Talk:Libertarianism

Template:FixBunching

Template:FixBunching Template:V0.5 Template:FixBunching

Improving the outline

To avoid an edit war, let's discuss, starting with this edit summary comment... "agorism is often considered right-lib, but for the outline, should probably keep it with the New Left movement"

This is why I structured the outline the way I did. The fact is that agorism is considered both right and left, depending on context. The sources have it both ways, and so can we. Here's how the /OverviewDraft outline looked after my last edit.

• Libertarianism (in the broad sense)
  • The ideology of major libertarian orgs around the world.
    • The ideologies which recognize the Non-aggression principle and property rights and are advocated and represented by the majority of Libertarian political parties and organizations around the world (Australian Libertarian Society, Libertarian Party of Canada, Libertarian Party UK, Libertarian Party (United States), The Libertarian Alliance); usually called libertarianism in contemporary English which is based on the non-aggression principle and so spans from Agorism and Anarcho-capitalism (the Libertarian Left) to Minarchism and Objectivism (Ayn Rand)
      • Right-libertarianism (Usually "libertarianism" in contemporary US/UK/Australia/Canada usage though sometimes referenced with the more specific qualifier, "right-libertarianism", to distinguish from left-libertarianism); pro-property-rights; This usage of libertarian is considered to be 'idiosyncratic' by Chomsky); A.k.a. classical liberalism and simply "liberalism" in early 20th century and prior; Has advocates who give a morality-based justification (e.g., Ayn Rand, Nozick, Boaz) as well as others who give a consequentialist justification of libertarianism (e.g., Milton Friedman, Ludwig von Mises);
        • Minarchism (of the typical Nozickean conception) advocated by R Nozick, M. Friedman; idealizes a society containing legal/recognized governance with authority limited to a small number of functions
        • Anarcho-capitalism is a right-libertarian strain of thought originally advocated by MN Rothbard; idealizes a propertarian society without legal/recognized government
      • New left movement (also The Libertarian Left[1]). May be distinguishable from contemporary left-libertarianism (in its synonymous use for libertarian socialism). Describes the views of left-Rothbardians[2] and agorists like Samuel E. Konkin III and Karl Hess; associated with geolibertarians, mutualists, among others
    • Libertarian socialism or left-libertarianism a.k.a. socialisme libertaire; usually "libertarian socialism" in contemporary English usage, but often left-libertarianism and sometimes, libertarianism ; known as "libertarian" in contemporary continental (non-English) European usage and in English usage prior to the 1950s; anti-individual-property-rights;

Note that agorism falls under Libertarian Left, which itself falls under "ideologies that recognize the NAP and property rights" which is sometimes (to distinguish from non-propertian libertarianism, best known as libertarian socialism) referred to as right-libertarianism. So not only does this outline show that agorism is both right and left, it explains why.

What we have now doesn't do this at all:

Libertarianism (in the broad sense)

• • Right-libertarianism (Usually "libertarianism" in contemporary US/UK/Australia/Canada usage though sometimes referenced with the more specific qualifier, "right-libertarianism", to distinguish from left-libertarianism); pro-property-rights; This usage of libertarian is considered to be 'idiosyncratic' by Chomsky); A.k.a. classical liberalism and simply "liberalism" in early 20th century and prior; Has advocates who give a morality-based justification (e.g., Ayn Rand, Nozick, Boaz) as well as others who give a consequentialist justification of libertarianism (e.g., Milton Friedman, Ludwig von Mises); these variants recognize private property rights, even with respect to natural resources; based on the non-aggression principle and so spans from Anarcho-capitalism to Minarchism and Objectivism (Ayn Rand)
    • Minarchism (of the typical Nozickean conception) advocated by R Nozick, M. Friedman; idealizes a society containing legal/recognized governance with authority limited to a small number of functions (At some point CarolMooreindc or perhaps others will ref the current statement in article about differences between centralist and decentralist minarchism; also any refs that might exist comparing them to libertarian municipalism. So heads up. It's my number one priority - besides moving overview to lead and deleting LP from it.)
    • Anarcho-capitalism is a right-libertarian strain of thought originally advocated by MN Rothbard; idealizes a propertarian society without legal/recognized government
  • New left movement (also The Libertarian Left[3]). May be distinguishable from contemporary left-libertarianism (in its synonymous use for libertarian socialism). Describes the views of left-Rothbardians[4] and agorists like Samuel E. Konkin III and Karl Hess; associated with geolibertarians, mutualists, among others
  • Libertarian socialism or left-libertarianism a.k.a. socialisme libertaire; usually "libertarian socialism" in contemporary English usage, but often left-libertarianism and sometimes, libertarianism ; known as "libertarian" in contemporary continental (non-English) European usage and in English usage prior to the 1950s; anti-individual-property-rights;

As you can see, it simply lists right, left and lib soc as three distinct forms, doesn't demonstrate much less explain most of the relationships and related usages we had before, and wrongly implies the following:

• A-C and agorism are note closely related.
• What is described as New Left is never referred to as left-libertarianism.
• Agorism and other propertian left lib ideologies grouped with non-propertian geolibs and mutualists.

I'm not saying that the version we had earlier is not without problems. But what's no longer shown here at all is the big distinction at the top, differentiating propertian from non-propertian ideologies, as is done here (but there only with anarchisms, obviously the minarchists are propertian too). Then the propertian branch, if you will, also is divided into right and left. Showing that is what I was striving for above, and it's now completely lost. If we're not going to use this outline to show how these terms are used and related relative to each other, what's the point? --Born2cycle (talk) 04:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not even sure where to start, so I guess I'll keep it short. Your version appears to be wrong on a number of counts, and further, IMO, overall it looks unsourceable (in fact, the "source" you provide above clearly contradicts your version). My version above is sourceable, and AFAIK, doesn't make claims easily contradicted by sources. I noted the problems that I encountered in the many edit comments that I made in trying to make it sourceable. We could go through those if you like ... just let me know which edit.

As for the edit comment that you specifically refer to above, your attempt to represent the entire New Left movement with agorism is erroneous and leads to assertions about the New Left movement that were factually incorrect. BigK HeX (talk) 05:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

RE: "the big distinction at the top, differentiating propertian from non-propertian ideologies"

I'd say the attempt to shoehorn this categorization into the outline prompted a fair amount of the issues which likely made the effort impossible to source and prompted some of the inaccuracies. What source puts this distinction "at the top" of New Left and right-lib strands anyways...? BigK HeX (talk) 06:27, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Folks, y'all are experts on this, and are carrying aroudn the result of reading hundreds of sources in your heads. If you all agree with something, it will be sourcable. This is just an outline / lists to assist in the development of the draft including to hammer out unclear / questioned areas and hopefully create a bit of structure for the information/descriptions/overview. May I suggest going a few days with just trying to hammer it out based on what you know / agree with? (at this stage, just use sourcing to sort out unclear areas) Then go to sourcing for the draft. I think that the "common tenets" section is simpler to consensus, because if there's not consensus that it's a common tenet, it simply won't be on there. The outline / description of the strands (and their differences) is tougher, but you are tackling a very complicated tough job and in 2 days have made more progress than this trio of articles article has in 5 years. BTW I will be gone (canoe trip in Canada where even cell phones don't reach) October 9th - 17th, so I won't be here then. North8000 (talk) 11:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking maybe each editor who is interested should have his/her own working outline, each with a dynamic "problems" section. So if someone sees a problem in the current version of someone's outline, they would comment accordingly in the problems section (latest first; striked out as addressed).

In theory, especially if each participating editor is diligent in analyzing all the others, all of the outlines will converge to a consensus version, because something missing from, or stated/represented questionably in A, but is in B correctly, will be listed as a problem for one or the other. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:34, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I think broader outlines first would be useful, two big issues being:

• Do we want to separate broadly left from broadly right libertarian views in two sections similar to as was done back in December here.
• And/or do we want to want to make sections according to the levels of decentralization different forms think are ideal. (The problem being that I've never met a libertarian who would use military force vs. secessionists, which means decentralization is inevitable under all libertariani regimes.)

Q. - What's the difference between a Libertarian and an anarchist? A - About 6 to 7 years, if you're paying attention, or 20 years if you're real slow, like me. ~ Richard B. Boddie

Thoughts? CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Intro

Text of current intro:

Libertarianism is the advocacy of individual liberty, especially freedom of thought and action.[1] Roderick T. Long defines libertarianism as "any political position that advocates a radical redistribution of power [either "total or merely substantial"] from the coercive state to voluntary associations of free individuals", whether "voluntary association" takes the form of the free market or of communal co-operatives.[2] David Boaz writes that, "Libertarianism is the view that each person has the right to live his life in any way he chooses so long as he respects the equal rights of others" and that, "Libertarians defend each person's right to life, liberty, and property--rights that people have naturally, before governments are created."[3]

Karl Widerquist writes of left-libertarianism and libertarian socialism as being distinct ideologies also claiming the label "libertarianism".[4] However, many works broadly distinguish right-libertarianism and left-libertarianism as related forms of libertarian philosophy.[5] Also identified is a large faction advocating minarchism, though libertarianism has also long been associated with anarchism (and sometimes is used as a synonym for such), especially outside of the United States.[6] Anarchism remains one of the significant branches of libertarianism.[7]

1st paragraph

I think the first paragraph of the intro is very good because it speaks of libertarianism only in general, and cites appropriately. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Bracketed clarifying phrase

The "[either total or substantial]" must be removed. Wikipedia policy doesn't not allow changing quotations from being exact. Even though Long said it, he didn't say it there, and it can't be inserted. Yworo (talk) 17:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Reference to that policy please. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:MOSQUOTE. Only ellipses or non-substantial grammatical changes (such as substituting the subject's name for he or she) are permitted. If quotations from two different places are needed, they should be two different quotations. One should not be inserted into another. This is a pretty standard style and citation requirement for scholarship and encyclopedias and not at all special or unusual for Wikipedia. Yworo (talk) 22:05, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but the MOS is a guideline, not policy (it's about preferred style, not about what is allowed or not). Further, WP:MOSQUOTE also says this:

Where there is a good reason to make a change, insert an explanation within square brackets (for example, [her father] replacing him, where the context explaining him is omitted in the quotation).

The "[either total or substantial]" is completely compliant with MOS (and policy too, of course). --Born2cycle (talk) 22:32, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a better solution is to comply with the guideline and expand the quote or add an additional quote of the appropriate portion of Long's text. Dunno.... BigK HeX (talk) 22:37, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

It's already in full compliance with the guideline as is, as far as I can tell. WP:MOSQUOTE. No need to change anything, at least not to comply with the guideline. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I will not agree with that. The guideline is "minimum necessary change". It may not be spelled out in the first section but it is in the second section. The example you quote is of an entirely different nature, expanding a grammatical filler word only. Just use two separate quotes. Yworo (talk) 22:55, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The phrase "minimum necessary change" is not present at WP:MOSQUOTE nor anywhere at WP:MOS (in case anyone else was mislead into thinking you were quoting the MOS when you put that phrase in quotes). I have no idea what you mean by "spelled out" or "second section" (could you please use actual quotes of what you're talking about, and name the sections to which you refer?).

The example is expanding a word, but the instruction at Minimal change simply states, "Where there is a good reason to make a change, insert an explanation within square brackets". That's exactly what we have in this quote... "good reason to make a change", and "an explanation [inserted] within square brackets". --Born2cycle (talk) 23:17, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

There is also this at Brackets and parentheses:

Square brackets are used to indicate editorial replacements and insertions within quotations, though this should never alter the intended meaning. They serve three main purposes:

• To clarify. (She attended [secondary] school, where this was the intended meaning, but the type of school was unstated in the original sentence.)
• To reduce the size of a quotation. (X contains Y, and under certain circumstances, X may contain Z as well may be reduced to X contains Y [and sometimes Z].) When an ellipsis (...) is used to indicate that material is removed from a direct quotation, it should not normally be bracketed (see Ellipses, below).
• To make the grammar work. (Referring to someone's statement "I hate to do laundry", one could properly write: She "hate[s] to do laundry".)

The purpose of this bracketed phrase is to clarify. The intended meaning is preserved. What is the problem? --Born2cycle (talk) 23:23, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The heading of the first section is "minimum change" and the words "the requirement of minimal change is strict" are in the second section. There is not a good reason here, because the two separate quotes can be quoted separately to make to clarify what Long really says just a easily. Yworo (talk) 23:25, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

No section in the WP:MOS has a heading of "minimum change". The section I'm talking about has the heading, Minimal change. This is a minimal change, simply bringing in the clarification of Long's intended meaning that he himself presents a few sentences later, right into the quoted sentence, so the reader better understands what Long clearly means. How is Wikipedia improved if we split this into two quotes? It doesn't. Therefore, even if the WP:MOS said what you incorrectly think it says (and it doesn't), this would be a case for WP:IAR. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:38, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I like the quote as-is, but I'd concede that a bit too much interpretation is used in making the bracketed insertion. I'd have to lean towards it being more on the editorializing side, than just simple clarification. BigK HeX (talk) 23:52, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

For crying out loud, the MOS clearly states that a purpose of square brackets is precisely to indicate this type of "editorial insertion within quotations ... to clarify". The intended meaning of the original sentence, which was originally presented in a context in which Long reasonably presumed the reader would read the entire paragraph which included the clarification in question, is preserved. What is the problem? How is Wikipedia improved by creating two quotes instead of inserting the clarification like this into the one quote? --Born2cycle (talk) 00:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

A good blunt debate amongst collaborators is cool. Let's just keep the "collaborators" part and have some fun doing it. North8000 (talk) 00:11, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is more of the relevant text used for the first definition from Long:

"For the purposes of this essay, I propose to define as libertarian any political position that advocates a radical redistribution of power from the coercive state to voluntary associations of free individuals. This definition draws the boundaries of libertarianism rather more expansively than is customary, and includes under the libertarian aegis a number of conflicting positions. For example, my definition does not specify whether the distribution of power is to be total or merely substantial, and so allows both anarchists and nonanarchists to count as libertarians; ..."

As can be seen here, after providing his definition, Long goes on to clarify that the meaning of the phrase "redistribution of power" is intentionally left ambiguous in his definition with respect to whether the "redistribution of power" is "total or merely substantial" in order to allow "both anarchists and nonanarchists to count as libertarians". Now, surely there is no question that it's reasonable to only use the definition from Long, without the clarifying phrase in square brackets: "any political position that advocates a radical redistribution of power from the coercive state to voluntary associations of free individuals".

The only issue is about whether it's fine to insert the clarifying phrase in square brackets to make the ambiguity of that phrase as clear to WP readers as Long wanted it to be to his readers, or whether that would be "a bit too much interpretation" and is so contrary to WP:MOSQUOTE that the clarifying phrase "must be removed". Further, it is argued, if the clarifying is desired, we need to include more of the original text instead, though I have not seen a specific proposal as to what that would look like.

As I explained above, I don't see a problem here at all, not with WP:MOS, nor with standard editorial practices. There can be no question as to whether inserting the phrase simply conveys more clearly the original intended meaning; of course it does. So what's the problem?

Personally, I suspect what's really going on her is that some people are so eager to disagree with me for some reason, that even if I say something as mundane as "I think the first paragraph of the intro is very good", they'll rationalize (perhaps unintentionally, subconsciously) something like this simply to disagree. I hope I'm wrong, but I simply cannot fathom any other reasonable explanation for this entire thread regarding that bracketed phrase.

So, where are we on this? Can the bracketed clarifying phrase stay, or must it really be removed? With or without a second quote? What would that look like? --Born2cycle (talk) 15:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

See below about Wikilawyering over policies and guidelines. There seems to be consensus to follow the guidelines closely and avoid drama about it. Either leave it out, quote the whole thing, or use two quotes. I personally think the insertion should be left out and the second quote used to introduce range of implementation a bit later in the overview. Yworo (talk) 16:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I also agree the guidelines should be followed closely. I think leaving the inserted clarifying phrase in the quote is doing exactly that.

What do you think about the part of the complete quote where Long makes the point that defining libertarian so broadly is doing so "rather more expansively than is customary"? How do you think that can be incorporated in the intro/article? Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Some history:

• Long quote first added. Note that the clarifying information is just added on at the end of the quote in editorial language.
• bracketed clarifying phrase inserted.

Apparently there were no objections at that time. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that's not true, it been previously discussed as inappropriate recently here. Not noticed at the time due to the voluminous postings going on at that time. Yworo (talk) 21:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

In a broad sense

I propose we follow the lead of Atheism and clarify right away that the topic of this article is the term in its title used in a broad sense. So, instead of

Libertarianism is the advocacy of individual liberty, ...

I propose we reflect the broad sense in the wording somehow

.We use Long's expansive definition (see above) in the intro, but remember that Long notes that defining libertarian so expansively is not customary. Other sources make similar comments (noting one use is most common, but there are other uses too, etc.) So I think this current wording is problematic in that it could incorrectly imply to the uninitiated that this broad sense is how the term is used customarily in contemporary English.

So, I propose:

Libertarianism, in a broad sense, is the advocacy of individual liberty, ...

Or even:

Libertarianism, in its broadest sense, is the advocacy of individual liberty, ...

Or perhaps maybe:

Libertarianism customarily[5] refers to one of several forms of individualist political ideology, but, in its broadest sense, is the advocacy of individual liberty, ...

Comments? Preferences? --Born2cycle (talk) 16:44, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Great idea......we need plainer English and more direct statements in the lead. The first three all look good. North8000 (talk) 17:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, I proposed three alternatives to the current wording (which is shown first). Did you mean the first two of those three alternatives look good, or all three of them? --Born2cycle (talk) 17:49, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I meant the first 3 including the original. I didn't realize that that confusing and tangent-filled mess of a lead actually had a direct plain-english phrase already in it. North8000 (talk) 19:27, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

It's hard to follow this discussion, but FYI, I think using "individualist" is problematic for a lead trying to accommodate all forms because socialist libertarian types usually don't like to bandy the word about. So you'd need a really good source. The Merrian Webster definition remains the "broadest sense" definition. So leave it in. Think I'll archive a lot more items which are no longer under debate and sometimes against "general disruption warning." CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Following Atheism's lead

The article at Atheism has a challenge similar to this article in that the term is used with different meanings among reliable sources, mostly to refer to a specific ideology but also in the broadest sense, though the broadest sense is not the most common use. The opening paragraph there addresses this right away:

Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[4] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.[5][6]

What if we did something like that here (this is meant as sketch example, not a specific proposal):

Libertarianism, in its broadest sense, is the advocacy of individual liberty, especially freedom of thought and action[1], or "any political position that advocates a radical redistribution of power from the coercive state to voluntary associations of free individuals"[2]. Traditionally, libertarianism has been used as synonym for anarchism, and to refer to specific ideologies such as agorism and libertarian socialism[3]. In contemporary usage, libertarianism often refers to the view that "each person has the right to live his life in any way he chooses so long as he respects the equal rights of others"[4] and "libertarians defend each person's right to life, liberty, and property--rights that people have naturally, before governments are created[5].

Something like that? --Born2cycle (talk) 18:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The above implies that "traditional usage" somehow does not view that "each person has the right to live his life....etc". BigK HeX (talk) 19:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, we wouldn't want to do that, but that's a detail in the particular wording of this example. What about the idea in general? --Born2cycle (talk) 21:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The wording will have to be more careful, but the approach doesn't seem too contentious. BigK HeX (talk) 22:08, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, that means a lot coming from you. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:35, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

2nd paragraph

The second paragraph is problematic however because it delves right into using arguably technical terms without defining them first. Yes, they're wikilinked, but most readers are unlikely to know what they mean. I think we need some content in between that bridges the gap. Something like, "A variety of forms of libertarianism are recognized, among them are ...", and at least introduce the terms there, in a way that defines their meanings, that we're about to use (in what is currently the 2nd paragraph). --Born2cycle (talk) 16:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree. It reads like there was a middle paragraph about right-libertarianism, which has since been removed or moved elsewhere. Some introduction to the different forms would be good, before jumping into how one writer claims certain forms are distinct. TFOWR 17:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Also identified is a large faction advocating minarchism, though libertarianism has also long been associated with anarchism (and sometimes is used as a synonym for such), especially outside of the United States.[6] This is just confusing. Only "right" libertarians use phrase minimal state or minarchism, right? What similar phrases beside "libertarian municipalism" do lefties use? CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

"Democratic socialism," "workers' council," "industrial union," "transitional state apparatus," I forget what the Makhnovists called their transitional state form. The most important revolutionary libertarian socialist analysis of transitional state apparatus is in the KAPD / Councilist traditions. The most important non-revolutionary one would probably be Fabianism. Does this help Carol? Fifelfoo (talk) 02:16, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Just to respond to this one substantive comment, this is why it is good to have a section on libertarian decentralism which I believe has enough WP:RS (from my last researches) to deal with all aspects of the issue. Think I'll have time to work on this weekend, maybe even create who article. Will report. [Add two days later: Work on another article and a sudden work task took up my time, but I shall yet report with progress!!] CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:33, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

As TFOWR, I'd agree as well. The lede has been alternatively expanded and gutted, and eventually spawned the Overview section. I'm not sure if having a minimal lede is still a point of contention. BigK HeX (talk) 20:56, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

The lead will be very complex to write well. I think the "overview" section moves some of the difficulty away to make it just tough instead of impossible. North8000 (talk) 23:03, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I nominate TFOWR to be a peacemaker/moderator, doubly so when I'm gone. North8000 (talk) 01:22, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I've actually asked Tmorton166 (talk) if they'd be willing to continue. I gather they're busy in real-life, but will try. I'm wary of getting too involved, due to my own potential biases. However, while I'm here, and having followed some of the above discussion yesterday, I'll make a few general points:

• Wikilawyering over guidelines and policies: don't do it. If we go down that route we'll get bogged down. Strive to make the article as good as possible, and as compliant with policy and guidelines (and especially the manual of style) as possible. Our goal here, as with any article, should be that it becomes a featured article as quickly as possible. If the choice is between making a quick and easy change to comply with a guideline, or arguing the toss over interpretation of a guideline - I'll choose the former any day. In the argument above it sounds as if Long says two things in two places. Cite them both. It's quick, it's easy, and it's drama-free.
• Sourcing is key, at each and every step. Sourcing shouldn't be a problem - the article seems well-sourced already. I'd like to see sources used in pretty much every discussion. Apart from anything else, this talkpage should not be a walled-garden where only editors with extensive knowledge of libertarianism can edit. All articles here should, by and large, be capable of being worked on by complete laymen. If we cite sources in discussion we make that possible: if we assume that editors are intimately familiar with the topic then we make that impossible. Things like key tenets and the overview should be far easier than we're making them - writers have written about libertarianism, identifying key tenets and providing their own overview. I started going through first Britannica (Boaz) and then Stanford (Vallentyne) in my sandbox yesterday. It needs completed for Vallentyne, and needs further sources, but that's how I'd like to see these discussions going - compile sourced lists of prominent writers' views, then we edit the lists - where do Boaz and Vallentyne (etc) agree? They use different terms, different phrases - how do we reconcile two (or more) different writers' views? Then it just becomes a matter of us writing our version of each tenet ("the freedom to act is paramount, but tempered by respect for others' freedom. (Boaz: '...complete freedom of action, provided their actions do not infringe on the freedom of others...'; Vallentyne: '...each agent has a right to maximum equal empirical negative liberty...'")
• Nailing down the fundamentals, and getting into good habits, is the way forward. Otherwise we'll argue round in circles, and there'll be no progress. Incidentally, our goals should be common ones - not "hold my position, keep CNT in the article, stem the tide of right-libertarian propaganda" - but "make the article accessible to a lay-reader. Get the article to Good Article status. Have a long-term goal to get Featured Article status back. Get the article on the Main Page". TFOWR 08:54, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• My goals for this article are, "An excellent article supported by the highest quality sources available, written from the structure of the academic literature debating what libertarianism is, with excellent use of examples and imagery, wonderful prose. An article that proves that wikipedians hold the encyclopaedia first, and that collective editing of a contested topical article can be successful. An A class, GA, and FA article worthy of being on the front page." Fifelfoo (talk) 09:05, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget / I submit that this article covers libertarianism overall. Even "Libertarian" redirects here. IMHO it should include practice, organizations, movements, media, think tanks, as well as philosophies. I think that this will also help sort out some of the sever "lack of perspective" issues which IMHO this article has. Much of that will need to come from non-academic sources. North8000 (talk) 10:01, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey all, basically I entirely agree with what TFOWR says. I think the best move forward is the one being started now - taking each aspect of the article and refining it with sources at every step. Although there may need to be a wider discussion about the general layout as well. I'm willing to try and be peacemaker again, at TFOWR's request, but honestly the attitude here seems fine since the departure of certain other editors. I have been watching for the last couple of days.. but not seen anything particularly problematic :) --Errant [tmorton166] ^(chat!) 12:25, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Without writing at length, I think that the change was due to things / events other than the departure of editors. North8000 (talk) 13:29, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't seem coincidental to me  ;) BigK HeX (talk) 13:46, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Bold new outline

Really researching libertarian decentralism, I discovered I ran into all the same issues of left-right and anarchist/minarchist that we had in this article. In trying to resolve those, I came up with a new lead and outline for this article. (I also noticed how stuffed with non-verified/non-proved references it is, plus POV right-liberarian nonsense, as a result of the edit wars.) Anyway, below is a rough lead (no refs, though we know they abound) and outline to get us thinking, hopefully more constructively this time. (Outline in bold, with my questions, comments regular print.)

Libertarianism is the advocacy of individual liberty, especially freedom of thought and action. Libertarian philosophy has two somewhat different theories, each with various factions. In the 19th and early 20th century “libertarianism” referred only to theories that were anarchist and socialist oriented, seeking the equalization of wealth and emphasizing democratic processes in relationships. Since the 1960s libertarianism has become more commonly associated with theories that support private property, free markets, and emphasizes private contract as a form of relationship. Due to this shift, socialist libertarians have come to identify themselves more as “left-libertarians” and refer to the other theory as “right libertarianism” (as do some liberals and conservatives). However, some libertarians who are labeled “right” dispute this description, in part because “right” originally had authoritarian connotations.

Both theories support their own versions of “libertarian decentralism” -- decentralizing power to states, communities and/or individuals. And both divide over the role of the state. “Right libertarianism” has both minimal state and non-state or anarchist factions. “Left libertarianism” works to eliminate both state and private capitalist organizations, which they also consider coercive. However, there are left libertarian factions that support centralized state welfare policies until a distribution of wealth more to their liking is institutionalized.

*History

• • Left origins and today (or something; more on movements and trends since 1911)
  • Right rise to prominence (or something; more on worldwide spread of ideas)
• Libertarian principles

Intro mentions existence of overlaps and divergences

• • Ethical theories (leftie ones need more detail; assume it's not "because we say so")
  • Self-Ownership (Vallentyne thinks common to both - anything else?)
  • Natural resources and private property (compare and contrast)
  • Democratic processes (Important - laws/rules to limit/abolish state power vs assumption good democratic processes will do it)
  • Role of the state (anarchy, minarchy, decentralism)
  • Strategic implementation (violence/nonviolence, parallel institutions/work in system, and gradualism/revolution)
• ”Left” libertarian factions
  • Libertarian socialism
  • Left-libertarianism (including largely pro-property ones)
  • Geolibertarianism (which might be more right since only land rent seems to deviate from right lib)
  • Mutualism (put back cause there originally - not sure why out or if should be)
• ”Right” libertarian factions
  • Anarcho-capitalism
  • Minarchism (and make clear that even most of them support right to secession and defacto radical decentralization)
  • Libertarian conservatism (even most of them pro-secession)
  • Objectivism
  • Libertarian transhumanism
  • Green libertarianism (not clear from existing article if real or where really belongs)
• Libertarian movements and organizations (end this illogical POV of making parties above this category instead of part of; such irrationality)

("Theorists" section is out as an unnecessary response to Ayn Rand edit war)

Thoughts? CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:09, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to see sources, even if they do abound ;-) Getting sources in early makes analysis easier, makes it easier to copy text here to the article, etc.

I like the way it defines terms early on. There's a "Libertarian grammar", and we need to define that for the reader - we need to use certain terms in the article, over and above "libertarian", so it makes sense to explain them in the lead/outline. This does that. However, I'd suggest that we only use "scare quotes" on the first instance of a term - "left libertarianism" and "right libertarianism" are part of the "libertarian grammar" - once they're been defined they should be used without quotes (also: pet hate of mine: you've used curly quotes, not straight quotes, e.g. ”Left” instead of "Left". Really minor, really petty point, but it does mean extra work later on to convert the quotes to MOS-compliant quotes).

"History" and "principles" looks good, though I don't know enough to agree/disagree with the left/right split. (And I note that you mention that there may be some - e.g. Geolibertarianism - that don't fit neatly in one or other. It may be worth being "vague" about this, i.e. saying something like Some factions are typically categorised as left libertarian: Libertarian socialism etc etc and others are typically regarded as right libertarian: Libertarian conservatism etc etc. However, other factions are not easily categorised: Geolibertarianism has been described (by X et al) as left libertarian because etc etc. Y et al dispute this, ponting to etc etc. Green libertarianism, too, has been described (by Z et al) as ...

Would movements and organisation not be something that could be slotted into history and/or factions? Or are there movements/orgs that transcend history/factions? For example, I could see CNT being mentioned in the history of left libertarianism, and the US Libertarian Party being mentioned in the (recent) history of right libertarianism: The growth of right libertarianism is exemplified by the growth of libertarian parties: in the United States in the past decades the Libertarian Party has become the third largest political party... Something like that?

All in all, good though. And I apologise for some of the petty quibbles I've raised ;-) TFOWR 09:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Which reliable sources are you going to provide in order to justify including left-libertarianism under the libertarian umbrella? --Xerographica (talk) 11:28, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Review the talk page archives. It's unlikely that you've forgotten, but you already participated in the many, many discussions that have been had on this issue. BigK HeX (talk) 11:41, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

For a US perspective, Schneider would be good - particularly for the history of the rise of right libertarianism - but to help define both left- and right-libertarianism as well.

• Gregory L. Schneider (1999). Cadres for conservatism: young Americans for freedom and the rise of the contemporary right. NYU Press. p. 135. ISBN 9780814781081. Retrieved 12 October 2010.

Hulsmann and Kinsella (Ludwig von Mises Institute) might also be useful for a more contemporary perspective.

• Jorg Guido Hulsmann and Stephan Kinsella. Property, Freedom, and Society. Ludwig von Mises Institute. pp. 28–30. ISBN 9781933550527. Retrieved 12 October 2010.

Not an area I've really dig into, so BigK's talkpage archive suggestion may well throw up better sources. TFOWR 11:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Both the sources you cited strongly contradict Carolmooredc's use of left/right. Schneider uses the term "right" to refer to what we think of as conservatism...traditional values, anti-legalized marijuana, pro-Vietnam War (communism was the biggest threat) and he uses the term "left" to refer to anarcho-capitalism. Gottfried uses "left" to refer to the Cato institute and "right" to refer to anarcho-capitalism. Regarding BigK HeX, when I posted my outlines (aka diagrams) without any sources he immediately deleted them from this page. Not only is he fine with Carolmooredc not including any sources for her outline but he expects me to look up the sources myself? BigK HeX has zero credibility with me. --Xerographica (talk) 21:33, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not convinced I agree that Schneider's "left libertarian" is exclusively anarcho-capitalist: part of the reason I chose it was to illustrate the connection between the New Left and libertarianism. Regardless, I believe the sources illustrate well that there is a continuum, and one that changes over time. If sources differ then we note that, providing any context (time, author, etc) as necessary. I'm not interested in confirming Carolmooredc's position: my only concern is with an article that's coherent and backed by robust sources. Likewise I have no interest in your past quarrels. If you can't work with another editor - don't! TFOWR 21:47, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Both Carolmooredc's outline and your own outline included Vallentyne's version of left-libertarianism...but neither of your sources illustrated that the libertarian continuum included Vallentyne's left-libertarianism. Schneider's continuum ranged from anarcho-capitalism to conservatism and Gottfried's continuum ranged from anarcho-capitalism to minarchism (the Cato Institute). Vallentyne's version of left-libertarianism, defined as public ownership of external objects (socialism), falls considerably outside both continuums. I wasn't assuming that you had any interest in past quarrels, I was just letting you know, for future reference, that I have no interest in any suggestions from BigK HeX. --Xerographica (talk) 23:00, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, does that mean we're on the same page? There are various sources which discuss left-libertarianism (including Vallentyne). Vallentyne shows "Vallentyne's left-libertarianism" within libertarianism. What remains for us to do is note that various sources define left-libertarianism (and right-libertarianism) in different ways - as would be expected in a hotly-debated field - and we've done our job. TFOWR 23:15, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we should say that there are many sources that use the term left-libertarianism to reference some ideology that is being written about, but we cannot make the mistake of assuming that every reference to left-libertarianism in every source is referring to the same ideology. If one source uses left-libertarianism to distinguish Chomsky's libertarian socialism from the "right-libertarian" ideology of the U.S. Libertarian Party, and another uses left-libertarianism to describe what the Cato Institute espouses, and to distinguish that from, say, the "right-libertarian" politics of Ron Paul, they are using the same term to refer to very different concepts. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:24, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. Sources differ: we cite the sources, noting differences as needed. Terms change over time, and depending on the context. Showing that to the reader is part of showing the history of the topic, and debates within the topic area. TFOWR 23:32, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

My problem is when we editors use these terms in the article text... what exactly do we mean by each use? For example, in the outline above, it says, "“Left libertarianism” works to eliminate both state and private capitalist organizations ...". Well, that's true for only some uses of "left libertarianism". In the sense that Cato is left-libertarian, there is no effort by "left-libertarians" to eliminate private capitalist organizations. See what I mean? --Born2cycle (talk) 23:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I see that as much less of a problem. When the terms are first used we describe how they're used by different sources. The outline above goes on to qualify the definition you cite - "However, there are left libertarian factions that support centralized state welfare policies until a distribution of wealth more to their liking is institutionalized" - showing that the definitions aren't set in stone. I think what you're getting at is that some sources use the term in a manner which directly contradicts other sources? Again, that's not an insurmountable problem - we note the contradiction, obviously, but use the most commonly-used approach. (Off-topic, but this highlights the reasoning behind my personal dislike of left and right as labels - they mean different things to different people). TFOWR 23:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

TFOWR, well, yes, you and Carolmooredc are on the same page... but still, the only sources you've provided to support your outline have illustrated the problems of organizing the article by labels (left/right) rather than tenets. Hopefully we all agree that it's not very neutral to cite Vallentyne in order to support that "Vallentyne's left-libertarianism" should be included within the libertarianism continuum. --Xerographica (talk) 23:44, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed this yesterday. We cite Boaz (Encyclopaedia Britannica) to support claims made by Boaz. We cite Vallentyne (Stanford Encyclopedia) to support claims made by Vallentyne. We cite X to show that "X claims..." This is garden-variety editing, surely? Or am I missing something? In the case of the Stanford Encyclopedia, this is academically published, written and edited by experts in the field. Frankly, I find your claim that it's not very neutral to cite Vallentyne in order to support that "Vallentyne's left-libertarianism should be included within the libertarianism continuum bizarre, and I feel I must be missing some subtlety in your comment. TFOWR 08:17, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

What's bizarre is that neither your, nor Carolmooredc's outline contains a section for the criticism of libertarianism. If you look through the article on criticism of libertarianism you'll notice that the biggest criticism is that libertarianism is against redistribution. What's the justification for redistribution? Equality. What's the justification for equality? A broad definition of freedom. If you look back at the article on libertarianism you'll notice that the first sentence includes a broad definition of freedom..."Libertarianism is the advocacy of individual liberty, especially freedom of thought and action." Then you'll notice that your and Carolmooredc's outline divides half the article between a pro-redistribution position (Vallentyne) and an anti-redistribution position. So at first glance it's bizarre that the article is missing a section on the criticism of libertarianism...but on second glance it's even more bizarre that your and Carolmooredc's outline integrates the primary criticism into the article itself.

With a deeper look it's not so bizarre...From Liberalism: Rights, property and markets...

For those who remain committed to the basic goals of the welfare state, it is appealing to think that one could show that libertarians, by virtue of their adherence to libertarian principles, must accept those goals as well. This would be not only a refutation of libertarianism, but a demonstration of its contradictory nature, since it consists not only of basic principles but of a fundamental rejection of the welfare state.

What is the justification of the welfare state? Equality based on a broad definition of freedom. Therefore, it's a fundamental joke that editors have successfully managed to integrate the biggest criticism of libertarianism into the very definition of libertarianism. If you still don't get the joke feel free to carefully read through this discussion on my talk page.

Even if we assume a definition of libertarianism that's broad enough to include its strongest criticism...in terms of the neutrality policy which mandates that we give each viewpoint coverage based on "proportion of prominence"...it might help to compare the c-span search results for Vallentyne and Boaz. --Xerographica (talk) 15:39, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

First things first: my sandbox page isn't an outline, it's an attempt to show how to develop tenets (hence the name of the page - "Sandbox/Libertarianism - tenets"). My main concern was showing the use of tertiary sources during the process to avoid undue weight issues.

Secondly, my sandbox page is taken largely from Boaz, not Vallentyne - you can see that it's split into a (large) "Boaz" section, followed by a (far smaller) "Vallentyne" section. The latter section is obviously incomplete, and the page as a while is obviously incomplete because I would imagine there are other sources Boaz and Vallentyne that should be included. The page summarised Boaz's article at Britannica, obviously with respect to tenets, and then showed the Vallentyne summary beginning.

Thirdly, the intent with this page was to show how, having identified key tenets from tertiary sources, we could then hone in on key tenets overall. Doing this is the key to avoiding undue weight: if one source mentions a tenet but others don't - we give that tenet less or no weight in the article. If some but not most sources mention a tenet we give it slightly more weight. If most sources mention a tenet we give it still more weight, etc. This is, surely, standard operating procedure: I'm sure you'll have come across this on every other article you've edited.

So, in summary: my attempt to demonstrate how to use tertiary sources to avoid undue weight issues with tenets in the form of an obviously incomplete sandbox has been misidentified by you as a completed overview draft with serious weight issues. TFOWR 15:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

You say that your sandbox was taken mainly from Boaz but then acknowledge that the section on Vallentyne is not complete. My apologies if I jumped to the conclusion that, upon completion, the section on Vallentyne would be equal in size (weight) to the section on Boaz. In determining the proper weight of tenets I agree it can be helpful to review how many different sources include that tenet...which is why my initial question to Carolmooredc was to ask which sources she planned on using to justify her giving equal weight to left-libertarianism in her outline. That being said, to count different sources by the same author gives undue weight to that author's viewpoint...as in the case of Vallentyne. For example, he wrote sections on libertarianism in the Contemporary debates in political philosophy, the Encyclopedia of ethics - Volume 3, Liberalism: old and new - Part 1, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy and several other sources. So as far as different authors go, we're right back to square one, with only Vallentyne's viewpoint to justify the inclusion of left-libertarianism within the libertarian continuum. --Xerographica (talk) 17:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

We can't apply different counting methods to different sources simply because you dislike or disagree with their views. Vallentyne was invited by the editors of multiple publications to write about libertarianism. This is because he is notable and his views are also notable. Yworo (talk) 17:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

@Xerographica: no worries. My sandbox first got mentioned in a thread above, and I assumed its purpose was clear. I now know better than to assume ;-) I should probably have provided some explanatory text so it's clear when viewed without context...

@Yworo: Agree. What I wanted to do with the sandbox (albeit in regard to tenets) was show how we could use several (more than two, I'd hope) respected tertiary sources (Britannica, Stanhope, etc) to get several high-level views on tenets, and then identify what was common, what was less common, what was uncommon, etc. That's the counting measure we should use. Regarding Vallentyne: he edited the Stanhope article; I'm not sure how much content he produced for it. Even assuming he wrote it all I still feel it's a valid inclusion - as part of a broader list of sources. I wouldn't support using Vallentyne to the exclusion of all other sources, any more than I would support excluding Vallentyne without good cause. That doesn't mean if Vallentyne says it, we can use it without further consideration: it needs to be balanced against other sources. TFOWR 17:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

arbitrary break for outdent

(outdent)

TFOWR, nice job. For Valentyn you've noted that one of the tenets in his conception of libertarianism is that individuals can aquire property, but not for Brittanica. I summarized how Brittanica (Boaz) presumes the tenet of property property as well, here: User_talk:TFOWR/Sandbox/Libertarianism_-_tenets. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, quite likely. It's entirely likely that there are other things I've missed as well. My goal was to show how to do it, not to actually do it all - I'm much too lazy for that! If my sandbox were ever to be used "in anger" it should be by multiple editors, and with extensive review - you shouldn't trust me to do a decent job any more that you'd trust anyone else. Collaborative editing works only when it's collaborative. TFOWR 18:21, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

If you want it to be collaborative, make it a subpage of this article rather than our user space. We already have another subpage here that is an attempt to identify tenets, though not starting with sources like yours is. See /OverviewDraft. Maybe you could incorporate yours into it? --Born2cycle (talk) 18:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I've no strong views on it, to be honest. Its purpose was to show a process, not to be the process. If folk here think it could be usefully incorporated into OverviewDraft then go for it. TFOWR 18:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

...though do keep in mind that it's deliberately incomplete - Vallentyne needs (mostly) doing, and other tertiary sources should be added. TFOWR 18:42, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Yworo, huh. You seem so skilled at identifying agendas...when you attended university, none of your political science professors gave any indication of their political leanings? They were all as completely neutral and unbiased as yourself? Nearly all of my polisci professors leaned pretty liberal...maybe it was because I went to a public university?

TFOWR, just to clarify, do you support the inclusion of equality as a tenet of libertarianism as per Vallentyne or are you supporting the inclusion of Vallentyne's tenets only where they overlap with Boaz's tenets? --Xerographica (talk) 20:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Xero, I fail to see what that has to do with anything. Yworo (talk) 00:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

You said "Vallentyne was invited by the editors of multiple publications to write about libertarianism." Basically you assumed that those editors were neutral and unbiased. My question to you was, based on your university experience, would you say that your political science professors were neutral and unbiased? --Xerographica (talk) 16:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not pertinent. We don't evaluate things like that, that's original research. We determine whether the specific publication is reliable based on whether it is published by a reliable publisher. We don't make judgments about whether or not someone is neutral and unbiased if the publisher is reliable and can be presumed to have vetted the content. It the publication is non-academic and polemical, that's different. But in this particular case, the type of analysis you are suggesting is simply inappropriate. Wikipedia articles have to present material in a neutral and unbiased fashion. But there is no requirement that the sources we are reporting on be neutral and unbiased. Nor can we include our opinions on whether the source is biased or not. We can report what other reliable sources say about any biases, if such sources exist. Your and my opinions about whether or not sources are biased or not have no bearing on the Wikipedia article whatsover. Yworo (talk) 23:53, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

You accuse me of cherry picking sources but you don't think editors cherry pick who they include in their book? Out of 9 sources you selected as "more" representative of libertarianism...you selected one by a Marxist, three by Vallentyne and one by the author of "Liberty, property and markets: a critique of libertarianism". Seriously? --Xerographica (talk) 00:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is over, because you aren't paying any attention to what I am saying. Yworo (talk) 00:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Neither - I'm advocating an entirely different approach. What I'm saying we should do is examine tertiary sources, identify tenets, then apply weighting depending on how many sources discuss each tenet. I'd advocate more sources than just Boaz and Vallentyne, but in a hypothetical example where we just considered Boaz and Vallentyne then tenets discussed by both would be weighted higher than sources than appeared in one. (Obviously there's room for some editorial judgement - a tenet mentioned in both, but only in passing, might be weighted below a tenet mentioned in detail by only one source). This way avoids - as far as possible - giving undue weight based on our own opinions. TFOWR 20:49, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, in other words, you're proposing a tenets matrix...with tenets on the x axis and sources on the y axis? Are you going to create this matrix using Google Spreadsheet? --Xerographica (talk) 21:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're serious or not, but no, I wasn't suggesting we use a spreadsheet ;-) As simple list of tenets and sources should suffice. TFOWR 21:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, well, you can always create a spreadsheet at a later time I suppose. In terms of which tenets to track I would suggest...

• limited government
• no government
• socialism
• capitalism
• social liberalism
• social conservatism

How many sources do you plan on including in your list? --Xerographica (talk) 22:00, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

"My" list?! - the list should be a collaborative document. In a perfect world once the regular editors here start down this route I can take a back seat... like I said, I'm extremely lazy!

As to which tenets, that's something that'll come from the sources, not from my opinion - that's the point of doing it this way. We should use the tenets that the sources discuss, weighted according to the number of sources that cover them.

I'd suggest five or so tertiary sources - encyclopaedia articles such as Boaz/Britannica. The reason I'm advocating tertiary sources is because they'll tend to provide better overviews, which is what we're after here. An article by Boaz on a specific aspect of libertarianism would be less useful for this than an article by Boaz on libertarianism in general. Five isn't a magic number, however - the goal is to get a representative sample that covers as much as possible. TFOWR 22:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Not "your" list? Weren't you nominated to be the moderator and keeper of the list? But I'm sure editors will be more than happy to suggest sources. If there's only 5 sources then there will be plenty of contention regarding which sources are included and the results won't be as legitimate. It would probably also help to keep track of the influential thinkers mentioned in each source. Teasing the tenets out of smaller sources is easier compared to larger sources...The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism. Everything is in there from Abolitionism to Whiggism. --Xerographica (talk) 22:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Nope, no nomination, and I'd decline, anyway! No problem with more sources rather than less, and I'd agree that smaller sources are preferable. So long as they provide an overview of libertarianism, and aren't too specific or too "large". The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism sounds like it would be a good source for lower-level stuff, but too "large" for overview stuff like this. I'd agree that identifying influential thinkers would be useful: we should follow the same process as this one for tenets (weighting by occurrences in sources etc). TFOWR 23:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds pretty reasonable. So what's the first step? --Xerographica (talk) 00:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I've been busy for a couple days and probably won't read all of the above til Sunday, but if people are off on other tangents or very specific tangents with their outdents, I'd wish they'd label the topic. I did notice a couple things in first section will respond to briefly.

Re: criticism section, I don't have a problem with a WP:RS section, I just personally don't want to research/write it. So put a draft here, or one of your pages, or then end of the one I come up with when I do.

Re: some description of broad differences besides left and right. I tried pro and anti-property in past and they were rejected. I don't have any other ideas. What are yours? CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I think this is all still about the overview draft. I've been trying to keep tangents limited. See below for a draft that's hugely unfinished, but aims to be a template for moving forward. TFOWR 15:05, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

arb break for 'nother outdent

Well, there's already the /OverviewDraft. My advice would be to return to it, but to start with something like User:TFOWR/Sandbox/Libertarianism - tenets - work out which tertiary sources to use for the overview, tenets, influential thinkers, etc. Then work through each source identifying picking out the tenets. I'd keep tenets, thinkers etc separate, so have something like:

Example structure for source-thrashing
Tenets Boaz Vallentyne Source #3 ... Source #n Influential thinkers Boaz Vallentyne Source #3 ... Source #n

The difficulty will be working out which tenets are the same - Vallentyne explicitly mentioned "negative freedoms", for example, while Boaz discussed negative freedoms without using that term. I doubt this will be a serious challenge, however.

Once the sources are thrashed out, it's then just a question of completing the rest of the /OverviewDraft, applying the weightings determined in the first part. Citing the /OverviewDraft will be easy at that point, because the sources are all available at the top of the page. TFOWR 08:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

One other thing: I'd strongly recommend using the same citing format as I've used at User:TFOWR/Sandbox/Libertarianism - tenets. It means books/articles/etc only need to be added once. It seems tricky to start with, but once it's been done once it makes it easier after that.

So adding a new source would be a question of editing the "Bibliography" section and adding:

*{{cite web|url=http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/339321/libertarianism|title=Britannica article: Libertarianism|editor-last=Boaz|editor-first=David|year=2010|ref=harv}}

This only needs to be done once for each source: the "ref=harv" part links cites to that source. After that, citing that source is done by adding (either after the part you're citing, as normal, or using list-defined references):

<ref>{{harv|Boaz|2010}} ...complete freedom of action, provided their actions do not infringe on the freedom of others.</ref>

The first part (the part between curly brackets) links the citation with the source (clicking on the cite highlights the source in the bibliography, thanks to the "ref=harv" in the source), but more importantly the part after the curly brackets is a direct quote - it means other editors can see the quote easily without necessarily having to check the original source. Ultimately, it'll make life easier for readers, too. TFOWR 08:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Using the /OverviewDraft page is fine if everything on that page is removed...otherwise it's like putting the cart before the horse. Once the matrix has established a clear pattern then an outline can be created. Or we could leave the OverviewDraft page as is and create a matrix page. It would be great if you could get the citations started and then editors could just follow your pattern. Once a good list has been compiled then a matrix can be created to help tally the results. For example...

	Cap	Soc	Lim Gov	No Gov	Soc Lib	Soc Con
Boaz	1	0	1	0	1	0
Vallentyne	1	1	1	1	1	0
Totals	2	1	2	1	2	0

If an author says, "few libertarians want to abolish government" then we could rank their statement as a .2 under "No Gov". It would also be easy to give certain authors more weight by multiplying their row by 2 or 3. That Boaz has around 50 search results on C-Span is a good indication of how prominent his viewpoint is...so his "vote" should carry more weight.

Regarding definitions and tenets...it's probably preferable to bundle them as much as possible otherwise we might get bogged down. For example, the definition of capitalism is private ownership of the means of production...which is basically strong property rights. --Xerographica (talk) 15:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sold on the idea of a matrix, to be honest - it seems a little simplistic, a little too much like OR. Ultimately, the article isn't going to be presenting a matrix, but prose and quotes. I'd recommend sticking to prose and quotes all the way through. The "negative liberties" example is a good one: Boaz and Vallentyne both refer to this, but only Vallentyne explicitly says "negative freedoms". That can't easily be represented in a matrix, but it can easily be shown in prose/quotes, and the editor/reader can make their own mind up. TFOWR 16:05, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

If the "prose and quotes" approach alone solves the issue of undue weight then there won't be any need for a matrix. As far as I can tell...Boaz supports negative liberties while Vallentyne supports positive liberties. Boaz supports a narrow definition of harm/freedom while Vallentyne supports a broad definition of harm/freedom. Public funded education is an example of a broad definition of liberty/harm. If you can't afford private education then, in the absence of public education, your choices in life would be limited...which can be construed as harmful. It's a continuum between capitalists (negative liberties) and socialists (positive liberties). You can separately track freedom (narrow and broad), harm (narrow and broad), liberties (positive and negative), socialism and capitalism...or you can bundle them all together. --Xerographica (talk) 17:01, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The great thing about sourcing as we go is that it makes a quick response easy ;-) Vallentyle (2010):

Libertarianism is sometimes identified with the principle that each agent has a right to maximum equal empirical negative liberty, where empirical negative liberty is the absence of forcible interference from other agents when one attempts to do things.

Negative liberty seems to be a fairly fundamental tenet - the idea that you can do what you want without interference from others. Using quotes we get to see - and get to show the reader - where different sources believe "interference from others" is OK. Obviously that'll differ between sources. You suggest (I think) that Boaz supports a minimum of interference from others, whereas Vallentyne supports more. That's fine - using quotes will help identify that, both to us, and for the reader. I agree there's a continuum, but I don't believe we should be entering this with preconceived ideas - we need to stick to the sources, and let them speak for themselves. TFOWR 17:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Nearly every editor here can substantiate "preconceived ideas" with numerous reliable sources. We can literally speak through reliable sources. For example, it's easy to label Vallentyne as a socialist...

Finally, I shall discuss the moral powers that agents have to appropriate unowned resources. I shall suggest - but without elaborate defense - that a version of left-libertarianism offers the most plausible account of moral powers.

If individuals don't own external objects then positive liberties are completely justified. Positive liberties are the basis of liberalism...not libertarianism. So when Vallentyne says libertarianism is only "sometimes" associated with negative liberties then it's hard to take his statement at face value. But lead the way on the list and we'll see what happens. --Xerographica (talk) 18:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Nearly every editor here can substantiate "preconceived ideas" with numerous reliable sources. Exactly. That's why I believe it's so important to work with tertiary sources - overviews. I can use reliable sources to prove that Ethel MacDonald was born in Bellshill. I can provide equally reliable sources showing she was born in Motherwell. If we stick to tertiary sources for the overview, for the tenets, we avoid inserting our preconceived notions - however easily justified through sources.

I'd greatly prefer it if no one led the way on the list - it would be far better if everyone worked on it together. So far we've got Boaz, and a tiny bit of Vallentyne. What's needed now is further sources to be suggested - what tertiary sources cover libertarianism in sufficiently broad strokes to be of value here? Vallentyne could do with being finished, and Born2cycle mentioned an issued with Boaz. These could easily be done by anyone - I'm reluctant to set myself up to be "secretary" ;-)

I'm deliberately avoiding addressing some of the points you raise (education funding, above, and liberalism, here) because I'm not prepared to get drawn into debates - I maintain that our views are largely irrelevant. We have a duty to provide an overview of libertarianism, not our own analyses. Whether you or I take Vallentyne seriously really isn't the point. TFOWR 18:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I hope you're not expending too much effort on debating this. The reason Xerographica objects that "Nearly every editor here can substantiate...[blah blah]" is because he won't accept that RS's justify the inclusion of viewpoints on libertarianism outside of the minarchist right-libertarianism he's been tendentiously pushing. BigK HeX (talk) 18:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

TFOWR, what I actually won't accept is undue weight given to minority viewpoints. BigK HeX believes that the undue weight problem can be solved with a single sentence...Prominence of Viewpoints. --Xerographica (talk) 18:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Until we've actually worked through tertiary sources we won't really know what are and aren't minority viewpoints. TFOWR 19:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Which is a good argument for deleting the outline created on the OverviewDraft page. --Xerographica (talk) 19:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

It's an argument; whether it's a good argument is debatable. If it helps, though, and on the basis that we can bring to birth a new world from the ashes of the old, I'll copy my sandboxed example to a talkpage-space /OverviewDraft2. TFOWR 11:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

TFOWR, it's a dilemma then because the only person without...hmmm...readily apparent...views on the subject is...you. American Government and Politics Today 2008-2009 is a tertiary source that's super easy to "tenet harvest" from. --Xerographica (talk) 18:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, my views are probably apparent if you look hard enough... I don't want to sell myself as a completely neutral editor here. But it's much less of a dilemma than you might think: by using multiple tertiary sources "tenet harvesting" is balanced, and our own biases can't creep in nearly so much. If a tenet only appears in that one source, it gets less weight. Really, this isn't a new problem, it's a problem that Wikipedia long ago encountered and developed ways to tackle. The problems on this article are minor, compared to, say, the problems with climate change articles (where many experts were editing, both for and against, and ultimately ArbCom had to get involved). This article is fully protected: we've got a golden opportunity to adopt best practices. The only challenge I see right now is the challenge of taking that first step. TFOWR 18:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

My views on the definition of libertarianism differ from my own personal views. My views on the definition of libertarianism are based on watching the news/C-Span and reading reliable sources. My own personal views are based on my broader perceptions of socioeconomic reality. You've already taken the first step...you just have to move your work over to a subpage that we can all edit and contribute to. --Xerographica (talk) 19:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I take the view (repeatedly...) that I don't have to do anything - any one here is capable of taking that vital first step. If it helps, however, I'll do it now. I am relying on other editors getting stuck in, however; I have no intention on being "secretary"! TFOWR 11:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

arbitrary break

Seems fine to me. I agree that it is important to get the sources in first. Also we should be careful with the libertarian movements section because these can become huge and controversial. For libertarian parties for example I would mention that there are many such parties and mention one or two that are notable and provide a link to List of libertarian political parties. TFD (talk) 14:39, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Overall, I think it's a good draft. After an initial read, I have two issues that I think could be easily resolved:

1. There should be at least a sentence about the history of "right-libertarianism" stemming from classical liberalism. So back when "libertarianism" was used to mean anarchism and socialism, "liberalism" was the ideology of individual liberty, including the freedom to homestead, buy, sell and rent property. But as "liberal" took on a more statist connotation, and "conservatism" went statist as well (Nixon's price freezes for example, and, later, Reagan's huge spending increases), the ideology of liberty needed a new name, and "libertarianism" was usurped for that, initially by the founders of the U.S. Libertarian Party, in a manner that encompassed (mostly property-rights-recognizing) anarchy as well.
2. I suspect every left-libertarian will find at least one of the labels listed as being appropriate for him or herself. Not so for the right-libertarian list. That is, there are many right-libertarians who consider themselves to be "libertarian" but not necessarily anarcho-capitalists or even minarchists. They just refer to themselves as "libertarians" and their ideology as "libertarianism". Not sure how to handle that.

But, again, overall it's a very good job. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:30, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for comments. Wanted to see what biggest objections might be. Will now feel free in next couple days to create a new draft version on one of my draft talk pages that will deal with all issues mentioned above. The one thing I would comment is if Schneider and Gottfried (who are new to me but will check them out) are creating whole new methods of categorization that are different from all other sources which generally support a different view, then it would see we should relegate them to footnotes only noting that other categorization schemes like theirs exist. CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

If you read the sources carefully, I think you will definitely find very distinct uses of, especially, the term left within libertarian materials. After all, the term is inherently relative. What is "left" to Chomsky, for example, is very different from what is "left" to Boaz, or Rothbard. Just pay close attention and don't be too quick to dismiss some source that seems like an outlier exception. I'd say the majority that use "left" and "right" in libertarian writings have something specific in mind that is significantly different from what most others have in mind when they use "left" and "right". That's the problem. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

/OverviewDraft2

...Have at it. I don't WP:OWN it, and I don't expect to do much more with it - I'd like other editors to suggest tertiary sources, and to work through those sources as I've done with Boaz. There's a to do list, but it all should be fairly self-explanatory. I've linked to various pages for the benefit of editors who haven't worked with Harvard citations or list-defined references before.

As noted several times above I believe this approach is a sensible one because it limits our ability to impose our own views and biases. It provides a broad overview based on a number of tertiary sources, providing a framework around which we can expand using secondary sources. It should reduce arguments and drama, and provide the best opportunity for taking the article to Good Article status and beyond. TFOWR 12:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a good start. Just added another tertiary source...will work on it more at a later time. --Xerographica (talk) 16:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)