Jump to content

Talk:Left-libertarianism/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Bastiat Source for seating in legislative body

I have a source available for the citation needed in the beginning of the article. I am, however, unfamiliar with how to add it and thought I would present it for discussion first regardless. (http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0706b.asp) Thorsmitersaw (talk) 14:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I added your citation. PhilLiberty (talk) 22:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Is Geolibertarianism left-libertarian?

Are you sure about calling Georgism a form of left libertarianism? The believe in private property in everything but land. RJII 02:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Am I the only one that has read this, and gotten the stern impression that, as a left-libertarian, this article has next to nothing to do with left-libertarianism? I'm tempted to do a complete rewrite tonight. 70.18.148.99 20:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Rewrite/Revert

I strongly disagree with the reversion to the (modified) older version of this article. The article as it is/was, I maintain, simply a review of standard libertarianism with the occasional "while Left-Libertarians think this..." Instead of an article on left-libertarianism, it was an article on the similiarties/differances between them. And, furthermore, the left-libertarianism shown in the article as it is/was is really just the minority view of people like Vallentyne, who is a rather minor political figure. It is, rather unarguable, a wider concept containing the Vallentyne-esque "left-libertarianism," democratic socialism, welfare states, anarchism, and, yes, libertarian socialism. And I think I paid them all relatively equal discussion, including mentions of Nader, Kucinich, Sanders, Green Parties, and European welfare states. Bloodsorr0w 01:52, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course it is a minority view. However, I do not believe that it can possibly include democratic socialism and welfare states (because those are not libertarian), anarchism (because anarchism = no state while libertarianism = minimal state), or libertarian socialism (because libertarian socialism rejects private property over all the means of production, at least). Thus, we are left with the views of people like Vallentyne, plus the broad Georgist/Geolibertarian tradition. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 02:00, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
In 5 seconds of Googling...
1. "Chomsky[ makes] regular references to a supposed “left libertarian tradition” within Marxism..." <a href="http://www.marxist.com/Theory/chomsky_part1.htm">[1]</a>
So, Marxism can be left-libertarian in nature.
2. "Chomsky is generally regarded as a man of the political left, and his early and continuing sympathy with left-libertarian and anarchist ideas" <a href="http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/20040817.htm">[2]</a>
3. "Left-libertarians and left-anarchists, including Chomsky, see libertarian socialism (or non-aggressive, non-violent anarchism) as the true legacy of classical liberalism..." <a href="http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/20040817.htm">[2]</a>
2 and 3 show that Chomsky, and by extention, anarchism and libertarian socialism, are left-libertarianism.
4. "What is Leftlibertarianism?
Leftlibertarianism is a political philosophy that asserts both Libertarian full self-ownership and Liberal equality... Liberal equality means that all people, regardless of their abilities or situation, should, when possible, have all the opportunities needed to strive for self-fulfillment and self-actualization. This includes such basics as food, shelter, health care, and education." <a href="http://www.leftlibertarianism.org/index.php?page=faq>[3]</a>
To me, that seems like a verbatim definition of a welfare state.
5. "How is Leftlibertarianism different from Anarchism?
While there are many different forms of Anarchism, a common theme tends to be the abolition of authoritarian and heirarchical structures. Leftlibertarianism is opposed to the existence of policy that does not fully respect self-ownership, but this does not necessarily call for bringing down all power structures or heirarchies." <a href="http://www.leftlibertarianism.org/index.php?page=faq>[3]</a>
Left-libertatianism can at times be anarchistic, as it may or may not support power structures.
I completely understand if you "do not believe that it can possibly include democratic socialism and welfare states... anarchism... and libertarian socialism." I even think that most people (especially in the US) would agree with you and your interpretation of libertarianism. But that isn't the question in matter. Whether or not people like the term left-libertarianism and what it means and has come to mean doesnt change anything; it is what it is. And it is a general term for a great many political philosophies, namely those that you don't accept.Bloodsorr0w 05:02, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
I am not a left-libertarian; in fact, I am no libertarian at all. I have no POV in this matter, other than my dislike of vague or redundant definitions. If "left-libertarianism" can include anything from anarchism to democratic socialism, then "left-libertarianism" is just a feel-good synonym for "left-wing", and therefore a useless term. But, in any case, that is not what your sources imply. Let's look at them one by one:
  1. Chomsky says that Marxism can be left-libertarian in nature. He doesn't explain what left-libertarianism is, however. One could certainly make a Marxist argument for left-libertarianism as currently defined in this article.
  2. Some people say that Chomsky has sympathy for left-libertarianism. Okay. So...? He doesn't say he IS a left-libertarian.
  3. Seems to be implying that Chomsky is a left-anarchist.
  4. Food, shelter, health care, and education can be provided by anarchist communes or voluntary organizations just as much as by a welfare state.
  5. So left-libertarianism may or may not support the abolition of the state. I agree. How does that contradict the current text of this article?
It seems to me that it might be worthwhile to mention that left-libertarianism has been used to refer to libertarian socialism as well as the meaning explained in this article. But since libertarian socialism has its own page, I don't think we need more than a few lines at the top or bottom of this article explaining this possible second meaning. What do you think? -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 23:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about the wait. College is starting back up, and my computers have been packed. I certainly agree that it's worth saying that libertarian socialism can mean left-libertarianism, and that that can be done in a paragraph or [probably] less.
I'll also concede that ""left-libertarianism" is just a feel-good synonym for "left-wing"". In all of my experiences in classes, in discussions, in research, in idle readings etc., it's a way to say "Yes, I'm a leftist, but not in the authoritarian way of Mao, Stalin, or Castro, but rather in the more libertarian way of Mandela, Nader, and Chomsky." Hense, libertarianism as opposed to authoritarianism, and not the specific libertarianism of free markets and capitalism, making it not simply a watered-down/pragmatic right-libertarianism, which is the position of the article.
1. I really don't think such an argument could be made. If there is a left-libertarian tradition within Marxism, than left-libertarianism must be quite different from what it is in this article; a watered-down right-libertarianism.
2. If he isn't a left-libertarian, than I think it at least means his politics are close.
3. How can it imply one, and not the other?
4. True. My apologies for not thinking that one our correctly
5. I think it says more than that. In the left-libertarian FAQ, the only stated difference between left-lib and anarchism is that while anarchism advocates the overthrow of governments, left-lib only does so sometimes does. If that's the case, than I think that must imply a great great many similiarities.
Finally, Left Libertarianism on the Libertarian Wiki. Thomas Paine, Ghandi, Mandela, and Anarchists all all as being left-libertarians, as well as Marxism, Anarchism, and Libertarian Socialism. Bloodsorr0w 04:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Subcontent on Steiner-Vallentyne left-libertarianism labelled "key ideas" should have a quote by libertarian scholar Sheldon Richman replaced. He portrays the school of thought in a negative manner-- I suggest that the removal be compensated for by featuring quotes or comments from veritable left-leaning libertarians themselves. User:Anonymous 12:35, 14 October 2012 (GMT+8)

NPOV

This is NPOV:

Classical libertarian theory - sometimes called "right-libertarianism" - places a very strong emphasis on private property. Unrestricted capitalism and free markets are advocated by all right-libertarians, with some of them believing that property rights are the most basic rights of all. Left-libertarians, on the other hand, take a more moderate - and, in their view, realistic - approach.

- Reaverdrop 01:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

In what way? (I assume you mean it's POV, not NPOV). -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 11:18, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't think its POV, as much as just wrong. I think most people would agree that right-lib advocates property rights, capitalism, markets, etc. I would (and kind of am) arguing that the last sentance is wrong, but not particularly baised. Bloodsorr0w 01:38, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Resolved?

I did a big re-edit, tried to highlight parties involved, disagreements over use of the term, and differences with conventional libertarianism. I hope this satisfies some of the NPOV objections. Bacchiad

An anonymous user wrote:

  1. 'changed "academic" to "egalitarian" because, strictly speaking, ANY political theorist is an academic)'.

Look, I've got a pretty good handle on SEK3-style and neo-Tuckerite left-libertarianism. I have to admit that I don't have the faintest idea what Vallentyne, Otsuka et al. are driving at. BUT they do not get a monopoly on the use of 'egalitarian', since the goals of the left-Rothbardians and others are also egalitarian, although the mechanism of statist redistribution is opposed. You Vallentynists: what label would be acceptable? "Redistributionist"? "Welfarist"? "Pro-State"? I'm rather at a loss. Bacchiad

Vallentyne and Steiner are basically Georgists, or Geolibertarians... very much in the tradition of Albert J Nock... Otsuka is weird, I think he's just trying to be clever. "Pro-State" is not really fair, because they do not advocate for any more state than does Nozick or any other non-anarchist libertarian... they just advocate for a different purpose of that minimal state (ie: basic income). Colorless Green Ideas 10:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Personal POV: This is my problem with these guys. They assume that the state is just going to be a neutral automaton in redistribution, and not use that power as a lever to advance class-interests or worm its way into greater control. IMHO if there's anything that separates "left" from "liberal", it's the critique of institutional power, which has been a hallmark of left thought since the Ricardian socialists. Not to mention their historical blinders in taking the postwar American definition of 'libertarian' as the be-all and end-all of it (cf. Vallentyne's encyclopedia entry on 'libertarianism').
That being said, does the present state of the article seem workable to you? "Anti-corporate free-marketeers" and "Left-libertarianism in political philosophy"? I thought that was the best way to phrase it neutrally. Bacchiad
Well, I completely agree with you, but I really appreciate their contribution because they provide an exact counter-balance to the right-wing minimal staters, who represent feudalistic libertarianism. So I see left-libertarians, and geolibertarians even moreso, as a way to reintroduce the left to the idea of libertarianism. it's such a dirty word amongst the American left. (do you have a link to Vallentyne's encyclopedia entry on 'libertarianism'? or did i overlook it somewhere?)
The article is fine to me, and I think your terminology is good, left-libertarianism is emerging as a coalition of rothbardians (circa ~1969), georgists, and tuckerites against the right-wing coalition of objectivists, confederates, and nozickites. the key point is that it is really just re-emerging after a 30 year hiatus. but I am no authority. I am a left progressive who is making common cause with left-libertarians. We need them to be more influential in their party.
Colorless Green Ideas 02:52, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


Here it is: http://www.missouri.edu/~klinechair/on-line%20papers/libertarianism%20for%20encyclopedia%20of%20social%20science.doc

Bacchiad 17:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Criticism Section?

I have just come to this article, and, to me, it seems to be in sharp contrast to other pages on libertarianism and/or anarchism. In particular, it does not have a 'criticism' section, which is all too important in politics-related articles to be 'left out' in this one. Anyone well-acquainted with the subject would do a great favor to the completeness of this article by adding it. Thanks Stephanos1ko 06:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Section Naming

- I also think it is a bad definition to call Libertarianism (Murray Rothbardts line) "anti-corporate", because it is also "philosophical" in nature and its defenders (f.e. Dr. Roderick Long from Auburn University). Why then the labeling with something so entirely practical and illusive. Another issue I have is that libertarianism only means left-libertarianism in Europe. This is not so, because we have pro-capitalism libertarian movements in France, Germany, Austria, especially Swiss, GB, Sweden, Polen etc. The term no longer defines leftists...

I'm not entirely comfortable with the new section names either. It used to be "anti-corporate free-marketeers" and "left-libertarians in political philosophy". Which I think was imperfect but still better. Bacchiad 18:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


Charles Johnson

Can someone who knows about the 'Charles Johnson' referenced in this article please disambiguate it? There are a lot of them. The Monster 00:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Odd article

As a relative newcomer to this page, I want to resurrect the issue BloodSorrow raised above. Many, many people, particularly outside the US, who call themselves left libertarians would not recognise the description given on this page. It is completely US-centric, and erases whole traditions of political theory and activism that are commonly thought of as left libertarian. Am I alone in this view? BobFromBrockley 11:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to have (a) a section on the historical development of left libertarianism, looking at figures like Thomas Paine, Proudhon, William Morris, Edward Carpenter, Henry George, Oscar Wilde, Alex Comfort and Paul Goodman (writer), (b) a section on the New Left and its heritage (including EP Thomson, Murray Bookchin, Noam Chomsky) and (c) a section on left-libertarianism today, with the current agorism and Vallentine/Steiner material. BobFromBrockley 12:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Should we Merge this into Libertarian socialism? And if not, what should we do with it?

However we juggle things, if we keep separate Libertarian socialism and Left-libertarianism pages, we will need disambiguation, cross-referencing, and duplication. Of course one common meaning of LL includes LS (the other common meaning is a synonym for ancap) so we could merge LS into LL (more cleanly than LL into LS). Jacob Haller 21:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Added merge proposal to both pages. Probably best to conduct the discussion on the other page. Jacob Haller 06:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Against. There are huge differences between the two:
  • Left-libertarianism is a branch of libertarianism, while libertarian socialism is a branch of socialism.
  • Libertarian socialism tends to refer to collectivist ideologies, while left-libertarianism tends to refer to individualist ideologies.
  • Libertarian socialism tends to be critical of the market, while left-libertarianism tends see the market as a just way to redistribute resources.
So No don't. C mon 12:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Having agreed this, any opinions on my suggestion above? BobFromBrockley 12:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The proposal seems to assume that "left-libertarian" is indeed "just a feel-good synonym for left-wing," in which case it seems to me that the very last thing Wikipedia needs is another ill-defined page covering left and/or libertarian politics. As there seems to be resistance to using this page to cover those groups for which "left-libertarian" has particular significance (the Agorist Movement of the Libertarian Left and the Vallentyne-Steiner group) as opposed to all those who might think of themselves as both "libertarian" and "left," my best suggestion is to use this page as a disambiguation page, with links to all the related articles. Libertatia 16:51, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Well the MLL-ALL tradition uses "left" in two senses: (1) no state, as opposed to limited state and often also (2) opposition to irrational authority and support of class struggle (i.e. the common sense of "left"). As written the article discusses agorism and geoism but does not connect them with each other, and the article does not discuss mutualism (which is left to the other article). In some ways grouping mutualism and the other market traditions with agorism and geoism might be clearer than grouping mutualism with communism (but then where does collectivism go?). Roderick Long has pointed out how arbitrary the division between the categories can be. Jacob Haller 13:40, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
Where does this leave us? I have no objection to this page giving weight to gorist Movement of the Libertarian Left and the Vallentyne-Steiner group, but I think it should either give weight to other figures/movements that are commonly thought of as left libertarian (such as those I mentioned above) or at least mention them and have links to their pages. BobFromBrockley 14:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
I have added in such mention, and also addressed the weird orphaned fragments ("the first" etc) left behind by back and forth editing over the months. BobFromBrockley 09:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


I have a problem with agorism being represented as left libertarianism. Clearly it does not fit the definition of left libertarianism. It's simply a doctrine that advocates engaging in illegal activities to establish anarcho-capitalism. Agorists says that that's what makes it left libertarian is that it's "revolutionary." There is no scholarly secondary references to be found on "agorism." It's highly obscure. It's simply a self-described as "left." Therefore I think it should only have a small mention instead of so much elaboration in the in the introduction of this article, and it should only be said it's self-described as "left" instead of stating as a matter of fact that it's left-libertarian. Operation Spooner 16:29, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Agorist is "anti-capitalist" using "capitalism" in the commonly used state capitalism/actually existing capitalism sense. Also, as I've pointed out elsewhere, all libertarianism and anarchism is left - against the Old Order - in the classical sense. "Left" (like "liberal") is a slippery (useless IMO) term that changes drastically over time, and among different groups. I would contend that "right libertarian" is an oxymoron, since all libertarianism is against imposed order. Botton line: Since "left" is a fuzzy changing indeterminate term, we may as well take self-labelling as acceptable. (Note that we've reversed positions since talking about Wendy. There, I wanted to use a static defintion, and you were arguing for accepting her self-label.) PhilLiberty 18:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Look, Agorism is a very specific term describing an ideology developed by a small group of ideologically cohesive individuals - and as such has a very narrow, very specific definition. Both "Left" and "libertarian" are the exact opposite of this - to treat these terms in the same manner would require you to restrict the use of "Left-wing" to describe only a subset of French parliamentarians in the Estates General of 1789. Clearly, this would be ridiculous; the term "left-wing" or "left" describes a vague continuum of ideologies with shared notions of the collective and loosely-defined egalitarianism. Similarly, it is ludicrous to derive as highly specified and restrictive definition for "Libertarian" - based for example on the NAP - this would in a sense disenfranchise large swathes of self-identified libertarians, not to mention libertarian socialists, and would satisfy only those who cannot come to terms with ambiguity and complexity. This inability to let ambiguity in reality be faithfully represented is unfortunately encouraged by the formalism of Wikipedia, and it is something User:Operation Spooner has perhaps inadvertently manifested here. The definitions of left-libertarianism here are from academics, who are blissfully ignorant of those who do not cross their radar, such as the hierarchy-eschewing mutualists, the anarcho-entrepreneurs of agorism, never to mind the geoists and georgists. It's not these ideologies that are obscure, it's the scholars. If something calls itself a cat, and the other cats don't disagree, it's a fair indication that it is, in fact, a cat.
To this effect, I move that any ideology, organisation or tendency that refers to itself (verifiably, of course) as left-libertarian without this claim being explicitly contradicted by other left-libertarians, ought to be included in the article. In the case of a dispute, the ideology in question should be removed from the lede and treated with in a subsection. Skomorokh incite 19:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
It's my understanding that Wikipedia is supposed to be representative of the academic opinion. That's why there are all those rules establishing what makes a reliable source. I agree that anything that considers itself to be left libertarian should be included in the article. I'm just requesting that it's said something like "Agorists consider themselves to be left libertarian" or something like that, because there is no academic opinion that agree that they're left libertarian or that even acknowlegeds their existence. And since there is no record of their existence in the literature, other than their own, so much of the introduction to this article shouldn't be devoted to them. That's why I was deleting the information which you restored. Operation Spooner 20:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Left libertarianism is not only geoism

I found a version with the following erroneous definition:

Left-libertarianism is a political philosophy which combines the libertarian premiss that each person possesses a natural right of self-ownership with the egalitarian premise that natural resources should be shared equally.

The second premise is true for geoism, but not agorism, left-Rothbardianism, etc., and only sometimes true of mutualists. Perhaps some geoist vandel has been at work. Needless to say, I reverted back to the last reasonable definition. Sorry if I erased some good edits. BTW here's an pertinent article: Defining Left Libertarianism. And here's a quote from Alliance of the Libertarian Left that might be useful (and even included in the article):

The Alliance of the Libertarian Left is a multi-tendency coalition of mutualists, agorists,

voluntaryists, geolibertarians, left-Rothbardians, green libertarians, dialectical anarchists, radical minarchists, and others on the libertarian left, united by an opposition to statism, militarism, and the prevailing corporatist capitalism falsely called a free market, as well as by an emphasis on education, direct action, and building alternative institutions, rather than on electoral politics, as our chief strategy for achieving liberation. PhilLiberty 05:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Agorism is simply not left libertarianism under the normal definition of left libertarian. That's why it doesn't fit the definition. You can't change the mainstream definition to fit a very non-standard definition of left libertarian as simply being whatever is revolutionary. Operation Spooner 05:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Agorists call themselves left because they're revolutionary. No one else defines left libertarianism as such. Being revolutionary is simply a tactic. Operation Spooner 05:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
What you are seeing is a few jokers playing around on their blogs with the term "left libertarian" without ever bothering to look it up. This very isolated use of the term "left libertarian" is just that, isolated. Maybe one day it will be accepted in mainstream reference works but it hasn't yet, and it's doubtful that it will. Operation Spooner 05:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Karl Hess, Murray Rothbard, Konkin, Roderick Long are certainly more noteworthy that the obscure acaceme's you cite. Get real - there are several definitions of left libertarian. PhilLiberty 06:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
If there are several definition then why don't you reference them with real sources? And why do you delete the defintiion that is referenced by three sources with is the most commonly accepted definition? Operation Spooner 06:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

PhilLiberty, what you're doing is crazy. You're basing your edits on blogs and web pages. There are not acceptable references. "Alliance of the Liberty Left" web page? Come on. What is that, a whole of ten people on the internet? It's a joke. Why are you letting yourself get sucked in by it? You need to get with the program and use real references. What you're doing can't be consistent with Wikpipedia policy. Operation Spooner 06:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, you need to check out the Karl Hess, Roderick Long, and various other articles. These guys, and their writings, are much more significant than those guys you cite. You are the one on a POV sectarian rampage. If a blog quotes an out-of-print book, it is a legitimate source. PhilLiberty 06:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Karl Hess advocated anarcho-capitalism: "Laissez-faire capitalism, or anarchocapitalism, is simply the economic form of the libertarian ethic..." [1] Are you saying anarcho-capitalism is left libertarian too? You're going by these blogs and fantasy internet alliance and reducing the meaning of "left libertarian" to include everything. You've trashed this article and you're helping to convince me to leave Wikipedia. If there is no common ground to agree to work within the referencing rules, there is really no point in me being here. Have at it. Operation Spooner 06:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Very good - you're too POV for Wiki. To answer your question - Yes, anarcho-capitalism can be left lib. In fact, many left libs are strongly influenced by Murray Rothbard, "father" of anarcho-capitalism. SEKIII wrote that he was more Rothbardian than Rothbard! Another consideration: Hess changed over time, and probably did not self-identify as anarcho-capitalist in later years. PhilLiberty 06:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

2p

for what it's worth why not just list all the viewpoints, with focus on the main ones, as well as listing who has these views?

To make things clearer maybe someone could set up a bullet-point list? (I'm just giving some advice on editing together, I know jack shit about the actual subject so don't expect any content-related input from me.) -- infinity0 10:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree with this. BobFromBrockley 11:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree. That's why I objected to OS presenting the geoist academic view at the main and only correct view. PhilLiberty 22:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
If you read closer, you'd see that the "academic" view does not only include Geoism. It also includes people such as Benjamin Tucker who based his land doctrine on the Lockean proviso, where taking land is not legitimate unless there is enough available for others. The libertarianism entry from the Oxford Companion to Philosophy says "According to left-libertarians, however, the world's natural resources were initially unowned, or belonged equally to all, and it is illegitimate for anyone to claim exclusive private ownership of these resources to the detriment of others." That's exactly Tucker's belief. It's not the belief of agorists or anarcho-capitalists, who are not left-libertarians under the conventional defintiion of left libertarianism. Operation Spooner 21:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Do you have a citation for Tucker's use of the Lockean proviso? Liberty seems to be without much in the way of reference to Locke, or the by-then current characterizations of the doctrine, such as "enough and as good." Some geoists do conflate Proudhon's critique of property with the proviso, but they seem to be mistaken. Libertatia 21:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't have a citation where he says "I'm folling the Proviso," but he said "In the case of land, or of any other material the supply of which is so limited that all cannot hold it in unlimited quantities, Anarchism undertakes to protect no titles except such as are based on actual occupancy and use." There's a clear left-libertarian premise there which is the basis of the occupancy and use doctrine. The agorists/anarcho-capitalists don't have that premise, so they're not left libertarian according to the conventional definition. For reasons that only agorists can explain they call themselves left libertarian. Operation Spooner 22:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
There's no mystery about how Rothbard or Konkin were using "left," or about why they thought they could make common cause with the "left" as more "conventionally" defined. And very little has changed. If you are looking for some dividing line around the proviso, best of luck with the bit of OR. "Occupancy and use" on the model of Proudhon or the 19th century mutualists depends on a different understanding of property than that of even the proviso Lockeans, although contemporary figures have suggested that the different property systems are probably largely capatible in practical terms. That suggestion is at the heart of the most recent left-libertarian coalitions. Libertatia 22:38, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not "looking for some dividing line around the proviso." I'm speaking very generally. This is how left libertarian is normally defined: "Prof. Will Kymlicka "libertarianism, left-" in Honderich, Ted (2005). The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. City: Oxford U Pr, N Y. ISBN 9780199264797. “It combines the libertarian assumption that each person possesses a natural right of self-ownership over his person with the egalitarian premiss that natural resources should be shared equally. Right-wing libertarians argue that the right of self-ownership entails the right to appropriate unequal parts of the external world, such as unequal amounts of land. According to left-libertarians, however, the world's natural resources were initially unowned, or belonged equally to all, and it is illegitimate for anyone to claim exclusive private ownership of these resources to the detriment of others. Such private appropriation is legitimate only if everyone can appropriate an equal amount, or if those who appropriate more are taxed to compensate those who are thereby excluded from what was once common property.” Agorists/anarcho-capitalists are not left libertarians but right libertarians, according to the commonly accepted use of the terms. It appears that Agorists call themselves left libertarian because they're "revolutionary." It's unorthodox use of the term. They're not left libertarians but right libertarians. Operation Spooner 22:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

What Needs to be Done (August 2007)

The article has come a long way since the cadre's adoption in March. I think its an opportune time to set aside the particular quibbles and take a look at the article en masse. Obviously, much of the original article remains uncited or original research, notably the property section, but much of the rest has been cleaned up and cited. What are the challenges that remain, if, say, this article was to aim for Good article status? Thoughts? Criticisms? Suggestions? Skomorokh incite 04:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It's so bad that I say we put a citation requested note on nearly every sentence. What can't be referenced by a legitimate source under Wikipedia policy gets deleted. The very first citation is a website someone put up claiming an alliance of left libertarians. That's not a legitimate source. I don't like the "Academic left libertarianism" either. I'm not aware of such a term being used or such a concept in any references. There is not "academic" left libertarianism. "Left libertarianism" is a category. It's not a specific doctrine. I think any problems with this article can be solved by simply sticking strictly to Wikipedia policy on sourcing and deleting what's not sourced. Operation Spooner 04:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Steiner and Vallentyne are sufficiently well-published that sourcing policy would seem to dictate we take notice of them. They have articulated a particular range of doctrines that they deem "left-libertarianism." The Movement of the Libertarian Left dates back to 1978. In a recent Mises Institute "working paper," Walter Block lists the major "left-libertarian websites" in his defence of "libertarian centralism," and the list is basically that on the Alliance of the Libertarian Left site (agorist MLL members and mutualists). In 2002, Sam Konkin was talking about the "the main differences between left-libertarianism/agorism and anarcho-capitalism." Perhaps this page needs to be little more than a more elaborate disambiguation page. We've identified three (or so) uses of the term "left-libertarianism" that are referenced in scholarly publications, and much more broadly in primary sources. There's no question of the notability of any of the uses, nor should the fact that they are different uses matter much, except that we need to clarify the differences. Steiner and Vallentyne may logically take up a little more space on this page, since they seem to be notable primarily for carving out a space around the "left-libertarian" tag. (Maybe they're on the guaranteed income/minimum articles as well.) There should probably be a disambiguation page for "libertarian left" as well, and at least a brief article on the MLL. There's no reason that this should be difficult to put together. Libertatia 16:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Any reliable sources for the MLL? I'd write the article but I have nothing but the geocities page to go on. Skomorokh incite 17:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
The phrase is prominent in Samuel Edward Konkin III's New Libertarian Manifesto (1980), which is online various places in text form. The KoPubCo site documents the output of Konkin's group. Block's paper, addressing the enlarged left-libertarian movement is here. And the existence of the MLL is verified by sources both internal and potentially opposed. In terms of what we can cite regarding that strain of left-libertarianism, we have good sources to establish the fact that agorists called themselves "left-libertarians," and a good contemporary scholarly source that confirms a broader coalition under that label. The recent conflict which led to the MLL label being dropped or de-emphasized by some members of that alliance, including some prominent agorists, for the Agorist Action Alliance and Alliance of the Libertarian Left labels, in sufficiently well documented in primary sources by individuals already associated with the MLL or identified as "left-libertarian" by Block, to warrant mention. The A3 and ALL are probably not, at this point, sufficiently notable by Wikipedia standards to merit more than that, but we're just trying to clarify the terrain here anyway. Libertatia 18:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
How do we know that these "alliances" have more members other than a handful of bloggers on the internet? If there aren't a substantial number of people in these organizations then what is the importance? What does these alliances accomplish? You just sign your name up to be able to say you're in an alliance? What do they do? Operation Spooner 23:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Try to stay on task, ok? We have three types of "left-libertarianism" (so far), all notable and citable by Wikipedia standards. We have Block's scholarly piece, demonstrating the current breadth of the SEK3-inspired/MLL-derived variety. All of that is well established according to sourcing rules. The origins of the A3 and ALL are well-documented by primary source material online, as is the continuity of members between the MLL and those organizations. I am not an uninterested party in the later phases of that particular "left-libertarian" story, so I won't be doing the edits here. But I don't see any obstacles to documenting the three types of left-libertarianism and minimally documenting recent developments in the agorist-MLL strand. Libertatia 16:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

On the whole, I agree that all three currents are included, but it is important that we get references from serious non-blog sources. I have tried to make the lede much simpler so that it does not appear that left libertarianism is not a marginal and overly specific current. BobFromBrockley 12:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Murray Rothbard

Philiberty, you're writing your own references. What source says that Rothbard was a left libertarian? You gave an article by Rothbard himself but I don't see him calling himself a left libertarian. More importantly, what source external to Rothbard calls Rothbard a left libertarian. This article by Walter Block in a peer-reviewed journal says "Rothbard was a libertarian of neither wing; he was an Austro-libertarian anarchist." [2] I also have sources saying anarcho-capitalism is right libertarianism. Operation Spooner 22:44, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Rothbard changed his political affiliations more often than his underwear. Self-identification is sufficient citation. The Block reference is useful to include as a note to clarify in case readers might get the impression that R was a leftlib and only a leftlib. Skomorokh incite 04:24, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
OS, in Rothbard's article he puts libertarianism on the left. He called himself a libertarian his whole life. QED. Skomorokh, Rothbard did change affiliations if by that you mean political alliances, but he didn't change his ideology. He laughed at the changing terminology, writing, "if I can move from 'extreme right' to 'extreme left' merely by standing in one place, drastic though unrecognized changes must have taken place throughout the American political spectrum over the last generation."[3] PhilLiberty 04:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with your interpretation of the essay. It looks to me like he's just pointing out historical uses of the term. Sure, liberalism used to be considered on the left, of course. But, not today. A classical liberal or libertarian is not considered a leftist. Can you quote to any specific sentence where he says he's a left libertarian? Operation Spooner 04:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
"Radical right libertarianism—such as that of Rothbard (1978, 1982), Narveson (1988, ch. 7; 1999), and Feser (2005)—holds that that there are no fair share constraints on use or appropriation." [4] Operation Spooner 04:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Left libertarian Kevin Carson also says Rothbard is a right libertarian: "Although you will never see the issue addressed by Milton Friedman, intellectually honest right libertarians like Rothbard acknowledge the role of the state in creating European feudalism and Amerian slavery." [5] Operation Spooner 05:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Rothbard is saying that all libertarianism is left-libertarianism. Here are some pertinent quotes from the essay:
Libertarians of the present day are accustomed to think of socialism as the polar opposite of the libertarian creed. But this is a grave mistake, responsible for a severe ideological disorientation of libertarians in the present world. As we have seen, conservatism was the polar opposite of liberty; and socialism, while to the "left" of conservatism, was essentially a confused, middle-of-the-road movement. It was, and still is, middle-of-the-road because it tries to achieve liberal ends by the use of conservative means... p8
In particular, the modern libertarians forgot or never realized that opposition to war and militarism had always been a "left-wing" tradition which had included libertarians... p18
PhilLiberty 05:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
"HAD always been a left-wing tradition." Operation Spooner 05:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Today, to be a left libertarian is to have some collectivism or entitlement philosophy in your property ethics. That's why Kevin Carson is one, but Rothbard is not. Operation Spooner 05:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I removed Rothbard from the list. I don't think that Long, Spangler, or various others meet the "collectivism or entitlement" standard and am not even sure about Carson. Jacob Haller 05:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Left libertarians believe everyone is entitled to natural resources, and that no one may appropriate so much that it doesn't leave the same amount for others. That's what the occupancy and use doctrine is all about. Right libertarians don't have that restriction. If it's the fruit of your labor, you own it, period. Operation Spooner 05:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Nonsense. Occupancy and use can, and has been, as easily derived from a general sense of the "impossibility of property," following Proudhon, as from the Lockean proviso. This involves neither entitlement nor collectivism. Libertatia 17:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
There is no "collectivism or entitlement" standard for left libertarianism, OS. There are various meanings for "left." The article should not endorse only one. PhilLiberty 17:29, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
If there's more than one definition for left libertarianism then where is your reference? All the definitions I've found say it's a philosophy that combines self-ownership with egalitarian natural resource premises. Operation Spooner 23:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Not nonsense. People like Benjamin Tucker fit in under the definition of left libertarianism. Tucker believed he was entitled to land. Left libertarians start with an egalitarian premise that everyone is entitled to natural resources, that a person ought not to take so much land that he leaves none for anyone else. Tucker said this pretty explicitly. Right libertarians don't start with an egalitarian premise. You can accumulate as much natural resources that you want in right libertarianism. Operation Spooner 23:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I found secondary references to Konkin's use of the term "left-Rothbardian" but no definition and no use in online works by Konkin. Can anyone else check? Jacob Haller 05:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that if someone is using the term "left-Rothbardian," then I would think that that means they think Rothbard is on the right (or center), otherwise there would be no need for the prefix. What the difference is I can't figure out. It seems to just be playing with terminology. Konkin says agorism is Rothbardianism. If it is then how can it be left and Rothbardianism not be left? The whole thing doesn't make sense. They're just throwing these terms around with no ryhme or reason. That doesn't mean this article should as well. Operation Spooner 05:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what your interpretation of it is, it only matters what those who use it think it means. If Konkin is notable, identifies himself as a left-Rothbardian, and elaborates that by left-Rothbardian he means "a sort of mutant ninja-submarine from the Planet Spooner" then we report it as such, with caveats if necessary, regardless of our original-research-points-of-view on the matter. Skomorokh incite 19:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The political spectrum

Sentence in current version:

All three types are considered "left" according to models of the political spectrum, such as that presented by Karl Hess in his 1975 book Dear America,[1] wherein "right" refers to centralized power and "left" refers to decentralization and opposition to institutionalized power.

I think this should be re-worked for two reasons: (1) by Hess' definition, all forms of libertarianism are left, therefore making the article completely redundant. (2) there is an artcle on political spectrum (which does not mention Hess, incidentally - perhaps it should) where the different models are made clear; there is no need to single out one. I would suggest something along the lines of:

All three types are considered "left" according to most models of the political spectrum, in that they support principles of equality and social justice.

I'm being bold and making the change. BobFromBrockley 10:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I am now being even bolder and removing that too, because the simplified lede (see above) makes it unnecessary. BobFromBrockley 12:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Too narrow

I think that this article's focus is too narrow. In wider discourse, left libertarianism refers to a much broader current than is indicated here. Here are examples of currents who have been authoritatively described as left-libertarian, but not reflected in the article.

I think these currents could be better reflected in the article. BobFromBrockley 13:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Earlier, there seemed to be consensus that Libertarian Socialism would be treated in that article, and this article cover other forms of left libertarianism. I put the disambiguation back in to reflect this. PhilLiberty 17:37, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
The Radical Party and the greens are not libertarian socialists. Libertarian communism is not covered in the libertarian socialist article, as it is something different. I think syndicalism is mentioned in lib soc article, but is not exactly that. The consensus above was against merging article with lib soc, not the article excluding mention of lib soc. (I think.) BobFromBrockley 11:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
PhilL, I just noticed you have also removed all mention of people like Comfort, Morris, the new left, etc from the article, even though these people are not discussed at all in the libertarian socialist article - i.e. you've made it more narrow than previously existing version. Please tell me why an article called left libertarianism should not reflect wide, common, scholarly uses of the term. BobFromBrockley 11:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Bob, those guys seemed to be libertarian socialist, thus more appropriate to that article. Don't you think that they belong in the lib soc article rather than this one? Similarly, doesn't libertarian communism belong in the lib soc article? PhilLiberty 17:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
The libertarian socialism article explicitly says that it is not about libertarian communism. William Morris is rightly mentioned briefly in lib soc article, but the sense of a left libertarian tradition, somewhere between anarchism and socialism, which is argued for by Goodway (see above) is better reflected in the left lib article than the lib soc article. And what about the Greens and Radicals? The other option is to call this article something like Left libertarianism in North America and have a different page for left libertarianism in general, as the narrow usage you are recommending is very N America-specific. BobFromBrockley 12:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

The Libertarian socialism article says that libertarian communism should not be considered a synonym for libertarian socialism. It does not say that libertarian communism is not a type of libertarian socialism. It still looks to me like it should be in that article. That article does have a section on Anarchist communism, which may be the same thing. The Anarchist communism says it is the same thing, and Libertarian Communism redirects there.

Bob, you give some wonderful information about radical and green movements in Europe. I invite you to add another definition like the one you give at the end of your first bullet point. The Italian Radicals sound a lot like the agorists. They should be in the article. PhilLiberty 17:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Rothbard on this list

I strongly dispute Rothbard being included as a 'left libertarian'. Despite a temporary alliance with the left during the 1960s, Rothbard did not hold many of the views of left libertarianism. He usually refered to himself as 'paleolibertarian' and even devoted several articles to bashing left-libertarians. (which he viewed most of the libertarian think tanks like Cato as). I can point to several articles were he is sharply critical of things such as open immigration, feminism, Martin Luther King, Roe v Wade (which many left-libertarians defend) as well as the concept of a 'living constitution', and other left-libertarian causes. Despite his use of the term paleolibertarianism for himself, a one line citation from a single article is enough for someone to remove him from the list of people holding paleolibertarian views from that article, and instead was put on this list. He was even a supporter of the States Rights Party in 1948, do you think any left-libertarian would have been caught doing that? user:Pzg Ratzinger

I don't think any of that is relevant to whether he is a right of left libertarian. What's relevant is property philosophy. Operation Spooner 23:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Rothbard supported both liberty and social justice, satisfying the article's definition. Also, Rothbard considered all libertarianism leftist. Finally, he is frequently cited by those calling themselves libertarian left as a source and inspiration. He definitely belongs on the list.
BTW Rothbard supported open borders in the usual understanding of that term. Hoppe and Rockwell use a contrived definition of the term when claiming he didn't. IOW Rothbard denied that the state had any right to prevent people from traveling, and asserted that property owners have every right to invite whoever they want onto their property. Most libertarians are ambivalent about Roe v Wade. We don't like winner-take-all decisions imposed by a central state, but we do believe that one has the right to control ones body, including the right to expel parasites. This was Rothbard's position. PhilLiberty 07:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Why don't you just find a secondary source saying that Rothbard was a left libertarian and this will be settled? Then was can say there is disagreement over whether Rothbard was a left libertarian, right libertarian, or libertarian of neither wing. Operation Spooner 19:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
All of the above and more. If this article is reflects anything it is that left-libertarianism is not a sharply defined or monolithic philosophy. There is no need to apply labels where they do not fit – Rothbard certainly had links with left-libs, why not state just that? If a contested claim cannot be sourced it should be removed, but in this case it makes far more sense to alter the claim to be uncontroversial. Skomorokh incite 18:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
OK I will try to reply to all: Phil Liberty and the one anon replier, I still disagree. It seems to me different segments of Libertarians are trying to 'claim' Rothbard, but yet his claim of the paleo label (and support for just about all of its goals) seems to mean nothing to you. 'Social Justice'? Other than the 'I am for Black Power' comments he made in the 1960s, he seem highly critical through his entire life of the practice of so called 'social justice'. Furthermore, I dont see any real references. I wont remove his name from the list before coming to an agreement, but I noticed a similar 'dispute' over on the paleolibertarian page (of which Rothbard WAS listed). Seems to me like the sometimes competing sides of libertarianism are fighting over him :P. Do his several articles on bashing left-libertarians not matter to you? How can a person bash a label youre trying to put on him? Futhermore, left libertarians seem to hate religion. (Just for the record - I am not an outsider on this topic, I consider myself a paleolibertarian also, but left-libertarians are the segment of the libertarian movement quickest to critisize religion) While Rothbard didnt often write on religion, he was highly critical of the anti-religious bant of some left-liberitarians. User:Pzg Ratzinger —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 01:51, August 24, 2007 (UTC).
Different strands of libertarians quite rightly try to claim Rothbard as Rothbard moved in very different intellectual circles and adopted very different tactical approaches and affinities throughout his lifetime. It is no contradiction to discuss R in the paleolibertarian, anarcho-capitalist, left-libertarian etc. articles because he contributed to all these movements and more. Mussolini was once a socialist - this is no reason to remove him from the fascism article, you dig? Let's be inclusive pluralists about this and include whomever reliable sources indicate was important, shall we? Skomorokh incite 17:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
p.s. if anyone for whatever reason removes a reference from the article, please move it to the talkpage where it can be viewed and re-integrated as appropriate.' Skomorokh incite 18:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I dont like the implication that I intended to remove references that I 'dont like'. I am being democratic about this, but I think the original inclusion of him on this list was a bit rash user:Pzg Ratzinger —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 01:54, August 24, 2007 (UTC).
I was not referring to you specifically nor did I imply that anyone was removing references they didn't like. I meant only to remind editors that just because a given section of text is bad and should be removed from the article, does not mean that there are not potentially useful references/sources embedded therein which might be lost. e.g. "libertarians just want to get rich and not support the poor.<ref>good reference</ref>" Skomorokh incite 17:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Bullet list version of intro

Here's a bullet list version of the intro that perhaps should be reconsidered, especially since Bob has more definitions of left libertarian.

Left-libertarianism is a term that has been adopted by several different movements and theorists.

  • It can refer to anarchist and radical minarchist groups that oppose statism, militarism, and corporatist capitalism. These include mutualists, agorists, voluntaryists, geolibertarians, left-Rothbardians, green libertarians, dialectical anarchists, and some radical minarchists.[2] Influential for this type were Murray Rothbard, Karl Hess, Samuel Edward Konkin III, and Roderick T. Long.
  • It can refer to the philosophy of certain academic geoists such as Peter Vallentyne, Hillel Steiner, and Michael Otsuka.

All three types are considered "left" according to models of the political spectrum, such as the one presented by Karl Hess in his 1975 book Dear America,[6] wherein "right" refers to centralized power and "left" decentralization and opposition to institutionalized power.

PhilLiberty 17:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see the point of proposing what should be in the article without sources. Nothing should be in the article that doesn't have a source. Operation Spooner 19:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
It gives an idea of how to organize things, what to cover, etc. Jacob Haller 01:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I think the bullet point list is a good idea, as per Jacob H's points. Caveats: (1) I think we should keep some version of the current two-sentence start, which succintly defines what all of these movements have in common: "Left-libertarianism is a term in political philosophy that has been adopted by several different movements and theorists. In general, it refers to any political movement or theory which is both libertarian in that it has a strong commitment to personal liberty and left in that it has a strong commitment to social justice or equality (see political spectrum)." (2) I am against the Karl Hess reference, for reasons I've already given. (Phil - why don't you edit the Political spectrum article to add Hess's version?). I probably won't edit any more this week, and see if a consensus forms! BobFromBrockley 10:41, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Note from the Manual of Style:

Do not use bullets if the passage reads easily using plain paragraphs or indented paragraphs. If every paragraph in a section is bulleted, it is likely that none should be bulleted. Do not mix grammatical styles in a list—either use all complete sentences or use all sentence fragments. Begin each item with a capital letter, even if it is a sentence fragment. When using complete sentences, provide a period at the end of each. When using sentence fragments, do not provide a period at the end.

Skomorokh incite 18:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Vulgar libertarianism

I removed the following passages from Anarchism as undue weight, but they may be appropriate here: Jacob Haller 01:05, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Kevin Carson has criticized those whom he refers to as "libertarians of the right," none of whom he mentions by name, for inaccurately conflating the free market for existing economic conditions. Carson writes:[3]

Vulgar libertarian apologists for capitalism use the term "free market" in an equivocal sense: they seem to have trouble remembering, from one moment to the next, whether they’re defending actually existing capitalism or free market principles. So we get the standard boilerplate article in The Freeman arguing that the rich can’t get rich at the expense of the poor, because "that’s not how the free market works"--implicitly assuming that this is a free market. When prodded, they’ll grudgingly admit that the present system is not a free market, and that it includes a lot of state intervention on behalf of the rich. But as soon as they think they can get away with it, they go right back to defending the wealth of existing corporations on the basis of "free market principles."

But, Carson says that "intellectually honest libertarians," disintinguish between "free market capitalism" and 'the actually existing capitalism' of today's corporate economy."[4] He names Murray Rothbard as an "intellectually honest right libertarian."[5]

Intro

Me and Operation Spooner have been going a few bloody rounds over the intro. Can we get some new and hopefully cooler heads to give it a look over? Bacchiad 17:56, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

My head is pretty cool here. The point is that these individuals think ALL anarchist libertarianism is left wing, including anarcho-capitalism. This is idiosyncratic. There doctrines are considered right libertarian by mainstream terminology. I've never seen a mainstream source call this left libertarianism. Operation Spooner 18:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
In other words, this is a fringe view, so should not be represented as being anything more than that. As of now, regarding all libertarian anarchism as left wing has not caught on. Operation Spooner 18:09, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I think a better characterization is that (they hold that) all non-vulgar libertarianism is antipolitically left, and many are also socially/ethically left. Jacob Haller 18:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
There is no such thing as vulgar libertarianism. Operation Spooner 18:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you just take out those sections entirely then? Bacchiad 18:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It deserves a mention, but the section should probably be a lot smaller. This is simply a terminological issue. Operation Spooner 18:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I like you latest addition: "These individuals depart from most mainstream libertarians by opposing intellectual property[8], by advocating strong alliances with the Left on issues such as the anti-war movement[9], and by supporting labor unions[10][11]." It gives the idea that that's why they call libertarian anarchism "left." That's not why. I don't know why you say that's they depart from the mainstream on those issues. Most libertarians are anti-war and support labor unions as free market bargaining. In addition, some agorists and anarcho-capitalists support intellectual property. Operation Spooner 18:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

If you want a single issue on which every single self-described non-geoist left-libertarian departs from every single mainstream libertarian, you're not going to find one. Unlike the Vallentyne thing it's a tendency, not an ironclad a priori thing. Similarly, find a single issue on which every single conservative in the world departs from every single liberal in the world. You can't do it. But conservative and liberal are still accepted headings for an encyclopedia. Bacchiad 18:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but that's not why at all (what you have listed in your sentence). It's best to either leave out your theorized explanations of why they use the term, or state actually why with a reference for it. Operation Spooner 18:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The sentence reads: "These individuals depart from most mainstream libertarians by opposing intellectual property[8], by advocating strong alliances with the Left on issues such as the anti-war movement[9], and by supporting labor unions[10][11]."

It doesn't say a word about why they call themselves left. It just observes a couple of notable and documented tendencies. Bacchiad 18:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I know that, but it sure looks like it's an explanation of what makes them left libertarian, which is why I said I'm not sure that it should be there. Operation Spooner 18:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
The link to the Konkin interview, which you deleted, explains why he considers libertarianism to be on the left. It's under the question: "Q: People who describe themselves, as Libertarians often don't want to be associated with left-wing. Leftists look at Libertarians with unwillingness. Where did you get the idea to call your organization the Movement of Libertarian Left?" Operation Spooner 18:49, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Dissident Free-Marketeers?

I don't think the section on dissident free-marketeers should be included in this article. Left-libertarianism entails a commitment to self-ownership (or at least a strong commitment to personal liberty, as the definition given in the article suggests) and egalitarian ownership of the world's natural resources. None of the three sub-sections within this section outline ideas that are consistent with this definition.

Firstly, whilst mutualism is related to left-libertarianism, it has a separate entry and it would be more appropriate to simply have a link to this article. As it stands, the section does nothing to establish why mutualism matches the definition of left-libertarianism given in the article.

Secondly, the section on Rothbard. He has no commitment whatsoever to idea of egalitarian ownership of natural resources and, therefore, cannot be a left-libertarian.

Thirdly, most the positions outlined in the section on cultural politics, such as permissive drug policy, are libertarian, not left-libertarian. For example, a permissive attitude to "drug policy" is a libertarian position that follows from a commitment to personal liberty, not a left-libertarian position: see [7].

I think a lot of the difficulties which this article has had are related to a confusion about what left-libertarianism is. Left-libertarians, as the definition suggests, are commitmed to personal liberty and egalitarian world ownership. For an idea to be considered left-libertarian it must adhere to these principles. It is not a halfway house for every man and his dog who supports permissive social policy and redistributive taxation. This view seems to have been advocated by Operation Spooner throughout this discussion.

In the absence of credible sources which establish these positions as left-libertarian, I think this section should be removed.

I'm new to editing Wikipedia so I apologise for any breaches of Wikipedia rules or conventions I have made.Bazley B 11:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

You're exactly right. A lot of things should be deleted from this article. Unfortunately, one or two people that have been working on this article don't follow sourcing guidelines and just make stuff up. Many of the things that appear to be sourced, are not represented by the source that is being referenced. It's just outright fabrication. This article is full of misinformation, disinformation, and neologisms such as "dissident free-marketers." Operation Spooner 04:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Roderick T. Long on left-libertarianism

Infoshop.org has a useful interview with Long from 2008-02-26 in which he gives a rather thorough account of the philosophy. Details: "Infoshop News - Interview with Roderick Long". Infoshop.org. 2008-02-26. Retrieved 2008-02-26. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help) скоморохъ 17:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation is needed

"Movement of the Libertarian Left" (MLL) is NOT exactly equal to "Left-Libertarianism"

ok?

and viceversa "Left-Libertarianism" is NOT exactly equal to "Movement of the Libertarian Left" (MLL)

do someone understand my bad English?

it is a scientific and public need, not a political propaganda.

please, don't let Wikipedia become Confusiopedia. FLT —Preceding unsigned comment added by Federico Tortorelli (talk • contribs) 00:12, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!

Right. The MLL is an umbrella organization of various left libertarian groups and people. PhilLiberty (talk) 19:39, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Non-NPOV

Pretending that the fringe view of Valentyne, Hillel, et al. is "orthodox" left-libertarianism is false and it privileges their position over the mainstream of left-libertarian thought. Even if their views were predominant among left-libertarians, Wikipedia is not supposed to take sides. 71.191.213.197 (talk) 04:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not referring specically to Valentyne. Valentyne is left libertarian because he falls under the category of left libertarianism. The same for Chomsky. Look at any number of sources. Left libertarianism refers to opposite to private ownership of resources, or restrictions put on private ownership. Introman (talk) 19:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
No it doesn't. "Opposite of private ownership of resources" has nothing to do with the left-libertarian movement. 71.191.213.197 (talk) 22:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
It has everything to do with it. Look at the most famous left libertarian in the U.S., Noam Chomsky. Introman (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, Introman, how about this?

In his 1927 What is Mutualism? Clarence Lee Swartz writes: "One of the tests of any reform movement with regard to personal liberty is this: Will the movement prohibit or abolish private property? If it does, it is an enemy of liberty. For one of the most important criteria of freedom is the right to private property in the products of ones labor. State Socialists, Communists, Syndicalists and Communist-Anarchists deny private property".

Mutualism is free market anticapitalism and a part of libertarian socialist movement. --Kregus (talk) 19:14, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe. But you just needs a source saying that mutualism is "left libertarianism" or "left-wing libertarianism." If this is a common view there should be no problem finding a source. And if you can only find mutalists calling THEMSELVES left libertarians, with no secondary sources consider them left libertarians, then the article has to take that into account. Introman (talk) 20:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
This article had actually established a rather nice balance, describing the varieties of left-libertarianism without needless POV-pushing. The bulk of the article still reflects that hard-won approach, but the intro has gone off in another direction entirely. The designation of agorism as "left libertarian" is too well established by decades of use in the primary literature to ignore. The fact that Konkin's numerous publications are not are well-represented at Google Books or Google Scholar as Chomsky or Valentyne's crowd shouldn't surprise anyone, but those sources are a very specific, academic-centered slice of what's out there. Libertatia (talk) 05:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
If agorism is not represented in independent sources as being left wing then it's not "well established." I can't even find mention agorism in independent sources. It's extremely obscure. Introman (talk) 15:57, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Can Konkin's left-libertarianism even be found being taken seriously by various libertarian publications and websites (LewRockwell.com or Mises.org) which generally are used as WP:RS on libertarian issues? How about the two different conflict branches that exist now, are either - or their split - covered by WP:RS? Is covering it in Sam Konkin article sufficient and then putting in a "see also" here? One joins wikipedia agreeing to abide by the rules or change them within the structure, a defacto contract, after all :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
The Wikipedia contract either stipulates that one is here to make a better encyclopedia, which means using the whole structure, including, for example, WP:IAR, to do so, or else it is one which cares absolutely nothing for thirty+ years of primary sources, if they have not been validated by the (frequently dubious) authority of a secondary or tertiary source. There is certainly no source more "reliable" than personal testimony and organizational documents, and the difference between the use of "left libertarian" in agorist publications and that of the Valentyne group is simply that the latter are academics, and their publications, though fewer in number by far than Konkin's, are more likely to be cited in other encyclopedia entries. There are 103 sites in the Blogosphere of the Libertarian Left, two left-libertarian discussion lists at Yahoo Groups, five domain names using variations of left-libertarian in use by the Alliance of the Libertarian Left, and the conflict over the fate of the Movement of the Libertarian Left is common enough knowledge that you've brought it up here. At some point. In any event, the article in its current form explicitly acknowledges multiple uses of the term. Either the entire article is "in violation of the contract," and must be reworked according to some barely-established orthodoxy, from top to bottom, or some balance, without silly editorializing, needs to be struck between what is actual and what is verifiable in cursory searches of the secondary material. It would be possible to establish the agorist left-libertarian pedigree from primary sources, but I hesitate to do the work if there are those here dead set on taking the scholarly low road. Libertatia (talk) 18:17, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
If you want an encyclopedia that doesnt take "scholarly low road," as you put it, then you shouldn't be involved here. Wikipedia is meant to present topics that are notable, as being discussed by independent sources. Agorism is barely even notable by Wikipedia standards. It may be notable to you if you're part of this small group of people, but not notable to the rest of the world. Wikipedia is not concerned with bringing out information about all things but only all notable things, with the notability of agorism or whether it is a form of left wing libertarianism to be determined by how many people OUTSIDE of it have taken notice of it. If they haven't, or if no one outside of agorism has called it left wing, then it's not a notable view. Notability, notability, notability. There are Wiki websites that do not have the notability requirement. You're free to use those if you don't like the standards here. Introman (talk) 18:40, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia standards are actually the standards of Wikipedia's editors. Rules like WP:IAR are there explicitly to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia, and to give it some vague chance of living up to its hype. If you were really concerned about "notability," I'm sure there are places you could better spend you time than pages like this. You have been pushing on this matter of "self-identification." Konkin was a "self-identified left-libertarian," as is Chomsky, as is Valentyne. Valentyne is hardly more notable than Konkin, but he's an academic, so his primary-source self-identifications already, neatly indexed in Google Scholar, seem important by prevailing Wikipedia standards. You have a tertiary source for your definition, and Will Kymlicka, who does not seem to be any sort of authority on libertarian politics, gets to be the judge of whether or not Chomsky or Konkin uses the "correct" definition, when there is quite obviously no correct definition. This is a clear case of undue weight, if one considers the primary sources at all, but Wikipedia's "standards" seem to have degenerated to random quotation of easily accessed secondary sources, however dubious. Libertatia (talk) 19:08, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Rules are to be ignored only if doing so makes the encyclopedia better. Ignoring the notability rule does not make it better, but worse. "Undue weight" would be to give the Konkin definition equal weight, because a minority of sources use the term that way. It's a minority position clearly. Introman (talk) 00:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
What makes encyclopedias worse is making them incoherent and/or non-encyclopedic. You have added details ("capitalistic" markets) for which there was no source given, and have made blanket assertions about "correct" definitions and "minority positions" on the say-so of a scholar of no particular note in the field. Nobody is, after all, asking you to ignore "notability." On the contrary, I would just like to see these articles reflect something more than hearsay from Google Scholar. Libertatia (talk) 01:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the adjectives "capitalist" and "unrestricted" from the description of the Konkin-Long left-libertarians. It is not supported by the source (which, on the other hand, does support the inclusion of mutualists among left-libertarians) and contradicts Long's rather well-known objections to the term "capitalism" as a package-deal or "zaxlebax." It is not NPOV to insert misleading, unsourced adjectives in this way. Libertatia (talk) 19:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I think mutualism would fall under the standard definition of left libertarianism, because they play limitations on the private the appropriation of resources. But as I said earlier there needs to be a source for that before claiming it, even though I believe it. It would not fall under the Konkin definition. Introman (talk) 00:14, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
There does not seem to be a source for your "unrestricted," any more than there was a source for "capitalist" (or sources for any of this latest addition that you have not felt the need to edit.) Libertatia (talk) 01:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
You're free to delete what's not sourced. What may be obvious to me may not be obvious to you. Introman (talk) 01:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
I have deleted the unsourced attribution of "unrestricted" to Long and Konkin, but you have insisted on its "importance." But it turns out that there also doesn't appear to be a source here that actually ties Bakunin to any of the forms of the "left-libertarian" label. And I can't come up with any reason to consider Kymlicka's definition exemplary. So if I start editing out what is unsourced or inadequately sourced, there may not be much left. At this point, I'm considering simply proposing the page for deletion, since it seems too contentious to create something accurate. Libertatia (talk) 02:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
What do you mean about Bakunin? The source is right there "Goodwin, Barbara. 1987. Using Political Ideas, 4th edition. John Wiley & Sons. p. 137-138". I verified it too. (It's not explicit though and I could see how someone could dispute what she's saying). Propose the page for deletion if you want. I couldn't care less. Introman (talk) 02:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. I tried to untangle some of the mess. The "primary" definition is that of the Valentyne school, and it is followed by those social anarchists who use "libertarian" in the traditional sense of "anarchist" and use "left" in a way that is at least relatively compatible with DeLeon. Then comes the Geoist connections (which, for the record, seems to have been made up out of whole cloth in an encyclopedia entry awhile back), with the agorists and free-market types safely segregated in their own paragraph, minus unsourced editorializing. I'm not going to push on the fact that all of these definitions are pretty arbitrary, since this at least includes everyone without confusing the analytic philosophers with the classical anarchists. Libertatia (talk) 03:04, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

A blanket revert, eh? Unsourced stuff and all. I was rather easy on the existing tissue of misrepresentations, but you aren't interested in compromise, apparently. Libertatia (talk) 03:09, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
It's misleading to single out those left libertarians you named, when the definition covers much more than their version of libertarianism. The Stamford source says "Libertarianism is committed to full self-ownership. A distinction can be made, however, between right-libertarianism and left-libertarianism, depending on the stance taken on how natural resources can be owned. One possible view holds that initially no one has any liberty right to use, or any moral power to appropriate, natural resources. A radical version of joint-ownership left-libertarianism, for example, holds that individuals may use natural resources only with the collective consent (e.g., majority or unanimous) of the members of society..." And goes on to describe other types. Introman (talk) 03:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
The sources specifically cite only that school, and that school does not consist of anarchists. The use of "left-libertarian" to describe "classical" or social anarchists is an entirely different phenomenon, more or less adequately covered by DeLeon. You will jam together anarchists and minarchists, while you quibble over the free-marketeers. They all need to be treated separately. I think you would have a hard time, in any case, finding "full self-ownership" among the things social anarchists were very worried about. Libertatia (talk) 03:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, I've demonstrated to my own satisfaction that the existing sources can be arranged in a way that isn't horribly misleading, even if it is one which (characteristically for Wikipedia) emphasizes tiny academic minorities over everything else. If you are dead-set on retangling all this, I am too busy to fight it forever. Libertatia (talk) 03:25, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You have it in reverse. Konkin's use of the term is in the extreme minority. These who call themselves agorists are a small group of people that no one aware of except themselves and the only ones that use the term "left libertarian" in that way.Introman (talk) 03:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
The vast majority of the actual uses of "left-libertarian" are probably references to social anarchism in contexts where it seems necessary to distinguish that from any of a number of other schools of more-or-less libertarian thought. Those uses reference the tradition going back to Dejacques and "libertaire" as a synonym for anarchism. But comparatively few of the sorts of sources we generally accept on Wikipedia refer to that, and most of those are traceable to Chomsky's rather cagey self-identification. The analytic left-libertarians do not seem to be anarchists, and their concerns and terminology are much closer to the Rothbardians than to classical anarchism, even if they draw different conclusions on land use. That's why the sources that you are relying on make such a big deal about distinguishing these guys from "right-libertarians." The fact that they are a tiny faction is evidenced by their constant references to one another, in a circle that hardly amounts to a dozen scholars. As I said, you have more than a hundred bloggers currently affiliated with one roughly Konkin-inspired left-libertarian webring, and a number of those who have recently been published or debated by, or edit, "Reason," "The Freeman," "The Journal of Libertarian Studies," Cato, etc. All anarchist and libertarian factions are relatively small, and academic treatments are scarce. (It might surprise you, but publishers aren't really jumping at anarchist manuscripts right now, even relatively safe historical stuff.) As far as this entry is concerned, we have two relatively small factions which specifically call themselves "left-libertarian" and a lot of folks who might identify with the title, but think of themselves as social anarchists of one sort or another. It shouldn't be so damn hard to get that basic information into an article. Libertatia (talk) 05:50, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Seems like you're making something complicated that's not. It's pretty straightforward. If you're for socialization of resources or of resource appropriation you're on the left. If you're for untrammeled private ownership you're on the right. That's the conventional understanding in political philosophy. The Konkin definition is just breaking convention, which is fine, but it ought not be represented as a mainstream view because extremely few writers use the term "left" in that way and only in self identification. Introman (talk) 15:51, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually, that whole framework is just original research, since there is obviously much greater divergence within the sources cited, and no reliable source which presents the framework readymade. You have taken a rather cartoonish "conventional understanding" and forced the sources to fit it, rather than dealing with the messier realm of actual definitions and positions. Libertatia (talk) 20:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Since there are apparently two incompatible definitions of "left-libertarian," maybe we should disambiguate and have two different articles, e.g. Left-libertarianism (socialist) and Left-libertarianism (free-market). Or simply delete all the socialist shit and refer to the Libertarian Socialist article. After all, the socialist stuff in this article is just a repeat of that article. PhilLiberty (talk) 17:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Directing to libertarian socialism wouldn't be good because not all left libertarians are anarchists. Libertarian socialism is anarchism. I would support a disambiguation but I'm not sure that the propertarian "left libertarian" is notable enough for an article unless someone can find some independent sources using the term that way. All I see is a handful up people using it as a self label. It's like a neologism that hasn't caught on with those who write about political philosophy. Introman (talk) 18:01, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

"Left" meaning "agorist" or "revolutionary" rather than "liberal"

Is there truth to the notion that left-libertarianism is a leftist or revolutionary approach to libertarianism, whereas right-libertarianism implies working with existing policymaking structures; thus, agorism is left-libertarianism whereas the Libertarian Party is right-libertarianism? Tisane (talk) 06:27, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

DarkStar's edits

Editor DarkStar apparently disagrees with the definition of "left-libertarianism," seeing it as contradictory---as if that canard has not been dealt with in the past---and so has taken it upon himself to disrupt the article. First, he repeatedly removed most of the first sentence, leaving the second half of a sentence and references which made no sense. When he was repeatedly reverted, he gave up and moved on to a new form of disruption: repeatedly templating the article, arguing that the sources were insufficient and inappropriate, because one source, used one time, is written by a professor and published on the university's webpage. I do not believe this meets the criteria for "self-published" sources. The source clearly states that these are notes for a public presentation. The only conclusion I can reach is that DarkStar is bent on disruption, not article improvement. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 15:33, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Scholarship "If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been at least preliminarily vetted by one or more other scholars." This is a pdf file of an unknown, un-published professor at a very small private Jesuit school. Which peers reviewed his work? Where was the material "published" other than the schools website? A public presentation to who, the students of Santa Clara University? Darkstar1st (talk) 18:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Other pages are being sourced by unreliable sources from the same private Santa Clara Jesuit university. Source 69 on the libertarian page"^ Foldvary, Fred E., Geoism and Libertarianism. The Progress Report." is a link to an editorial blog from a lecturer at SCU.Darkstar1st (talk) 20:41, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:RS says, "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications".[8] William A. Sundstrom has published countless articles in peer-reviewed literature which have been cited in numerous other peer-reviewed works.[9] And the scholarship of Jesuit universities is of a high standard. TFD (talk) 22:06, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

The source in question does not cite a page number, furthermore, on page 2 of the NOTES on a presentation, pdf file, Sundstrom makes this his 2nd core component of the fictional Eg-lib platform he created, "Substantial redistribution of income and/or wealth, toward greater equality." which is contrary to all libertarian party members beliefs. A third party verification a such a wild claim is certainly appropriate hereDarkstar1st (talk) 00:50, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Claims about "all libertarian party members beliefs" are almost certainly going to be incorrect and/or unverifiable. More importantly, this or that "libertarian party" defines what "libertarian" means outside of their little circle. There are, after all, plenty of primary, secondary and tertiary sources going back into the 1860s attesting to that fact. Libertatia (talk) 02:26, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
I suggest we include an expert in this article, as "Substantial redistribution of income and/or wealth, toward greater equality." cannot be verified in other publications regardless of party members beliefs. Source 10 is also self published. Since I have been threatened with a ban, i will not add a tag, or edit, but I ask you to follow the source, and judge for yourself: http://flag.blackened.net/liberty/tals.htmlDarkstar1st (talk) 02:33, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

The Radical free-marketeers section is not sourced. The lone footnote links to: http://www.agorism.info/ "Agorism is revolutionary market anarchism."Darkstar1st (talk) 02:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Problem

This article is problematic. Left-libertarian means two very distinct things. There is libertarian socialism, as espoused by Noam Chomsky, and there is the left-libertarianism as espoused by people like the Alliance of the Libertarian Left (all-left.org). The Chomsky type is not related to the people who are commonly called libertarian in the US. The Alliance type is. It uses the word left to mean anti-establishment, as in the French Revolution left, and is anarchist While it criticizes the Libertarian Party and Ron Paul types because of the belief in a minimal state, rather than no state at all, it is generally coming from the same place and respects a lot of the same people, like Karl Hess, Murray Rothbard, Ludwig Von Mises, et cetera, while also taking a lot from the individualist anarchists like Benjamin Tucker and Max Stirner. They tend to be mutualists, agorists, or anarcho-capitalists. I think maybe the Chomsky type should be described as libertarian socialism instead. Gtbob12 (talk) 14:05, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Left-libertarian ≠ libertarian left

Libertarian left should not redirect here, as the libertarian left has nothing to do with anything socialist. Rather, they simply tend toward a more agorist perspective that eschews voting in favor of counter-economics and direct action. But, could someone please enlighten me as to the difference between the libertarian left and agorists? Thanks, Tisane talk/stalk 05:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide any sources? TFD (talk) 06:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
The term "libertarian left" is more commonly used for leftwingers of a libertarian bent (e.g. for the Liberal Democrats, also the Green movement and anti-authoritarian socialists); libertarians of a leftwing bent are typically called "left-libertarians". Skomorokh 14:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
However, at least one of the "left-libertarian" currents we've covered in the article, the agorists (who haven't, btw, shied too far from notions like "stigmergic socialism") has taken "Libertarian Left" as its explicit organizational label ("Movement of the Libertarian Left, ALL, etc.) Libertatia (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

They appear to be two different concepts. Left libertarianism is a recently coined term to refer to libertarians who deny the right to private ownership of land and other natural resources.[10] Since wealth under capitalism is not based on resource ownership this does not seem a radical departure from libertarianism. Libertarian socialism developed in the early 20th century, and supports the social ownership of the means of production.[11] It is a branch of socialism with libertarian influence. (References are from The encyclopedia of libertarianism (2008).) TFD (talk) 15:44, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Is the term really used to a significant degree?

When I read this I see a wide range of political views described, (many appearing to fundamentally be Socalism), most where the WP EDITOR has made an unsourced statement to the effect of "xxxxxx is often called Left Libertarianism".

As would a typical reader, I looked for sourced statements, rather than reading all of the references. I see near-zero sourced statements or claims that the term is widely used, in particular that the persons who hold such beliefs self-identify themselves as "Left Libertarians". North8000 (talk) 13:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Since the common meanings of Socialism and Libertarianism fundamentally conflict (larger vs. smaller government) I would think that both Libertarians and Socialists would eschew any term that tends to identify them with a viewpoint opposite to their own. North8000 (talk) 13:57, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you know what socialism is? BigK HeX (talk) 14:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Yes, the main meanings, but not all 95 meanings. But topic that you are implying is just a sidebar of my comment / question. North8000 (talk) 14:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
If you want to establish that left-libertarianism exists in the literature, then the best way is to examine the literature. Here are links to searches in Google books and Google scholar. It is very easy to say that one has not heard of something when one has not read about libertarianism. But we do not exclude topics from Wikipedia just because they are not common knowledge. TFD (talk) 14:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Your comment seemed to miss the core of what I said which was: "I see near-zero sourced statements or claims that the term is widely used, in particular that the persons who hold such beliefs self-identify themselves as "Left Libertarians". " (This is referring to the article) Nearly all such statements / claims are unsourced statements by the WP editor. North8000 (talk) 15:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
@North8000. The "main meaning" of Socialism is not "larger government". Your understanding seems a bit flawed. BigK HeX (talk) 15:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Without wanting to start a fun but lengthy discussion, I was using that to be brief......I know that nobody defines them selves directly as wanting bigger government, but every tenant of Socialism requires a larger governmental role and larger governmental power to implement it. North8000 (talk) 18:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Let's not spar; I think that we should sincerely explore the question. Do most of the people who hold the beliefs described in this article identify themselves as "left Libertarians?". IMHO that would be an indicator of whether the term is really in use.
(same goes for "right Libertarian". North8000 (talk) 18:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
RE: "Do most of the people who hold the beliefs described in this [Wikipedia] article identify themselves as 'left Libertarians?'"
What kind of question is that? How is one supposed to answer, aside from blatant bare assertion? BigK HeX (talk) 19:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Actually, let's try an answer...
Do most people ... identify as 'left libertarians'? YES!
How'd that work out? BigK HeX (talk) 19:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Here is a link to an article that discusses the history of the term libertarian. It was used in the nineteenth century to distinguish them from violent anarchists, statist socialists and reform socialists, although the free market wing has become increasingly prominent since the 1950s. But it is one ideology with different factions. BTW if someone were arguing to remove right-libertarianism from the article I would oppose that too. TFD (talk) 20:43, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any doubt that the Steiner-Vallentyne school identify themselves as explicitly left-libertarian, as indicated in the titles, as well as the contents, of their publications. The agorist use of left-libertarian, and the big-tent market-anarchist use that grew out of it, is plainly demonstrated in the names of virtually all the official organizations and websites. The rejection of the supposed opposition of "libertarianism" and "socialism" is one of the things that the various schools of left-libertarian thought have in common. What is unclear here? Libertatia (talk) 06:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I (and probably others) am sincerely trying to learn whether this term is significantly in use outside of Wikipedia and a few authors. The article wording seems evasive on this topic, sorely lacking in sourced statements or claims indicating that this term is used much. I was thinking that a good objective indicator of this would be whether or not the persons who hold / practice the beliefs described in this article generally identify themselves as "Left Libertarians". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:23, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, we have pretty clear evidence in the article itself for at least two organized schools of thought, with some overlap, that explicitly consider themselves "left-libertarian:" the Steiner-Vallentyne school and the market anarchists associated with the Movement/Alliance of the Libertarian Left. It is possible that folks with similar beliefs might call themselves something else, but the label is clearly associated with two notable schools of libertarian thought. Libertatia (talk) 20:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
left-libertarians only exist in books there are no left-libertarian political candidates in the world, not 1 office holding LL, not one LL party HQ anywhere. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
"Left libertarians" call themselves libertarians as they have for the past 150 years and the terms left and right were only introduced to explain the emergence of a pro-property viewpoint by some libertarians in the 1950s. And of course they do not form political parties, they are individualists. TFD (talk) 21:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
NO, TFD! Obviously, right-libertarians only exist in books!!11 You don't see any political candidates in the world who call themselves "right-libertarians". BigK HeX (talk) 22:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Discussion has been reduced to this, would any one of you tell me that arbitration is still yet to be appropriate? Zazaban (talk) 23:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
In their last two statements, despite the exclamation marks, I think that TFD and BigK just agreed 100%....that the TERMS were made up in/by the Wikipedia articles. North8000 (talk) 23:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)North8000 (talk) 14:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
This isn't a matter for arbitration, IMO. It's a matter for an RfC if it stays on the talk page, or a matter for the WP:OR noticeboard so that the silly obviously unsourced assertions can be shot down as WP:OR if any edits are based on this, or a matter for ANI so that tendentiousness can be addressed, or a matter for RFC/USER if disruptive editing is pursued. BigK HeX (talk) 23:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Recent Mass Deletions

Was there a reason for the recent mass deletions? I plan to revert if not. North8000 (talk) 14:09, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

How confusing this article is

Here are two statements just a few lines apart:

"share with "traditional socialism ....a commitment to expansion of the welfare state" I.E. bigger government, the exact opposite of Libertarianism. And then a few lines later:
"Most left-libertarians are anarchists" (= reduce government to zero)

If the editors can't even figure it out, how are the readers to do that? I think a starting point would be for someone to write a definition of the term, if such exists. North8000 (talk) 15:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

A historical perspective, including in lead, would help, because all in my experience this welfare statism among alleged anarchists really only got going after Chomsky started calling himself one alot, perhaps 15-20 years ago. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:31, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

merge or submit for deletion

this article is about the lessor known form of libertarian according to peter vallentyne and the SEP among others. the term is further divided into 3 separate distinct approaches to politics, society, culture, and political and social theory. why not make this a disambiguation page, and route the distinct beliefs to the appropriate article? the preceding post will be viewed as a soapbox by folks. Darkstar1st (talk) 15:06, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem here is your comment doesn't help clarify what the problem with the article is or exactly what the solution should be.
Most of it was written by one or more Anymous IPs from Riverside, California in July of 2010 and updated lately by an Anonymous IP from Riverside CA. Much of it may be WP:OR synthesis, especially the titles for the sectioning and the divisions between types of pro-ish-property views. Where is the reliable source describing these two divisions as the Anon IP does? I don't know what WP:RS info might have been deleted.
In short, there would have to be a lot of work to make this article comply with policy just to figure out what the heck separate articles it should disambiguate to. I doubt the Anonymous IP will engage in talk and s/he should realize that refusal to do so gives any of us free reign to write the article as we see fit or even revert to July 2010. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:46, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
the problem is there are too many different subjects being discussed in one article. best i can tell, the difference between the three is centered around how much compensation the community would receive for use of group resources. the solution would convert this to a disambiguation article. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Either clarify EXACTLY what you think should be "disambiguated" or learn more about the subject before deciding that you can seriously suggest "deletion". BigK HeX (talk) 17:35, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Darkstar1st: You'd have to have names for the articles. What do you propose the names be?
I don't want to do the work, but I think it just needs to be restructured into one section on more anti-property libertarian socialism types, who describe themselves, or WP:RS describe as "left libertarian," listing the varieties by name of leading thinker or ideological label. The other big section would be the same format for the more pro-property libertarians; to be included they themselves or some WP:RS has to describe them as "left libertarian." That creates two easily supportable broad categories and eliminates the synthesis. And does the topic justice without unnecessary disambiguation assuming appropriate article titles even could be identified. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Carol, isn't the only even semi-coherent definition of left libertarian anti-property (regarding land and natural resources)? If there's another real definition, we should cover it, but if it's just a lot of random occurrences of somebody /writers adding "left" to the name.......North8000 (talk) 12:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
All you want to do is delete the article, not improve it. So your assertions there is not evidence for the many types of uses is questionable. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:19, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
(added later) Was that addressed to me or Darkstar? I never expressed any opinion about the article. North8000 (talk) 17:38, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
If you North8000 aren't opining on the article, why post here? :-) Anyway, the problem is not lack of evidence but disorganized evidence. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
"left libertarianism, traditional socialism a distrust of the market, of private investment, and of the achievement ethic, and a commitment to expansion of the welfare state" how is that different from socialism? why call them libertarian if they are actually socialist? how can one grow and reduce the size of the state? Darkstar1st (talk) 16:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Don't know what you are quoting and if it has refs. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
i am quoting the article, line 5. Darkstar1st (talk) 00:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
Carol, answering your question about a dozen lines up, I can't speak for Darkstar, but in my case, my recent posts were just to ask some clarifying questions to help get this sorted out. I'm less expert than you on this, but I think that I can see this from the eyes of a reader better than you.....basically that, for a typical reader, the article confuses more than it informs. North8000 (talk) 16:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
I agree it's confusing. Deleting much of the WP:OR/Synthesis material added since June and putting back anything important that was wrongly removed. Who wants to do the job? CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:00, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
Right now 95% of my libertarian time is going to the libertarian article. Later on I'd be happy to help in a joint effort. North8000 (talk) 11:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Oxymoron

Libertarian socialism is an oxymoron. Socialism, no matter what form it is in, is bound to the authority of their society. True libertarianism an individual is bound to themselves and not society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.87.99.55 (talk) 08:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

By the common meaning of "socialism" in the USA (= larger government), that is true. One could also argue that under all major real-world cases of socialism, socialism has equated to larger government, also making that true. But under various (libertarian-)socialist philosophies that is not necessarily true. North8000 (talk) 11:20, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ Hess, Karl (1975). Dear America. New York: Morrow. ISBN 9780688028985.
  2. ^ "The Alliance of the Libertarian Left is a multi-tendency coalition of mutualists, agorists, voluntaryists, geolibertarians, left-Rothbardians, green libertarians, dialectical anarchists, radical minarchists, and others on the libertarian left, united by an opposition to statism, militarism, and the prevailing corporatist capitalism falsely called a free market, as well as by an emphasis on education, direct action, and building alternative institutions, rather than on electoral politics, as our chief strategy for achieving liberation."[12]
  3. ^ Kevin Carson, Studies in Mutualist Political Economy, chapter 4.
  4. ^ Kevin Carson, Studies in Mutualist Political Economy, chapter 4.
  5. ^ Carson, Kevin. The Iron Fist Behind the Invisible Hand. [13]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Left-libertarianism/Archive_1&oldid=1136898940"