utter moron who thought Libertarian Socialism had a place in the Libertarian article?

There are countless Wikipaedia Articles about Socialism and Anarchism, so why do you (and a few others) feel so compelled to poison the Libertarian page with nonsense? Frankly, it appears to me that you're simply trying to censor Libertarianism out of Wikipaedia. BlueRobe (talk) 02:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

And by "censor", you're referring to editors who have added even MORE reliably-sourced material to the Libertarianism article, giving it a larger and more prominent footprint nd making it a bit easier to find among the pages of Wikipedia. And you are the one who keeps soapboxing about Orweillian doublespeak. How amusingly ironic. BigK HeX (talk) 03:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

FYI, BlueRobe, I'm waiting to hear you discuss actual sources and references and not just your personal opinion. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:14, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Seems like you're in for a long wait, if you think Reliable Sources are a concern for someone who says he could care less if he was arguing against the "Patron Saint of Definitions". IMO, it's pretty pointless to humor this editor's rants. BigK HeX (talk) 03:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Bluerobe, censoring means removing information, which is what you suggest doing. "Orwellianism", which you mentioned, refers to the socialist writer George Orwell and describes rewriting history to remove facts that one finds inconvenient. Please stop using emotive words such as "poisoning" and explain what you mean. TFD (talk) 02:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

BigK HeX, on the contrary, the Libertarian article has become bloated with tangential references (Anarchism), irrelevant references (Libertarian Socialism) and wholly incompatible references (Socialism) that can only detract from the true nature of Libertarianism and mislead the reader.

Carolmooredc, to repeat, Xerographica has provided plenty of superior reliable sources in the Reliable Sources section (see above).

TDF, censorship through the use of misleading information is just as effect as through the removal of information. Indeed, that is often a more efficient form of censorship (and, ironically, fools people into believing the censor is providing information instead of removing it). The misinformation that has been deliberately embedded into the Libertarian article, with dubious references to works written by a handful of revisionist academics who have made careers out of doublespeak, is an unfortunate example of this. And please L2 colon.

Btw, TFD. George Orwell was not a "Socialist writer". If anything, his work (especially Nineteen Eighty-Four and Animal Farm) are highly respected examples of anti-Socialist and anti-Communist fiction. BlueRobe (talk) 04:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Did you ever read anything by Orwell other than those two books? Do you know that his publisher was the Left Book Club or that he fought in the Spanish Civil War with the Workers' Party of Marxist Unification? Did you ever read his book review of Hayek's Road to Serfdom? He wrote, "I worked out an anarchistic theory that all government is evil.... Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism, as I understand it." You might call him a left libertarian. TFD (talk) 04:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

TFD, when we say "Orwellian", we are referring to Nineteen Eighty-Four and Animal Farm. Those books are anti-Socialist books. This is beyond dispute. Or, are you going to throw-up some very poetic revisionist doublespeak and claim that Socialism (the centralised control of the factors of production and the distribution of good and services) does not entail totalitarian big government? Now that would be ironic. BlueRobe (talk) 04:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

That is a bizarre interpretation of the two books. In Animal Farm for example, the moral is not that the animals were better off under Mr. Jones, the farmer who slaughtered them for market. The book praises Old Major and Snowball, who were modelled on Marx, Lenin and Trotsky. At time of publication it was seen to support a Trotskyist view similar to the view in Trotsky's The Revolution Betrayed. TFD (talk) 05:21, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Animal Farm is a direct attack on Communism and Socialism. In particular, it is a metaphor for the USSR's Communist Revolution, (indeed, for any Communist-style revolution - see Communist Manifesto). The character of Napoleon is clearly based on Stalin. Napoleon, along with various other metaphoric characters in the novel, illustrates the failings and gross hypocrisy of the Communist revolution. Interestingly, the Communist revolution (which describes a political process more than a stable political regime per se) results in Animal Farm becoming a totalitarian Socialist government which systematically murders the heroes of the revolution and enslaves the proletariat. BlueRobe (talk) 06:08, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The definition of libertarian socialist is someone who wants socialism without a coercive state apparatus. Therefore it is quite consistent for Orwell to mock State socialism and support non-state socialism. How viable voluntary socialism is for everyone is another issue, but it does work for certain personality and ideological types. CarolMooreDC (talk) 11:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Carolmooredc, Libertarian Socialism has even less in common with Socialism than it does with Libertarianism. The core to the definition of Socialism is, "the centalised control of the factors of production and the distribution of goods and services." Socialism necessarily entails a "coercive state apparatus". That is entirely incompatible with any version of the absurdly named Libertarian Socialism. BlueRobe (talk) 23:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Of course Napoleon is based on Stalin. In the narration Stalin betrays the socialism of Marx, Lenin and Trotsky, and restores capitalism. Hence the name of the book that inspired Orwell: The Revolution betrayed. TFD (talk) 14:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Napolean doesn't restore Capitalism. Napolean installs Socialism, with all the failings of Socialism - murder, attack dogs, hypocrisy, etc. BlueRobe (talk) 23:09, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Napoleon installs communism in one country, also known by socialists as state capitalism. 1984 illustrates the opposite end of the political spectrum - which turns out to be remarkably similar. Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:13, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

or land of the blind http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0433405/plotsummary

Bluerobe, please read the book instead of the summary from the John Birch Society. The pigs start to look, act and dress like humans, i.e., capitalists, and Napoleon becomes an equal of the other farmers. It is the Trotskyist view of the Russian Revolution. Of course there is nothing wrong with being a Trotskyist. TFD (talk) 03:02, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I feel that it needs to be pointed out that what the message of Animal Farm is or is not does not have a remarkable bearing on what should be the scope of this article, only on what George Orwell's personal opinion is. He was, in fact, a democratic socialist. This is starting to veer into WP:FORUM territory. Zazaban (talk) 23:26, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Zazaban, when we refer to "Orwellian", we are referring primarily to Nineteen Eighty-Four, and secondly to Animal Farm. As with any other political philosopher, I couldn't care less about him or his private life.

Btw, I love the way the "Wikipaedia is not a forum" posters always add their own $0.02 on the topic being discussed, lol. BlueRobe (talk) 00:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It was actually an attempt to settle the matter, which, as I've said, is irrelevant. You earlier called him an 'anti-socialist writer' which is patently untrue. Zazaban (talk) 05:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

@Zazaban ... this is THE hottest forum on WP, from what I've seen. BigK HeX (talk) 00:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

BigK HeX indeed! I only respond to your posts because I've been told you're Cameron Diaz in real life ;-) BlueRobe (talk) 01:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

American libertarians always refer to Spartacus, George Orwell and Emma Goldman. Libertarianism, as Murray Rothbard pointed out is leftist. TFD (talk) 03:41, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

What part of Libertarianism's rampant Individualism, Capitalism and adherence to John Stuart Mill's Harm Principle gives you the idea that it is a left-wing ideology? Here's a newsflash for TFD, the left wing is all about Collectivism, Socialism and Coercion (disguised as the "common good" - see Utilitarianism). BlueRobe (talk) 05:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not him who has the idea, it's Murray Rothbard, whom nobody would dispute is a Libertarian. The term was coined by an anarchist, so to try to completely throw out leftist forms is a bit hasty, regardless of your personal opinion on the subject (which I can gather is strongly negative.) Zazaban (talk) 05:26, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we can safely assume that Rothbard's view of the political spectrum was skewed by the American view that Right-wing=Christian Conservatism (aka. the Christian Right). BlueRobe (talk) 06:07, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Not really, he probably recognized that classical liberalism was seen as left-wing in the 19th century. To begin with, I highly doubt that Rothbard was ignorant of politics enough to make such a huge error. Though if you could provide a source that his view of the political spectrum was skewed, then that's entirely different. Zazaban (talk) 06:15, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

actually the term was coined by William Belsham in opposition to determinism, meaning he is against other influences determining his life, aka anti-authoritarianism. dejaques was a communist. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, you're right, first used in a political sense by an anarchist. (Dejaque was an anarchist communist, so technically both.) Zazaban (talk) 07:34, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Zazaban, I was not saying that Rothbard's view of the political spectrum was wrong. I was saying that it was skewed by the American context within which he viewed it. The political spectrum, when viewed within it's American context, is more akin to a battle between the politically correctness and Socialism of the left versus the Christian Right. Given this context, American Libertarians frequently don't know where they sit and often reject the relevance of the political spectrum entirely. Rothbard's attempt to contrive a political spectrum where Libertarianism sits on the left was more of a reactionary backlash to the dominance of the Christian Right during the time he was active in America's party politics (1970s-1980s). BlueRobe (talk) 09:30, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Rothbard saw left-wing collectivism, whether by Stalin or Fabians as a betrayal of the Left and a return to conservatism: "...there were... two different strands within socialism: one was the right-wing, authoritarian strand, from Saint-Simon down, which glorified statism, hierarchy, and collectivism and which was thus a projection of conservatism trying to accept and dominate the new industrial civilization. The other was the left-wing, relatively libertarian strand, exemplified in their different ways by Marx and Bakunin, revolutionary and far more interested in achieving the libertarian goals of liberalism and socialism; but especially the smashing of the state apparatus to achieve the “withering away of the State” and the “end of the exploitation of man by man.” (See Left and Right (1965).) TFD (talk) 14:32, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Darkstar1st, please be specific

RE: "Not everything mentioned in the intro is even discussed in the article"

Please quote parts of the lead that are not representing text from the article body. BigK HeX (talk) 16:42, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I personally like a shorter lead myself and think this is already too long. So being very specific about problems is helpful. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about Darkstar1st, but Xero wrote above, "the left/right issue is mentioned in the intro but there's no section dedicated to the issue. Disagreements regarding the size/role of the government are mentioned in the intro but there's no section dedicated to the issue." --Born2cycle (talk) 18:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Left-right seems pretty well-covered in at Libertarianism#Principles, and as a summarization of the Forms of Libertarianism listed. BigK HeX (talk) 18:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

More on Bookchin and his fans would be good. Plus, again, search News.Google archives mentioned above. There's a bunch of stuff there on lib socialism. I didn't even search left libertarianism. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

A section on Libertarian socialism, which currently does not exist, would be useful. Libertarianism tranhumanism strikes me as an odd thing to include on the same tier as libertarian conservatism and left-libertarianism. Zazaban (talk) 06:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Libertarian socialism was merged into the Left libertarianism section. It was very briefly discussed here in another talk page, see: Talk:Libertarian_socialism#Remove_Libertarian_Socialism_from_Libertarianism_article.3F. BigK HeX (talk) 06:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Could probably be expanded and returned. Zazaban (talk) 07:35, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Is this page about the philosophy Libertarian, or the political use of the term Libertaire?

The term libertarian in a philosophical sense was first used by late-Enlightenment free-thinkers to refer to those who believed in free will, as opposed to determinism. In 1789, William Belsham coined the term in a discussion of free will and in opposition to "necessitarian" (or determinist) views. liberty: a free individual being most free within the context of a state which provides stability of the laws. the anarchist communist, "from each according to ability, to each according to need", Joseph Déjacque, later said "liberal but not libertaire" in a discussion on the rights of women. the whole basis of all left, socialist, anarcho, geo, philosophy comes from the French term, which is obviously different from the original english term. the whole argument of left/right rest on the translated "liberal but not libertaire" which was assumed to mean the same as Belsham's term, yet in practice is very different. therefore i suggest we divide these 2 philosophy into the english philosophical freedom from necessitation, and the french political use of libertaire by the anarchist communist in response to the outlawed use of the term anarchy. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

As you rightly point out, the label of "Libertarian" is used to represent the belief that humans have Free Will in metaphysical philosophy. However, that use of the term "Libertarian" is incommensurable with the use of the term in political philosophy.

Further more, I think people are placing entirely too much importance on the historical etymology of some words. Especially ineffable terms like "left-wing", "right-wing", "liberal" and "conservative". Ronald Reagan once noted (in 1980) that the Liberal-Conservative dichotomy has limited relevance in a changing world, and that an American liberal at the time of the American Revolution was more akin to a conservative in 1980s America. Similarly, the political conservatives in Russia in the 1990s were, ironically, the hard-line Communists, while the Liberals were the new advocates of free-market economics.

Thus, while the historical etymology of political terms can be useful, its relevance needs to be entertained with a cautionary grain of salt. BlueRobe (talk) 09:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

good point, however, instead of different uses of the same word, i am suggesting the term libertarian, and libertaire are entirely different terms from 2 very different languages. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:58, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

You're probably onto something there. BlueRobe (talk) 10:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Uhhh...both...? BigK HeX (talk) 12:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

We cannot rely on original research and must use reliable sources for articles. The paradox of American conservatives btw has been addressed in many reliable sources. When the New Dealers began calling themselves liberals, their opponents began calling themselves conservatives. Then to add to the semantic confusion, they adopted the terms left and right as well. TFD (talk) 13:59, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Libertarianism was supposed to clear up that problem by establishing a statist - antistatist spectrum with statists ranked by the number/cost/impact of state programs they support. Obviously, that concept was not made sufficiently clear by enough libertarians, and the old left right language is back again, confusing everything. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:47, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

the man who coined the term, belsham, was statist. Darkstar1st (talk) 04:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The logic of the statist-antistatist spectrum is that Jim Crow and anti-discrimination laws, being both statist solutions, would be placed in the same part of the political spectrum. But the advocates of the different laws do not normally cooperate and are seen as occupying different parts of the political spectrum. TFD (talk) 02:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

the logic is rather clear to me, Dejacques, an anarchist communist, was anti-statist, and coined the french term: "libertaire" Belsham, a freethinker being most free within the context of a state which provides stability of the laws, was statist. He coined the term "libertarian" in opposition to determinism. your above jim crow analogy demonstrates the absurdity of trying to describe opposite ideas by least common denominator, as is being attempted on this page. Darkstar1st (talk) 06:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I was replying to CarolMooreDC's comment, not your reference to Belsham. TFD (talk) 06:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

so does that mean you are for removing the anti-statist ref on this page? Darkstar1st (talk) 06:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I do not appear to have been successful in explaining my comments to you. TFD (talk) 07:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

well as long as your in this section, why not comment on the question posed by the title? Darkstar1st (talk) 07:23, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I did. Can you please provide a reliable source for your theory. TFD (talk) 07:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

so which is it, or both? My theory of what?

Well if you do not know what this discussion thread is about, then perhaps it is best to go on to something else. TFD (talk) 08:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

i think you meant to say "both". Darkstar1st (talk) 10:58, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

CNN and NPR

I've already used "your" reliable academic sources to prove that right-libertarianism is the most common definition of Libertarianism. But how do reliable and relevant sources use the word? If you search for the word "Libertarian" in the CNN site and the NPR site...within the first 100 results how many results use some form of the word "Libertarian" to refer to right-libertarianism? Here are the first 100 results for CNN and here are the first 100 results for NPR.

As I've said before...we will never be able to achieve consensus because we are talking about completely different and mutually exclusive definitions of the word "Libertarianism". This article should discuss the most common and relevant definition...because that's the definition that people are interested in learning about. If they are not interested in the common definition then that's what the disambiguation page is for.

Unlike all other sources...Wikipedia is unique in its ability to be dynamic and reflect up-to-date definitions, uses and relevance. If you constrain Wikipedia solely to out-of-date purely academic sources then the value of Wikipedia is completely negated. --Xerographica (talk) 21:16, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, we've got it covered in the article with, "Right-libertarianism is thought to be better known than left-libertarianism"

But, here's a hint! "Most common form" =/= "ONLY definition of".

/thread BigK HeX (talk) 21:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Try the same search for the term "liberal" and you will find that they usually use the term to refer to a subset of liberalism, just as they use the term "libertarian" to refer to a subset of libertarianism. The two Wikipedia articles use the meaning of the word the one would find in a textbook and the subsets are also described separately in their own articles. TFD (talk) 21:50, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

TFD, there is no clearly primary definition for the term "liberal". Its definition changes with context and time. There is, however, a clearly primary definition for the term "libertarianism", (despite the constant sabotage by a handful of trolls on this page). BlueRobe (talk) 00:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

agree everyday more evidence is presented here of how the mainstream definition of libertarian does not include most of the disambiguation page. each time new evidence is brought, instead of debating the data, the editor is attacked, or some vague wp:soundlikeyoujustmadethatup is employed to discount the evidence. the faster we get to mediation the better. Darkstar1st (talk) 00:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

lol ..... "evidence". Just FYI, "Hey guys! I can post links to Google searches onto the talk page!" is NOT "evidence." BigK HeX (talk) 00:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

BigK HeX, who said that there is only one definition? According to Wikipedia policy..."in encyclopedias it is perfectly proper to have separate articles for each different definition of a term". If nearly all the results for CNN and NPR discuss one definition then that is sufficient evidence for this article to be dedicated to that single definition.

According to Primary Topic policy it's also sufficient evidence for this article to be the default page rather than the disambiguation page..."Although a term may potentially refer to more than one topic, it is often the case that one of these topics is highly likely – much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined – to be the subject being sought when a reader clicks the "Go" button for that term." The other topics/definitions have little relevance outside of a few small academic circles. --Xerographica (talk) 01:06, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

By my best estimate, you're going to change all of zero minds by just repeating the same assertion ad naseum [although the "New! Now with random Google links" bit was at least a tiny change for the better]. It is up to YOU to make a (convincing!!!) argument that these different forms are -- in actuality -- not just different forms, but actually "different definitions of libertarianism". Good luck with that. BigK HeX (talk) 01:13, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

since the other forms already have there own articles, doesn't that mean they are different definitions, example: left-libertarian, a commitment to expansion of the welfare state. minarchism, the state protects the life, liberty, and property of each individual. Darkstar1st (talk) 03:01, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

BigK HeX, Deng Xiaoping said that he didn't care if a cat was black or white as long as it caught mice. Basically...it didn't matter if an approach was capitalist or communist...what mattered was if it worked. He was trying to justify his capitalist approach by saying that capitalism and communism were just different colored cats. A cat that killed 20 million people is not pretty much the same thing as a cat that led to rapid development.

In conservatism, liberalism and libertarianism...the means of production are privately owned. When an ideology messes around with private ownership of the means of production...then it's not a cat...it's a different beast altogether. Just like if an animal doesn't have a spine/backbone then it's not a vertebrate. Same exact thing with the existence of the government. Conservatives, liberals and libertarians all agree that the government is necessary. Any ideology that wants to abolish government is a different beast altogether. --Xerographica (talk) 03:37, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems that both Darkstar1st and BlueRobe have belief systems that they call libertarianism and believe that their definition should be used for this article. But their belief system is more normally called right-wing populism or right-wing extremism and differs from libertarianism in that it does not include civil rights. TFD (talk) 04:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

what did i say that makes you think i am against civil rights? do you consider legalizing drugs and bringing home our troops right wing extremist? Darkstar1st (talk) 04:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Did any one here do the new edits on Right-libertarianism, as an Anon IP? Some look suspect, some look ok, but many show familiarity with this page and its edits. But don't have time now to check out further. Just wondering. (Or could it be the infamous User:Karmaisking? CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:50, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Karmaisking is from NSW Australia while the IP at Right Libertarianism is from California. TFD (talk) 05:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

An aussie kangaroo. I should have known :-) Anyway, hopefully others will take a look at Right-libertarianism. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I only took the merest of glances at it earlier in the day. Didn't see anything overly nonsensical. BigK HeX (talk) 05:10, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

TFD, "right-wing extremism and differs from libertarianism in that it does not include civil rights"? Libertarianism entails individual rights, qua Isaiah Berlin's Negative Liberty. Civil Rights, as the term is generally used, are sometimes more akin to Isaiah Berlin's Positive Liberty, which is ultimately inconsistent with the freedoms endorsed by Libertarianism. I guess it all comes down to the regrettably ineffable definition of "civil rights" that you are using.

Btw, that is the first time I've ever been accused of being a populist. As is the case with the vast majority of Libertarians, I'm very experienced in holding unpopular dissenting political opinions. Seriously, WTF is "popular" about the Libertarian views endorsed by Darkstar1st and myself? BlueRobe (talk) 05:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

This is collapsing into partisan bickering, from both sides. Arbitration would be very nice, arbitration should have been done ages ago. Zazaban (talk) 05:59, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Group hug :-) BlueRobe (talk) 06:07, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Populism does not mean popular, although they are cognate words. While the defense of freedom is libertarian, the villianization of belief systems that disagree with one's own and grouping them together as a threat to liberty is populism. TFD (talk) 13:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

User: Zazaban - as you can see there is a request under mediation cabal. If nothing comes of that, there could be a request under formal mediation. See WP:dispute. Arbitration is a [[Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Last_resort:_Arbitration}last resort]]. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

TFD, no. Generically speaking, Populism is the conscious contrivance of one's expressions for the purpose of gaining additional popular support for oneself. BlueRobe (talk) 02:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

"Populism... is a type of political-social thought that juxtaposes "the people" against "the elites"...." That's another article you may wish to change to match your ideosyncratic definitions. TFD (talk) 02:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

perhaps we are at the last resort. many here are determined to remove several of the disambiguation terms from this page. i am in favor of moving on to arbitration. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

There should be a Request for comments posted before moving to arbitration, which is a long and often fruitless process. As someone relatively uninvolved in this debate, I'll do the post for RFC below and try to word it neutrally. Hopefully, a consensus will appear during the RFC process. LK (talk) 07:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Should this page discuss only right-libertarianism?

Should this page discuss only right-libertarianism, or should it also include other conceptions of libertarianism such as left-libertarianism? LK (talk) 07:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

To elaborate, there are editors who have been fervently suggesting the the article should be stripped down to only grant coverage of a narrowly construed right-libertarian view that idealizes some form of capitalistic Night watchman state. There is the small chance that I'm misreading the desire of these editors as I'm gathering this from rather vague personal soapbox rants, as opposed to the quotations of any WP:RS. BigK HeX (talk) 10:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by current participants

"Libertarianism" should be construed narrowly

• neither, it should focus on the most widely understood definition of libertarianism which is neither left nor right. Modern libertarians most closely resemble the man who coined the term, Belsham. a free individual being most free within the context of a state which provides stability of the laws. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

of the unchallenged reliable sources that actually link to text: Liberalism: old and new, Part 1, p 187, Peter Vallentyne, the best known form of libertarianism - right-libertarianism. So if this is the best known form, shouldn't it be here, and the rest on the disambiguation page? Darkstar1st (talk) 09:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

No. Your question itself defies any logical application of policy. There is NO policy which suggests that "an article with multiple prominent viewpoints ["forms"] must only cover the one that may be more popular than the others." If anything, this is the exact opposite of what policy actually tells us to do. BigK HeX (talk) 09:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Narrow

I am no fan of the left-right distinction regarding Libertarianism. However, it appears that some editors are pushing to retain a left-wing version of Libertarianism - namely, "left-Libertarianism" - within this article. As a result, the predominant version of Libertarianism has been relabeled "right-Libertarianism", (at least, it has for the purpose of this Wikipaedia talk page).

Right-Libertarianism is the predominant version of Libertarianism. Right-Libertarianism entails a minimalist State that limits its interference into the lives of its citizens to the protection of private property rights (including the enforcement of economic contracts) and the protection of its citizens from physical harm by crime and by war. Ultimately, right-Libertarianism seeks to maximise each person's Negative Liberty (see Isaiah Berlin's "Two Concepts of Liberty"). Right-Libertarianism is a fundamentally individualistic political philosophy that rejects paternalism and Welfarism out of hand. Indeed, it is a fundamental philosophical principle of right-Libertarianism that all conduct by the State be constrained by adherence to the Harm Principle (see John Stuart Mill.) Some philosophers would suggest that one of the distinctive flavours of right-Libertarianism is respect for the principle embodied by Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative, (however, many Libertarians - including many Ayn Rand Objectivists - would dispute this.)

The various forms of so-called left-Libertarianism are akin to variations of Anarchism, Socialism and Communism. Indeed, there is no left version of Libertarianism - there is only Libertarianism (being labeled "right-Libertarianism" here) and a cluster of Anarchist, Socialist and Communist ideologies that have appropriated the name "left-Libertarian" for their collective identity. Examples include:

Libertarian Socialism This is a ridiculously oxymoronic label. Further more, the group of political philosophies it is said to represent appears to have virtually nothing in common with Libertarianism (or Socialism). Indeed, Libertarian Socialism appears to be founded upon a deliberate and conscious opposition to Libertarianism and Socialism. In Particular, Libertarian Socialism prohibits "private property in the means of production", which is entirely inconsistent with one of the core principles of Libertarianism. To be clear, aside from the use of the word "Libertarian" in it's label, Libertarian Socialism has nothing to do with Libertarianism.

Anarcho-Capitalism While this philosophy has much in common with right-Libertarianism, it is, ultimately, a distinct form of Anarchism with a Wikipaedia page of its own. Personally, I do see enough shared commonalities between right-Libertarianism and Anarcho-capitalism to support the inclusion of some discussion of Anarcho-capitalism in the Libertarianism article. That said, Anarcho-capitalism has no place in the lede for the Libertarianism article.

For all practical purposes, it is beyond dispute that right-Libertarianism is clearly the predominant version of Libertarianism. A look at the references in this talk page make it abundantly clear that almost all the noteworthy generic reference tomes describe "Libertarianism" in terms akin to right-Libertarianism, (see the references provided by Xerographica). Meanwhile, the so-called reliable sources of those advocating the inclusion of left-Libertarianism are little more than a collection of rhetoric by a self-congratulatory band of self-important left-wing academics who have made careers out of swapping their mutual endorsements as rewards for their deliberate obfuscation of the concept of "Libertarianism" in the minds of the ignorant. At best, many of the advocates of left-Libertarianism are simply Anarchists and/or Socialists who have tried to squeeze under the moral umbrella of "defenders of liberty/freedom", that is presented by the favoured "Libertarian" label, by misusing the contrivance of Isiaiah Berlin's Positive Liberty.

Right-libertarianism is entirely incompatible with left-Libertarianism to the extent that left-Libertarianism: endorses the Positive Liberty concept of "freedom", opposes private property rights, supports taxation (to support Welfarism etc), endorses the Machiavellian exploitation or sacrifice of the individual for the collective good, supports a sizable State apparatus that goes beyond that required to perform the functions of a Minarchist role for government, endorses coercion and paternalism in violation of the Harm Principle, endorses needs-based distributive justice (Marxism) and endorses egalitarian-based distributive justice. Any commonalities that left and right Libertarianism do share are trivial, at best. They are, to coin a phrase, as different as chalk and cheese. Indeed, the "liberty" endorsed by left-Libertarianism, such as it is, is virtually incommensurable with the "liberty" endorsed by right-Libertarianism - each embraces their own distinct flavour of freedom. Thus, any attempt to merge left and right Libertarianism into a single article Libertarianism article, where terms like "liberty" entail contradictory - nigh incommensurable - meanings, can only lead to confusion for the readers.

Further more, in practice, almost all the self-styled "Libertarian" political parties and political activist groups around the world advocate variations of right-Libertarianism, including the Libertarianz (sic) Party of New Zealand, the Libertarian Party of Canada, the Libertarian Party of the United Kingdom, the Russian Libertarian Movement and the Libertarian Party of the United States.

Right-Libertarianism is the predominant version of Libertarianism. The variations of so-called left-Libertarianism belong on a separate disambiguation page. Indeed, the cynic in me would respectfully suggest that the so-called "left-Libertarianism" is little more than an exercise in Orwellian doublespeak designed to sabotage the Libertarianism article with pointless tangents that are designed to confuse and obstruct the curious reader. BlueRobe (talk) 11:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't how imagine the mainstream view of Libertarianism could be called "right". Don't know if you've ever seen the "square" used to explain / define it, but the social / behavior half it is the same as the left. North8000 (talk) 17:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

North8000, (I have assumed that you are responding to my post and have indented your post for the sake of appearances - please correct this if my assumption is mistaken, with my apologies.)

I don't have a strong belief that Libertarianism is right wing. Indeed, it's one of the great ironies of a simplistically linear left-right political spectrum that right-Libertarianism is regularly branded as extremely right-wing, alongside Nazism, while Socialism - the basic foundation for all authoritarian and totalitarian ideologies - is popularly labeled left-wing. Clearly, right-Libertarianism transcends the simplistic approach of a linear political spectrum, while left-Libertarianism is just a generic label for a cluster of Anarchist, Socialist and Communist ideologies.

I am familiar with the "square". As I have noted, the labels of "left-Libertarianism" and "right-Libertarianism" are being used in this discussion for the sake of mere convenience. Frankly, the vast majority of Libertarians would reject the labels of "left-Libertarianism" and "right-Libertarianism" because, quite simply, there is no left version of Libertarianism - there is only Libertarianism (being labeled "right-Libertarianism" here) and a cluster of Anarchist, Socialist and Communist ideologies that have appropriated the name "left-Libertarian". BlueRobe (talk) 23:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Narrow

Even though libertarianism is socially liberal and economically conservative you would not say that it is a form of liberalism or a form of conservatism. Libertarianism is half liberalism and half conservatism. Anarcho-capitalism is half classical liberalism and half anarchism. It is not a form of libertarianism. Libertarian socialism is half socialism and half anarchism. It is not a form of libertarianism.

The distinctions are clear yet anarchists want to use this page to advertise their ideologies. They've gotten away with it for the past three years citing sources that give no indication to proper weight or relevance. The anarchists' views should solely be represented on the disambiguation page.

If people are interested in learning about Libertarian socialism or Anarcho-capitalism they would just google for those terms and find the wikipedia articles on those subjects. Why google for "libertarianism" if you are interested in learning about Anarcho-capitalism or Libertarian socialism? In mainstream media "libertarianism" is commonly understood to mean robust property rights, capitalism, social liberalism, free-markets and minimal government. This article should solely reflect mainstream usage. To do otherwise would give undue weight to extreme views. --Xerographica (talk) 13:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

"Libertarianism" should be construed broadly

• I think you should re-write the question. The sources indicate a concept of libertarianism that has different strands in the same sense that liberalism has different strands (e.g., classical liberalism, social liberalism). The dispute is whether we should use the definition in the literature or the article should be about right-libertarianism only, because some writers mean that when they use the term libertarian. TFD (talk) 08:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Broad. Because unchallenged reliable sources indicate that there exists a view that the anarchist and egalitarian understandings are merely variants encompassed by a more basic concept of "libertarianism", the article should discuss this understanding. Additionally, those wishing to strip this viewpoint have made no serious effort to show that people choosing to seek information on libertarianism would wish only right-libertarianism, and so much so that a censored right-libertarian article is "much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined – to be the subject being sought when a reader clicks the "Go" button for that term." Even further, having the wiki article encompass broad variations seems to be the convention pursued on basically every other article on political ideology having variants, even when the varying implementations may -- in some areas -- be in conflict with one another.

1. See Socialism which incorporates variations as conflicting as Marxist completely government-planned economies and anarchist completely government-less decentralized societies.
2. See Conservatism which has to incorporate material on both fiscal conservatives and social conservatives.
3. See Monarchy which has to give coverage to absolutist and constitutionally limited variants.

Given the commonplace treatment of this issue throughout Wikipedia, the reliable sources presented to indicate prominence, and the lack of strong reasons to censor the material, I think the matter was never really worthy of debate. BigK HeX (talk) 08:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Broad. WP:NPOV reads: All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors. While some good issues have been raised re: sourcing, etc., the constant barage of soapbox and threats to gut the article have had disruptive effect of discouraging editing of whole article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Broad -- per TFD and CarolMooreDC. There are plenty of reliable sources that discuss left libertarianism, libertarian socialism, etc. Per WP:NPOV we should discuss those. All of the !voting, original research, and debate not backed by reliable sources above is irrelevant. Just take a look at left libertarianism or libertarian socialism and you can see that there are plenty of reliable sources talking about each. We will represent these views here per WP:NPOV, whether people who don't agree with these terms (or who think they are ridiculous, stupid, oxymoronic, etc.) like it or not. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 14:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Broad-- Libertarianism is a vague term with a long and complex history. It far pre-dates the adoption of the term by certain classical liberals in the 1950s. In the contemporary world many understand "libertarianism" as a socialist philosophy, especially outside of the United States. The only common thread is that libertarianism means advocacy of individual freedom. This article shouldn't adopt a narrow or partisan definition.

On a side note, it's disappointing that many of the comments under this heading are devoted to bickering about the phrasing of the question, rather than addressing the substantive problem. Everyone recognises that free-market "libertarianism" contains both right- and left-wing ideas. The term "right libertarianism" arises from the fact that free-market "libertarianism" is obviously to the right of "left libertarianism".

On this talkpage we clearly need some sort of neutral terms to distinguish the different philosophies that call themselves libertarian. If you don't like "right libertarianism" please suggest a better alternative. Iota (talk) 19:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Broad-- All WP:NOTABLE political ideologies that grouped by reliable sources under the unmbrella term libertarianism ought to be included. NickCT (talk) 19:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
• Broad-- All versions are notable, all are grouped together by reliable sources. No NPOV reason has yet been given for the narrow approach. Zazaban (talk) 01:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by uninvolved outsiders

What do you mean by "uninvolved"? Anybody who looks enough at this to make an intelligent comment is no longer "uninvolved". North8000 (talk) 09:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Usually, it means editors who haven't actually been changing the article to reflect one view or the other -- even better, if you've had little previous interaction with the editors who have been editing the article recently. BigK HeX (talk) 09:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Well I guess that's me.

Faulty question The question presumes a (IMHO wrong) answer to the biggest open question. By most frameworks, Libertarianism is DEFINED by being neither "left" nor "right". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC) Lifelong avid party-less libertarian

I think you've answered a bit too quickly. Whether libertarianism "properly" resides on the left/right/neither end of the spectrum is not really the question here. Whether the labels are misleading or not, there actually are understandings called Left libertarianism and Right libertarianism. Editors on this page have been pushing to have the article narrowed to include only information about libertarianism which would likely be classified a some implementation of Right libertarianism. The question here is how the views of reliable sources should be treated. How would stripping the article down to a much narrower discussion of Libertarianism affect the article's compliance with the Due/Undue Weight policy.

I didn't get into coverage or non-coverage of all significant viewpoints, if only as such. I, in essence said that the wording of the question presupposes invalidity of widest held viewpoint, that Libertarianism is by definition neither left nor right. North8000 (talk) 10:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Excellent point I've stuck in the article myself, but it needs to be more of a lead concept. Getting some similar quotes from lefty libs would help (Greens are only ones who also have used that concept and some of them a libertarian socialists.) More on the statist - anti-statist spectrum would help and there doubtless are some WP:RS on that if we look. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)