Talk:Libertarianism

Wage labor section is a bit shallow

The current wage labor section largely cites non-libertarians critiques of wage labor.

Wage labor as coercion can also be derived from hayak in a bit more nuance the the present as can the nature of (un)employment as product of lack of flexibility in wages, worker mobility.

https://books.google.com/books?id=nclLLOfnGqAC&pg=PA55&dq=a+certain+minimum+income+for+everyone,+or+a+sort+of+floor+below+which+nobody+need+fall+even+when+he+is+unable+to+provide+for+himself&hl=en&sa=X&ei=DJ20UrHfE8HYoASS3YKoDQ&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=a%2520certain%2520minimum%2520income%2520for%2520everyone%252C%2520or%2520a%2520sort%2520of%2520floor%2520below%2520which%2520nobody%2520need%2520fall%2520even%2520when%2520he%2520is%2520unable%2520to%2520provide%2520for%2520himself&f=false

https://books.google.com/books?id=plCHyxBYrp8C&pg=PA425&dq=constitution+of+liberty+definitive+edition+%22worker%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjj35iKl-_VAhWHqlQKHRUXCTcQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q=constitution%20of%20liberty%20definitive%20edition%20%22worker%22&f=false

https://www.libertarianism.org/columns/why-did-hayek-support-basic-income

http://crookedtimber.org/2012/07/01/let-it-bleed-libertarianism-and-the-workplace/

Anarcho-communism

I have a question on how anarchy fits with libertarianism in general, anarchy usually means no government or "state" as anarcho-capitalists call it, but one thing that really surprises me is why anarcho-communism (which sounds like an oxymoron) has any relevance to libertarianism, I'm personally a libertarian so I'm just confused about this Mslayer122 (talk) 11:28, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Confussion among the words «libertarian» and «libertarianism»

The content of this article is apocryphal both philosophically and historically. "Libertarianism" everywhere mainly refers at what is exposed in right-libertarianism article. What "libertarian socialists" (I'm one) and "libertarians" share is not a common ideological ground but simply a word, the word "libertarian", and even that word comes from different strains (French word in one case and English word in the other). I think that what English Wikipedia need is an article about the linguistics of the word "libertarian". But this article expose something extremly wrong, as if "libertarian socialism" and "libertarianism" are part of a same political family. Both even have different origins! Also this article says that there is an "American libertarianism" different from libertarianism fron another regions (as in Hispanic regions). That is false, "libertarian socialists" in the Spanish speaking World (where I come from) don't use the term "libertarianism" to refer to our own ideology. We use anarchism, anarcho-syndicalism, and very few times libertarian socialism, but never libertarianism (check 1, check 2, no one result of a non-free market "libertarianism" in Spanish). This Wikipedia article should be extremelly reconstructed and be more honest. --Hades7 (talk) 15:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

As explained in the article, modern American libertarianism developed out of 19th century libertarianism and retains some of its tenets, terminology and symbols. Hence it is both historically and philosophically related. TFD (talk) 17:09, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

The article makes an un-scholar and apocryphal interpretation from some remote theorical influences of libertarianism (the American rooted one is the first one and at this moment the only political movement that uses the word "libertarianism", and this not be confused with the term "libertarian") to construct an original research taxonomy (something that should be not allowed in Wikipedia). Where are the historical sources that a "libertarianism" (with that term and referencing a clear and common use) existed in the 19th century?--Hades7 (talk) 19:22, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

My sugestion is to be more historically accurate and eliminate the current original research by using the article "Libertarianism" only to refer the right-wing or free market ideology as is commonly used in the US and in the World, and at the same time to create an article called "Libertarian" to collect all the political and non-political uses of that word without making interpretations and especulative taxonomies, only a collection of uses of "libertarian". The real "controversy" has always been about the use of the word "libertarian" not of the word "libertarianism". The current article have complicated the issue creating an original research instead of clearing the issue that is just linguistic not ideological. The problem with word "libertarian" is just a Polysemy not a Taxonomy.--Hades7 (talk) 19:42, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Woodcock, for example, uses "libertarianism" to refer to "traditional" libertarian socialist politics. I'm sure there are others as well, among the more solid references in the article. French WP, for example, has a libertarianisme/libertaire distinction, but there's no such semantic distinction in English, as far as movements go. Also, it's a little backwards for American English because USLP is arguably what most people think when they hear "libertarian" in the US, whereas similar parties are kind of a far-fringe curiosity most places in the world, while "libertaire" libertarians have at least some historical real estate. It's not just a random homonym or anything like that. There was a deliberate effort to hijack (or "capture" in the words of Rothbard) pivotal leftist terminology, with considerable success. I don't think we can just remove a syllable and eliminate that issue, somehow. fi (talk) 18:01, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi fi. I'm not talking about one author that have used rarely a term, maybe one time. English Wikipedia editors have created an article of a fringe use of a single author? I'm talking about that there isn't any historical proof that the term "libertarianism" was commonly used in 19th century to refer to left anarchism or libertarian socialism. No one historical source en English. I'm Spanish native speaker and I'm a libertarian socialist activist and I have made an exhaustive investigation in books and Internet, and there is no single proof of a historical movement called "libertarianism" before free market libertarianism of the 20th century in North America, not only in Anglosaxon sphere, also in Hispanic sphere. In the current article I see a mention of Spanish CNT, and there is no single document that shows the term "libertarianism" (in Spanish "libertarismo") in their documented history of 19th and early 20th centuries. And I insist, I'm not talking about the term "libertarian" but about the term "libertarianism". I also read a little of French and I haven't find any proof of a libertarianism before free market libertarianism. This article suggest a common taxonomy and a wide historical use of the term without any proof, that make this article and original hypothesis, maybe cool for a thesis but not for an encyclopedia.

Note: the term "libertarian" in English philosophical tradition is older than "libertaire" political use (see William Belsham). We don't need to expose a conspiracy theory to share the use of "libertarian". "Left-anarchism" historical movement come strongly from Latin Europe emigrants, so is understandable that our use come from a different way (French) instead the use of "libertarian" of the "libertarianism" that comes from Anglosaxon tradition. That way this is a Polysemy problem and not a Taxonomical one, similar words that comes from different origin, lenguages and cultures. We the libertarian socialists don't have to sabotage the accuracy of an article and we don't have and we don't need to create a pseudo-historic narrative just to be against free market libertarians. Even we don't have to dispute an apocryph taxonomy, we only share a term, thats all. That fight just have to be conceptual, and without involving Wikipedia in it.--Hades7 (talk) 23:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Also, political descriptions in almost all cases were invented long after the ideologies they described had become established. Even the use of the term libertarian to refer to free marketers only came into use in the 1970s. TFD (talk) 09:07, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I understand your position that the "ism" is used far more often by (and for) right-wing laissez faire types than libertarian socialists (and maybe that's important enough to note and explain, as I think there's reasons), but I don't really see that as a persuasive point for segregating the topic based on an "ism" – even if we dismiss multiple sources using the "ism" to describe social anarchism and libertarian Marxism. This isn't just some incidental homonym (or even polyseme, IMO). I understand the distinction you want to make, but I agree with TFD that "American libertarianism" (opposed to the former as it may be) is historically and philosophically related. There's a documentary record of a neoliberal or laissez faire political movement "borrowing" terms, rhetoric and some limited set of ideas from libertarian socialism (e.g. Tucker, Spooner) and the broader anti-state socialist movement. They didn't call themselves "libertarians" by accident and it's not some conspiracy theory. It's right out there in the open that a left-wing political ideology, label-and-all was selectively combined with right-wing influences to create the American "libertarian" position. If anything, the parsing out the "isms" seems like post-hoc distinction. I mean, they weren't called "libertarianists" or anything like that and they described themselves as true anti-statists, whatever one might think of that claim. I still think it's disingenuous to treat this as some kind of semantic coincidence. On the other hand, addressing these issues in the section on etymology might make matters clearer. fi (talk) 09:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

TFD and Fi. I don't say we couldn't have an personal hypotesis of political theory, but what I see is that those personal hypotesis (the ones of some editors of a moment in the encyclopdia) became the bones or skeleton of this article. An original hypothesis shouldn't be the bones of an article. If you agree that the term "libertarianism" if commonly used for free market politics (even in non-English language), why to insist in the present version of this article? If is a kind of trophy of ideological struggle I understand the emotional fire of that fight, but it is innecesary. Almost nobody know us as libertarians and Nobody knows our political theory as libertarianism, but as libertarian socialism (not even "socialist libertarianism", another apocryphal term to create a false or a "creative" taxonomy). If like Fi, the argument is that libertarianism take things from classical anarchism, that only could be consider an antecedent of libertarianism (free market ideology), that they form a past source as many ideologies take from another. Anyway, Tucker and Spooner were too burgoises and classic liberals for the main libertarian socialism -continental Europe and Latin and Slavic Europe background, revolution and philo-marxist oriented- in their life time that there weren't important for our intellectual tradition, we ignored them, I don't undestand why to reivindicate so much to people that we have ignored and don't have strong roots with our real socialist and revolutionaty tradition. So, that kind of "heterodox" anarchism was revisited and revised by libertarianism, because I was ignored by the rest of anarchism, like an abandoned property. So what? We even don't like those heterodox anarchists so much and if others take somes ideas or "inspiration" that is not enought to create a taxonomy. As an example, Libertarian socialism also takes from medievalist romanticism as Kropotkin suggest (descentralization of jurisdictions, pre-capitalistic organization nostalgia, guild kind society, common property/"foedus") and even if we can create an hypotesis of the reactionary roots of anarchism we shouldn't establish it as a the main narrative structure in the Anarchim article. Maybe we can put that in some part of the article, that Anarchim could be for some people or authors (relevant ones) in the same taxonomy of Reactionary Medievalism (or been more accurated that take ideas from it) but shouldn't be the center of the article if it is not a common perception or a reputated and mainly accepted narrative.

To recapitulate, to interpretate idea conections or recolections as a taxonomy put us in the same family of they, and that is not true (and even not convenient) for us. To take some elements don't make them from our family and viceversa. I don't know if the argument of encyclopedia accuracy have been the total centre of this article creation process (and I have already made the argument why in that way this article is pseudo-historic), but if in some way here have been an ideological struggle that is the origin of the current version I have a to say that to put libertarianism as the main term of a taxonomy that have libertarian socialism in the same grup make us inferiors and connected to very burgoises roots. This pseudo-historic taxonomy make libertarian socialism an excentric product of classic liberal free market ideology and libertarian socialism a "corrupted" interpretation of the free market oriented root. That because the article says we are the same family, and a family have common roots. What is the only possible ancestry? Classical liberalism. The pseudo-historic taxonomy even made a big favor to libertarianism and put them as the recuperation of a commnon shared ortodoxy roots. Maybe that you need to do is to create an article only for "Libertarian" term and leave this article to the common use in English, Spanisn, Portuguese and another languages as a free market idoelogy with a no taxonomy roots with left-anarchism/libertarian socialism. Keep both separated is not only accurate is good for both libertarians (free marketers) and libertarian socialists. --Hades7 (talk) 23:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

First, it would not be ahistorical to say that libertarian socialism/communism came out of a classical liberal tradition. I think that's just an obvious and well-supported statement, as it would be to say that Marx came out of this tradition, or from Hegelian roots. All went on, of course, to critique and repudiate, and departed from these traditions substantially, but that doesn't divorce them from their heritage. But more importantly, I don't even see the article making any such statements. At most, it's saying that the "libertarians" of anti-state socialism and the "libertarians" of radical 20th century laissezfaire are, if nothing else, etymologically related and characterized by some professed opposition to some set of objectionable power systems. Is that controversial? Does that imply a single, cohesive political movement? Does it subordinate one to the other? Maybe there's a serious semantic problem here or maybe not, but to pretend that the connections don't exist, that e.g. contemporary right-wing "libertarians" didn't, in large part, grow out of a pile of "borrowed" and retooled left-wing terms and proclamations, is to ignore reality. As I see it, the purpose of the article is to answer the question "what is a libertarian" – and I don't think that making some contrived distinction between "libertarian" and "libertarianism" helps to answer that question clearly. I'm not opposed to radical solutions here, but I think they should make better sense. fi (talk) 15:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

The problem with weak Libertarianism (create a paragraph, it should be mentioned)

Weak Libertarians either support bigger parties with more clear to the public and ancient ideas; or don't support other forces at all. Libertarianism is to be adopted as a whole by mature societies, because it merges the pragmatism of the right and the humanism of the left. Even non declared libertarian parties accept libertarian policies. Most libertarian parties prefer to form coalitions with the right, because they deem fiscal pragmaticism superior than the humanitarian aspect; but rarely the opposite might also happen. In politics the possible prevails, so as a voter one is stronger not when he/she votes the ideal philosophical best, but the option which after the entropy of actuality remains closer to one's ideals.

Highly questionable diagram

, which appears on this very talk page as well as on the articles for Left-libertarian and Right-libertarian, seems really dubious in a lot of ways, mostly revolving around how "left" and "right" libertarianisms are shown as having no overlap. Probably the most egregious example of this is Geolibertarianism sitting off in a corner by itself; AFAICT Geolibertarians agree with the "Laissez-faire capitalist" or "neo-liberal" types on almost everything outside of their specific land-ownership/property-tax issue, so it makes little sense to show their circle as neither overlapping nor even nearby to it.Nlburgin (talk) 21:54, 5 September 2019 (UTC)