Misplaced Pages

Talk:Libertarianism: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 12:33, 20 March 2014 editGoethean (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users40,563 edits →Possible solution for lead← Previous edit Latest revision as of 16:50, 22 November 2024 edit undo2a02:c7c:aa6b:f800:c5b4:971e:405c:f94b (talk) →"libertarian beliefs that claim the Earth's natural resources belong to everyone in an egalitarian manner, either unowned or owned collectively": new sectionTag: New topic 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{FailedGA|19:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)|topic=|page=1}}
{{Skip to talk}} {{Skip to talk}}
{{Talk header}} {{Talk header}}
{{FAQ|collapsed=no}} {{FAQ|collapsed=yes}}
{{Round In Circles|search=yes}} {{Round in circles|search=yes}}
{{Calm}}
{{ArticleHistory
{{American English}}
|maindate=June 25, 2005
{{Article history|maindate=June 25, 2005
|action1=RBP |action1=RBP
|action1date=19 January 2004 |action1date=19 January 2004
Line 11: Line 11:
|action1result=demoted |action1result=demoted
|action1oldid=2199996 |action1oldid=2199996

|action2=PR |action2=PR
|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Libertarianism/archive1 |action2link=Misplaced Pages:Peer review/Libertarianism/archive1
Line 17: Line 16:
|action2result=reviewed |action2result=reviewed
|action2oldid=11307576 |action2oldid=11307576

|action3=FAC |action3=FAC
|action3link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Libertarianism/archive1 |action3link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Libertarianism/archive1
Line 23: Line 21:
|action3result=promoted |action3result=promoted
|action3oldid=13562942 |action3oldid=13562942

|action4=FAR |action4=FAR
|action4link=Misplaced Pages:Featured_article_removal_candidates/Libertarianism |action4link=Misplaced Pages:Featured_article_removal_candidates/Libertarianism
Line 29: Line 26:
|action4oldid= 21171729 |action4oldid= 21171729
|action4result=kept |action4result=kept

|action5=FAR |action5=FAR
|action5link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Libertarianism/archive1 |action5link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Libertarianism/archive1
Line 35: Line 31:
|action5result=removed |action5result=removed
|action5oldid=100676048 |action5oldid=100676048

|action6=GAN |action6=GAN
|action6link=Talk:Libertarianism#Failed_.22good_article.22_nomination |action6link=Talk:Libertarianism/Archive 10#Failed_.22good_article.22_nomination
|action6date=2007-10-24 |action6date=2007-10-24
|action6result=failed |action6result=failed
|action6oldid=166638868 |action6oldid=166638868
|action7=GAN

|action7link=Talk:Libertarianism/GA1
|action7date=19:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
|action7result=failed
|action7oldid=
|currentstatus=FFA |currentstatus=FFA
}} }}
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|collapsed=yes|vital=yes|1=
{{Vital article|level=4|topic=Society|class=B}}
{{WikiProject Conservatism|importance=High}}
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1=
{{WikiProject Libertarianism|class=C|importance=top}} {{WikiProject Politics|importance=High|libertarianism=yes|libertarianism-importance=Top|American=y|American-importance=Top}}
{{WikiProject Politics|class=C|importance=High|liberalism=yes|liberalism-importance=top}} {{WikiProject Philosophy|importance=Mid|social=yes|political=yes}}
{{philosophy|class=C|importance=mid|social=yes}} {{WikiProject Sociology|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Sociology|class=C|importance=Mid}} {{WikiProject History|importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject United States|importance=Low|UShistory=y|UShistory-importance=high}}
}}
{{WikiProject Human rights|importance=Low}}
{{US_English}}
{{WikiProject Anarchism}}
{{Misplaced Pages CD selection|small=yes}}
{{V0.5|class=B|category=Socsci|small=yes}}
{{Archive box|auto=long|
}} }}
{{Press|collapsed=yes|title=It Only Took Half The Misplaced Pages Entry On Libertarianism To Convince Me It Was The Right Political Ideology For America|author=Jake Parker|date=6 August 2014|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140806231733/https://clickhole.com/blogpost/it-only-took-half-wikipedia-entry-libertarianism-c-695|org=]|section=}}
{{Copied|from=Thin and thick libertarianism|from_oldid=774467883|to=Libertarianism|diff=https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Libertarianism&diff=774835449&oldid=774745907}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |archiveheader={{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K |maxarchivesize=200K
|counter = 37 |counter=42
|minthreadsleft = 4 |minthreadsleft=3
|algo = old(14d) |algo=old(90d)
|archive = Talk:Libertarianism/Archive %(counter)d |archive=Talk:Libertarianism/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}
{{calm talk}} {{daily pageviews}}
==Remove Libertarian Socialism subsection?==

Please see discussion above and requests for input above and in edit summaries over the last few weeks. Goethean, if you have a rationale (besides your usual behavior towards me) that you haven't elucidated, plus do so. Also we continue to request input on this; none was received for weeks despite explicit inquiries, and the page has 937 watchers. Sincerely, <b><font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font></b> (]) 20:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
:It is extremely unfortunate that you continue to ], despite having been threatened with a block for doing the exact same thing at the exact same article. Please honor ].

:The material that you removed is well-sourcedly related to the subject of the article. Removing the entire section of left-libertarian philosophy leaves this article skewed and unbalanced, giving the reader the false impression that left-libertarian political philosophy does not exist. Thus your removal of the entire section on left-libertarianism is unacceptable. &mdash; ] 21:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

:::Purposely misrepresenting the positions and editing actions of other editors is uncivil and not constructive. ] (]) 01:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

::Quit the spin and crap. That aside, Left Libertarianism is fully accepted as germane to the article by myself and everybody. And for years I have fought to keep it in, and in fact me deciding to do so was the catalyst moment of quenching the bonfire here 3-4 years ago. The discussion was about removal of the libertarian ''socialism'' subsection, with the main rationale in the discussion being that it is socialism, not libertarianism. <b><font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font></b> (]) 23:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

:::No section is going to get removed from anything if you can't speak to editors in a civil manner. Are you going to follow WP:AGF, or shall we take his to another venue? &mdash; ] 00:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

::::Why don't you stick to the topic. And comments were requested multiple times after a consensus was reached in the discussion and you didn't respond for weeks and then then reverted when I made the edit. <b><font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font></b> (]) 00:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

:::::That doesn't make sense. You want to remove material relating to libertarian socialism from this article because its not libertarianism. Sorry, it just doesn't make any sense. How can a political philosophy called libertarian socialism not be related to libertarianism? It's like removing all mentions of compact cars from the car article, because we've decided that they're not really cars. &mdash; ] 01:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

::::::LOL, you mean how could a group's self-imposed political label not accurately reflect their actual political beliefs? Big mystery there! ] (]) 01:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

:Yes, it should be removed from this article. "Libertarian Socialism" is not left-libertarianism or any other kind of libertarianism according to legitimate reliable sources, and is in fact anti-libertarian according to all legitimate sources as well as the general description at the top of the article. Using biased sources to override what reliable sources say is against Misplaced Pages's policies and has caused this article to be inaccurate, very poor quality, often logically incoherent, and laughably silly in some parts. ] (]) 01:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Also "Related to" libertarianism is not really the standard for inclusion of substantial coverage; "Is libertarianism" is. And going by Goethean's analogy, the noun in "compact car" is still "car"; the noun in "libertarian socialism" is "socialism". <b><font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font></b> (]) 12:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

:It should be kept. It is the original form of libertarianism that Rothbard, Nolan and Hess adapted. Bascially they accepted the libertarian view of individual freedom, but argued that could only be achieved if private property existed. Their writings are full of references to these writers, and they even use their anti-statist rhetoric. Compare with socialism. We do not airbrush Marx out because member parties of the ] accept private property.
:Jeff Riggenbach of the ] explains the connection. "Kropotkin himself played no small part in bringing about. In the later years of the 19th century, his was one of the most influential of the voices raised in support of the economic absurdity of abolition of private property and the rule of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Nonetheless, Peter Kropotkin is one of the half-dozen cases of famous anarchocommunists that I would say are worth a second look if you're seeking candidates for places in the libertarian tradition. I've previously said as much about Rudolf Rocker and Emma Goldman; I say it now about Peter Kropotkin. Not only did Kropotkin awaken pretty quickly to the folly of his early admiration for violence and force, but he was arguably the first to enunciate and systematically defend what has since become one of the key ideas of modern libertarianism."
:] (]) 14:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
::], I hate to ask such a simple question in light of that large amount of information, but IMO (in the context of history here) this is what it really boils down to. In your opinion, is Libertarian Socialism a form of libertarianism? Sincerely, <b><font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font></b> (]) 02:08, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
:::It is the original form and in addition should be included because of its influence on modern U.S. libertarianism. ] (]) 02:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
::::OK, thanks. <b><font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font></b> (]) 02:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
::::I strongly object to the removal of the Libertarian socialism section. -- ] (]) 02:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Long story short, our approach here is that if it is a significant (in sources) form of libertarianism the we include it here. I think that TFD has made a strong enough case that it ''is'' a form of libertarianism that I can't see excluding it. I just wish that we could have received this input earlier....the removal was pretty explicitly discussed and then run up the flagpole for the 900+ watchers for a couple of weeks and nobody objected. Sincerely, <b><font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font></b> (]) 12:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

:TFD made no such case, just an unsupported claim/personal opinion, and misrepresented the views of the writers mentioned. In the quote offered, Jeff Riggenbach considered Kropotkin to be part of the libertarian tradition ''despite'' the fact that he was an anarchocommunist, ''not because of it'' (hence the word "nonetheless"). And the other writers mentioned also in no way said any such thing. Their "view of individual freedom" was adopted from classical liberalism, not socialism. Their favorable references to anarchocommunists were due to their anti-statism and their (classically) liberal views on certain things, ie despite them being anarchocommunists, not because of it. This is obvious from their writings, including the article TFD linked to above. ] (]) 17:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

::Sure the idea of liberty developed from liberalism, but it comes to U.S. libertarians via European libertarians and U.S. individual anarchists. There is nothing in Locke's writings for example about whether morality laws violated freedom. ] has carefully documented the split between individualist anarchism and anarcho-socislism about the time of the Haymarket riots. ] (]) 17:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

:::U.S. libertarianism, as described in this article, has existed continually in the U.S. since Locke, although not always called that. And it did indeed come from European libertarians, assuming the term "libertarian" is defined the same standard way, since Locke and many others were European after all. It certainly did not come from socialist ideology. But none of that addresses the issue at hand, it only sidetracks it. And no one is disputing that many socialists are ] to a large degree on social issues (against morality laws), but this article is about economic libertarianism, not civil libertarianism. --] (]) 23:22, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

::::If you want to think that the Plymouth and Jamestown colonies were libertarian, that is fine. But it is not what most sources say. Most sources see modern libertarianism as having developed in the 19th century, although it claims precursors including some of Locke/s views. I think you are confusing the term with liberalism. ] (]) 06:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
:::::I was confusing nothing, libertarianism in the normal sense is a continuation of classical liberalism. ] (])

::::Lockean One, you are confused. Libertarian socialism is absolutely a type of economic Libertarianism; it's of the socialist variety as opposed to capitalist. -- ] (]) 09:19, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

:::::Socialism and capitalism are not "varieties" of libertarianism according to legitimate encyclopedic sources. Considering legitimate encyclopedias to be more reliable sources than socialist propaganda doesn't make me confused. ] (]) 15:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Lockean One, your arguments may very well be absolutely correct, or absolutely correct within a particular framework. But our standard here has been to lean towards inclusion where there is a substantial argument / sourcing for saying that it is a form of libertarianism. What would you say about the above in the context of that framework? <b><font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font></b> (]) 15:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
:No one has provided any substantial case for it, only sidetracking/personal opinion at best. '''No legitimate encyclopedia/unbiased source supports it.''' And it makes the article self-contradictory and logically incoherent, not to mention just plain laughably absurd in places. ] (]) 15:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
::'''You're substituting your confusion for a valid argument. Nevertheless, you don't have consensus to remove the material.''' -- ] (]) 17:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
:::Complete nonsense. No legitimate unbiased source supports calling "libertarian socialism" a form of libertarianism. And you know it. ] (]) 18:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
::::Which is another way of saying that some sources ''do'' call it that. &mdash; ] 18:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
:::::Yes, biased sources that should not be used to trump legitimate reliable sources, which define libertarianism in a way that logically excludes socialists. ] (]) 20:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


North8000, if this article is to include "libertarian socialism", it should at least be discussed separately and clearly, instead of being conflated with classical liberalism by switching back and forth between different definitions of "libertarian", even within the same sentence, without even mentioning that different definitions are being used. While separating the articles completely as this section discussed would be the simplest, most straightforward and obvious way to do that, it's not the only way. It could easily be done within this article, as I have suggested before. There is simply no good reason for this article to remain such a basket case of self-contradiction and logical incoherence. ] (]) 00:20, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

==Clarifying what Ayn Rand opposed==

I can't believe that someone is trying to prevent my addition of "of that period" to avoid the commonplace misconception that that sentence would leave with many readers. The current widespread form didn't not exist by that name at her time, and I've seen many readers already have this problem. The fact that many consider it a quandary that someone who condemned libertarianism is held in high esteem for their libertarian views is clear evidence that this clarification is useful. Both of the edit summaries by removers missed this point. The wording (via implication) informs on that. What do folks think about this clarification? <b><font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font></b> (]) 20:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

:Adding "of that period" does seem odd, since many current libertarians hold the same views she opposed. Why not just clarify which views she opposed instead of saying she opposed libertarianism in general? She opposed anarchism and what she called the "anti-American" foreign policy of some libertarians, so why not just say that? ] (]) 20:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

:If you follow the cited source, it looks like Rand was writing in the 1970s, not in the 40s or 50s. So she's not talking about some very early form of libertarianism. She's talking about the libertarianism of the 1970s. Which is not all that different from today's libertarianism. &mdash; ] 21:05, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

:The problem is two-fold: 1) Rand was talking about contemporaneous libertarianism because that's the only one that existed at the time, and 2) no meaningful gap exists between the libertarianism of which she spoke and modern American libertarianism. To defer her criticisms to the libertarianism "of that period" suggests that she was not referring to the same ideology practiced today, which is original research. Your edit did not resolve the problem that "many consider it a quandary that someone who condemned libertarianism is held in high esteem for their libertarian views." To do that would require something like Lockean One proposed above: explaining which policies she disliked and why. -- ] (] | ]) 21:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

{{quote|To this day, the Ayn Rand Institue keeps the faith with Rand's libertarian-bashing, carrying on its Web site a page of excerpts from Rand's lectures in which she bad-mouthed libertarians. ... There's also a passage from 1973, in which she called the Libertarian Party a 'cheap attempt at publicity' that would not succeed, and said that libertarians were her 'enemies' and were 'plagiarizing my ideas.'|Weiss, Gary (2012). ''Ayn Rand Nation: The Hidden Struggle for America's Soul''}}

:I think that clarification, if you want to call it that, is speculative wishful thinking without a source. It's obvious that she was speaking about her contemporaries as she couldn't possibly re-evaluate the new right from the grave. If you can find a reference about Rand speaking more fondly of this ideological camp, instead of just denouncing them bitterly, a clarification might be a good idea. ] (]) 23:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

::I think a simple noting that it was about the libertarianism of the time, which infers / reminds the readers of that limitation, is simplest and best. It does not introduce any additional assertions. <b><font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font></b> (]) 04:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

:::It was unnecessary, and went beyond anything that any source could support. Goethean was right to remove it. ] (]) 07:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

:::Yes, it very obviously does introduce unnecessary assertions. It insinuates that she would have approved of contemporary new-right/neoliberalism under the libertarian banner, which there is absolutely no basis for insinuating. It's like noting that McCarthy disliked the communism "of that period" - a totally ridiculous statement. She denounced libertarians and libertarianism with impressive disgust and said repeatedly that she wants nothing to do with them. If she added "of this time" at the end of one of her tirades, please provide a source. ] (]) 10:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
::::I think that your first four sentence are good arguments. Not so with the last sentence which is pretty bogus. But your first 4 sentences convinced me to drop the idea. <b><font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font></b> (]) 12:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, hello, hello! What a hornet's nest I seem to have stirred up. Yes, ''I'' was the one who started this, with my March 4 update replacing the word "libertarianism" with a link to ].

''This'' was what Rand specifically objected to, as the Gary Weiss quote above supports. She did ''not'' talk about libertarianism in the 50s or 60s; the first time anyone of my generation heard it was when the party was formed in 1972. That summer before the presidential election, she gave a speech at the ], "A Nation's Unity" which she also published in her newsletter, and touched on the candidacy of Sen. George McGovern. Her position was essentially that voters should "hold their noses" and vote for Richard Nixon, who while far from ideal from an Objectivist standpoint (we called her government model ''minarchism'' at that time), was far better than McGovern. The Q&A session at the end drew some audience comments about the LP, and she responded with her negative comments, including that the party was just a bunch of "publicity-seekers" who would only make it easier for the socialist McGovern to get elected. (<s>Fortunately,</s> As it turned out, there was no danger of that.) Surely a transcript of this must exist.

And of course, she must have considered the LP's "big tent" inclusion of anarcho-capitalists and anarcho-communists objectionable (as did I). But there is no reason to believe she objected to classical, generic "libertarianism". We should go back and check the Ayn Rand Institute page cited for this sentence, to see if it gives any specific quotes of what she said that would support the word "libertarianism". Otherwise, I think we should replace my original update which substitutes the LP, which clearly defines specifically what she objected to. ] (]) 15:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
:Agree. <b><font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font></b> (]) 12:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

:Why not just remove the "Objectivism" section? I don't know why it was put in, but see no reason not to remove it. The only aspects similar to libertarianism are already discussed in the article. ] (]) 04:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

== Suggested alternative to perceived equivocation and faulty grammar in lead. ==

The following statement is a clear case of misleading ] (and faulty grammar):

:"While some libertarians accept laissez-faire capitalism and private property rights, such as in land and natural resources, others oppose capitalism and private ownership of the means of production, instead advocating their common or cooperative ownership and management (see libertarian socialism)."

How about replacing it with something like:

:"The term libertarianism is also used by some to refer to ''Libertarian Socialism'', which opposes capitalism, wage labor, and private production of goods and services, instead advocating common or cooperative ownership and management of all means of production (see '']'')."

Note that this would fix the equivocation problem (multiple meaning of "libertarianism") as well as the faulty grammar ("the" means of production), and other misleading aspects of the statement previously discussed. ] (]) 04:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

:It is not equivocation to say that libertarians may have different views. They are not homonyms as you imply. You could say though the term is more commonly used in the U.S. to refer to free market libertarians only. ] (]) 04:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
::I agree that it is not equivocation merely to say that libertarians may have different views. But the statement above does far more than that. The specific (detailed) meanings of "libertarianism" used by classical liberals and socialists are in fact homonyms, since the meanings are mutually exclusive, not merely subsets of a single meaning. ] (]) 04:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
:::But they are. It is the same thing with other ideologies as well. In France for example liberal normally means neoclassical economics while in the U.S. means Keynesianism, but both are types of liberalism. ] (]) 04:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
::::Nonsense, the two meanings of the term "liberal" you refer to are widely recognized as effectively homonyms, and often disambiguated for that very reason. But I'm not going to go around in circles with nonsense. If you have no interest in legitimately discussing the proposed change, you should just say so. ] (]) 05:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
*<small>] (]) 10:31, 10 March 2014 (UTC)]</small>
More disruption by user:'''Lockean One,''' who is unwilling to acknowledge that Libertarian Socialism is a substantial form of Libertarianism. There needs to come a point when he is no longer welcome to do this. --] (]) 09:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
:Obviously, you didn't bother to read my suggested replacement for that statement. It would be helpful if you actually read what I wrote before misrepresenting my statements. I'll assume this is honest confusion on your part instead of deliberate lies. Regardless, your comments about me personally, instead of my proposed article edit, are as irrelevant as they are false. If you would like to delete your uncivil and nonconstructive post above, you can delete this one as well. ] (]) 10:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Lockean One, I don't think that libertarian socialism, ''as described in this article'' (the italics are there because I do not have expertise in it) is in direct conflict with libertarianism. I'm thinking that you are comparing to the common meaning of socialism, i.e. in actual socialist countries and the common meaning in the US, both of which entail or refer to an extremely large and powerful government. <b><font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font></b> (]) 12:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
:No, of course I'm not referring to actual socialist countries (Leninism, Maoism, etc), I'm referring to Libertarian Socialism, ''as described in this article'', which is also (obviously to a lesser extent) in direct conflict with libertarianism, ''as the term is used by classical liberals'' (specifically freedom to privately produce and exchange goods and services). The fact that Libertarian Socialism and Leninism have something in common doesn't mean that I have them confused with each other or consider them equivalent (I don't). And it's not necessarily wrong to use the term "libertarianism" differently than classical liberals do, but it is wrong not to clarify that it's being used differently, especially within the same article that discusses classical liberalism. I see no good reason for this article to obscure rather than clarify that difference.

:But more relevant here is your opinion on (or suggestions for improving) my proposed replacement statement above. I think it would fix all the problems with that statement that I previously pointed out (although I noticed that you already fixed one of them). ] (]) 13:37, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

::There's a lot to discuss there. It probably would take me a while to make a cohesive response, but if you will forgive some miscellaneous thoughts/ ramblings, here goes:
::*Since no major form of libertarianism has capitalism as a tenet (they merely accept it), I'm happy to see that aspect reduced, but the problem there is in the body of the article, not in the lead.
::*The item that you are calling faulty grammar (''the'' means of production) I see as usefully vague. Your change to "all means of production" made it more specific, but by doing so added an assertion ("all"); I wonder if that's universally true.
::*To me the old way was usefully general (''others'' oppose), your change was to saying the Libertarian Socialists do that. A logician would say just that you narrowed the statement to a special case (only Libertarian Socialist, and a statement of rejecting ''all'' of those things) But by it's position and inferred wording, as it would be generally read, it reads like (new) statement that the only "libertarians" that reject those things are libertarian socialists.
::*I like your idea "term libertarianism is also used by some to refer to ''Libertarian Socialism" which acknowledges that such is arguable/argued. But possibly the lead isn't the place for that.
::Sincerely, <b><font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font></b> (]) 16:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

:::*I agree that the lead is an awkward place for this, but there seems to be much opposition to removing that from the lead entirely. Hence my suggestion to modify it instead.
:::*Even if the assertion ("all" means of production) is not universally true, it is true of the relevant groups (LibSocs) discussed in this article, according to the sources cited.
:::*While it's true that I narrowed the statement to "only LibSocs", it's also true that that's the only general group discussed in this article that opposes those things, I think, since "LibSoc" itself is a general term referring to a range of groups. But the specific wording could be changed if others disagree.
:::*I would say that the "used by some to refer to" is more to indicate a different use than an arguable use, since technically, there is nothing wrong with using any term to mean anything as long as the meaning is clarified.
:::Thanks for your thoughts, and please let me know what changes in wording you would suggest as an improvement or to address any of the above. ] (]) 00:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

:The dominant meaning of the world "libertarian" everywhere in the world all through history has been someone who wants to abolish capitalism. Currently, in the US that is not the case. It would make more sense to note the exception, i.e. "the term libertarianism is also used by some to refer to neoliberal capitalism" ] (]) 19:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
::The "dominant meaning" statement pretty much conflicts with every source. Even amongst strands that want to abolish capitalism. <b><font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font></b> (]) 23:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

:::Not really, if you've done any research at all. Dejacque through Tucker and up to Woodcock, it's meant what it still means everywhere else in the world: anarchist, maybe lefty-Marxist - what the French call 'libertaire'. On from the 70s in the US (5% global population) it's meant Rand and Mises, with the notable exception that reds still use the label, and the back-again double-cognate 'libertarianisme'. Not sure what sources you're reading. ] (]) 13:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

::The meaning used in every major encyclopedia and media outlet on both sides of the pond should be treated as the exception? (Although it is used to mean classical liberalism, not "neoliberal capitalism" or any other economic system or activity). While the meaning used by a tiny fraction of people should be considered the dominant one? Well, at least you agree that the term has different meanings that shouldn't be confused with each other. ] (]) 23:57, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

:::Nah, classical liberalism, even of the pre-capitalist sort, for all its market enthusiasm had incredibly strong anticapitalist currents - just see Smith, Jefferson, Humboldt. Even Locke basically argued people ought to be entitled to the fruits of their labor. The world was different and the assumptions were different, but it has precious little in common with the USLP libertarian brand if read through the reasons for those arguments. There's a ton of scholars and historians who say there's not much connection. I've been meaning to dig up the references. ] (]) 13:36, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

::::You're not making any sense here. Of course Locke and classical liberals and the USLP believe that people are entitled to the fruits of their labor, that's the foundation of classical liberalism (and free market capitalism). It is socialists that disagree, and this very article says so explicitly. In the words of Dejacque, "it is not the product of his or her labor that the worker has a right to, but to the satisfaction of his or her needs, whatever may be their nature." How can you be so confused about this? ] (]) 14:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

:::::Yes, Dejacque did say that, and the sentiment is shared by other communists. All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists. The idea that workers ought to directly benefit from the fruits of their labor is incompatible with the wage labor system because what's being sold, rather than a product, is the labor itself. At least, that's the anticapitalist argument. You can also look at Smith's reflections on division on labor, what he called the vile maxim of the masters of mankind, etc. ] (]) 15:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

::::::Still incorrect, the "labor itself" isn't actually changing hands, the product of labor is. That's the whole point of an employment contract, that the product of labor will subsequently belong to the employer instead of the employee, in exchange for wages. And notice how you switched from "entitled to" to "benefit from not being entitled to", an obvious switch from classical liberal ideology to socialist ideology. But none of that changes the fact that the term "libertarianism" is overwhelmingly most often used to refer to classical liberalism, not socialism, and exclusively so by mainstream encyclopedias and media outlets on both sides of the pond. ] (]) 17:06, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

:::::::I've lost track of how many times I've had to try and tactfully convey this to you, but if you take a gander at the header above, you'll notice that the title of the article is not "what Misplaced Pages user Lockean One believes" - so whatever your personal ideological preferences, they have no bearing on this article. I am describing classical liberals the way they have been described by reputable scholars. Was Adam Smith wrong to describe division of labor as a system that degrades people and turns them into worthless automatons? Was Thomas Jefferson mistaken when he denounced moneyed corporations and "natural" property rights? Did Wilhelm von Humboldt attack the wage labor system in error? Maybe, maybe not. Your personal evaluation of the strength of their arguments is irrelevant, so your soapboxing needs a different venue. May I suggest a debate club? ] (]) 20:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

::::::::Seriously, dude, I was just responding to your sidetracking and soapboxing. Note that you are the one who keeps bringing up side issues instead of staying on topic. ] (]) 04:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

:::::::::Yes, seriously "dude" - you were responding, for some reason, to my correcting your misunderstanding of what should and what should not be in an encyclopedic article. To be clear, your personal views on whether the brand of libertarianism you identify with falls under "classical liberalism" is filed under "should not" - because we are not editing an article about what you believe. ] (]) 04:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

::::::::::Purposely misrepresenting another editor, like you did above, is not civil discourse. ] (]) 10:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

To both Finx and Lockean One. IMO the only characteristics that can be considered to be "true" libertarianism are the tenets that are in common to all of the significant forms......somewhat along the lines of the first paragraph in the lead. And I do not support trying to characterize anything as the "true" or even "main" form. The choice of criteria for "main" provides directly opposite answers. Current prevalence (or even proponent head count over history) probably points to the ~60,000,00 US practitioners of the US "short form" 1 sentence definition libertarianism. (essentially prioritizing more freedom, and less government, and which is ''not'' the more complex USLP definition/platform) . If you did a head count of philosophers / scholars over history, I think that you get the opposite result. And so (even though I think that Lockean's view is closer-to-accurate than Finx's) I oppose any efforts. debates to characterize and particular strands of libertarianism as the "true" or "main" type, so IMHO let's drop that debate and move on.

:With all due respect, it matters very little what you consider to be "true" libertarianism. I haven't made it my goal to evaluate the true-ness of any brand. One thing has been called libertarian for well over a century, all over the world; another thing (in many respects its opposite) has been called libertarianism mainly in the US for several decades. It's pretty clear which one has more cultural and historical weight, to say nothing of its true-ness.

:You keep throwing out that 60 million (or whatever it is) survey like it's gospel every time someone suggests you are making irrational assertions. Well, the fact that there's seven billion people on the planet aside, if you did a head-count of US residents who thought they should have a national healthcare system instead of a private one, you'd get about 65/70% of the population answering in the affirmative; there's dozens of polls spanning decades to back this up. Obviously, there is some overlap, and that's why you don't draw conclusions based on a single data point. Save us the armchair anthropology and please mind the sources. ] (]) 15:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

::Talk about sidetracking! North8000 was referring to U.S. libertarians, not 65/70% of the US population. Obviously the 60 million (or whatever it is) referred to are part of the 30/35% (or whatever it is) opposed to national healthcare. And we're referring to how the term "libertarianism" is most often used now, not who used it longer. Who used it longer is only relevant for discussing the history of the word use, which isn't the topic of this talk page section. ] (]) 17:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
:::Finx, you have so many mistakes and false assertions in you post that it would take too long to go through. And you completely misread what I was talking about with the 60,000,000, even though it was stated. So why don't you just quit with the bungled insults? <b><font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font></b> (]) 21:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
::::If I insulted you, I apologize. I was questioning your competence, not your intentions or your character. ] (]) 22:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
:::::Thanks! The 60 million and the def are from the Boaz source....his "20%" and related definition. Just rough for talk page conversation. The definition is roughly the lib corner of the Nolan chart. The main point here is that it is a common meaning, and very short....roughly matching the short list of common tenets of all strands,......not a longer list like the USLP platform, nor does it contain counterpoints to the longer lists of left lib philosophies or platforms. Sincerely, <b><font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font></b> (]) 01:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

::::::(The following is bordering on soap-boxing, but I'd like to explain why I think reputable academic sources are needed, whenever possible.) IMHO, it matches all the common strands because, like the Nolan Chart, it's so crude, unscientific, vague and (intentionally or not) misleadingly worded as to be basically completely meaningless. To my knowledge at least, Nolan's chart is not an academic work and no one uses it in that capacity. I think it's obvious why at a glance. It was political creation, it was written by a politician and it has no academic pretenses. Nolan-the-politician, is not Nolan-working-on-his-MS-in-political-science-and-writing-a-groundbreaking-thesis. Just like an aspiring astrophysicist can write science fiction, people with a four-year degree in pol-sci can write political science fiction. This is as perfect an example as any. At best, if you have no prior knowledge of how Nolan's language is deployed and zero assumptions, you don't know what it says: does total economic liberty mean unfettered capitalist authority or civil-war-Catalonia-style anarcho-syndicalism? Who knows. They're polar opposites. The same applies to expressions like small government - on who's terms? At worst, the chart has two giant arrows pointing at its creator's desired conclusion. "Say, friend, do you like '''freedom'''?" It's about like surveying people with a questionnaire the tune of - "Do you agree with me or do you smell like farts? Please circle one." Recall that even the Third Reich and the USSR (through the worst years of Stalin's terrors) both adamantly proclaimed themselves to be free and even democratic. Nobody is going voluntarily say they hate freedom. In short, let's not reference garbage or extrapolate conclusions from garbage and project them on other garbage to achieve a garbage synthesis. If Nolan or his chart are included here, it should be for their influence and historic significance, if any. ] (]) 04:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
:::::::My thoughts on common threads match that of the sourced article, including the first paragraph. On the "freedom" quandary, the answer is simple and in the lead.....essentially that libertarians aren't just in favor of the common thread items, they ''priortize'' them. And I'm not promoting the Nolan chart as being an academic work....it's just a few words in a square. In this case I was using it as a communication device to shorten a post. It has resonated and become immensely prominent & notable and then guided much because it briefly explains the common form / meaning of libertarianism in the US in the context of the other common US political philosophy terms. And a part of it's accuracy is it's brevity. They agree with prioritizing freedom and reducing the power and scope of government. NOT the big long list of tenets or large complete philosophy that others have or imagine US libertarians have (e.g. prioritizing non-interventionism as the USLP does, or having capitalism as a tenet as the left libertarians imagine they do) <b><font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font></b> (]) 09:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Lockean One, while you have phrased the question of how to modify your proposal to be the replacement, there is also the open question of whether or not it is to be the replacement. Ii think that there are
3 main possibly-contested assertions/changes that are explicitly or implicitly within your proposal:
#Significant libertarian strand(s) that reject "capitalism, wage labor, and private production of goods and services," generally all fall under "Libertarian Socialism".
#Dropping of the statement that some strands of libertarianism "accept laissez-faire capitalism and private property rights, such as in land and natural resources" from the lead.
#Changing "''the'' means of production" to "''all'' means of production".
<b><font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font></b> (]) 14:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

I support #1 (just as an observation, not an opinion) and #2. I sort of oppose #3, as I think it changes it from a usefully-vague common term to more explcit and farther reaching term which is probably not universally accurate. Sincerely, <b><font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font></b> (]) 14:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
:The problem with "the means of production" is that the word "the" is a ] which cannot correctly be used to refer to something indefinite (vague). It ''must'' refer to something specific. The answer to "which particular one(s) are being referred to" must be specific and known. Socialists oppose the private ownership of any means of production, and the term "the" (definite) cannot be used to mean "any" (indefinite). And it also can't be used to mean "some" (also indefinite), so it's faulty grammar in either case. ] (]) 14:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
::I was just giving my opinion on those items in case it is useful. Grammatically, I think that it is OK if it is treating "means of production" as an item, even if the "an item" is wrong. Either way is OK with me. <b><font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font></b> (]) 17:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
:::<s>I understand, and it would probably be more correct to say "certain" or "most" means of production, and/or a qualifier like "large scale", since there are at least some exceptions, depending on the source. But that's all the more reason not to use the definite article "the". The words "certain" or "most", unlike "the", are terms for vagueness. I'll try to come up with a better proposal for that statement over the next day or two when I have time. ] (]) 19:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)</s>
:::Oops, I just realized you were referring to my proposed statement, not the current statement. You're right, the ownership advocated by socialists is monolithic, or as a single unit, in which case the word "the" is OK. ] (]) 10:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
::::"The ]" is a widely-used phrase. We will not be changing its usage in the article to appease our local self-appointed expert. If you feel so strongly about it, go jawbone at ]. &mdash; ] 22:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
:::::<s>Yes, it's a widely-used piece of sub-standard semi-literate English, presumably the result of the repetition of propaganda from imperfect translations. Is it the policy of Misplaced Pages to mimic semi-literate phrases or to use standard English? And your irrelevant claim of ownership of this article is noted. ] (]) 04:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)</s>
:::::See above, my objection to using the definite article "the" does not apply to the monolithic (as a unit) ownership advocated by socialists. It's only faulty grammar to use "the" to refer to private (not as a unit) ownership as in the current article. ] (]) 10:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
::::::Misplaced Pages follows reliable sources, not the moronic, incessant trolling of someone who knows nothing of political theory, who adamantly refuses to cite a source, and claims that tens of thousands of scholarly papers use bad grammar. This conversation is absolute idiocy. &mdash; ] 13:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

::::::Writers from Marx to Mises to Friedman used the term "means of production." While it may be sloppiness on their part, it is not our function to correct terminology that is universally accepted. ] (]) 05:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
:::::::I was referring to the "sloppy" use of the definite article "the", not the phrase "means of production", but I'm sure you knew that. ] (]) 10:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
::::::::Writers from Marx to Mises to Friedman used the term "''the'' means of production." ] (]) 15:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
::::::<u>'''"The means of production"</u> is absolutely the correct way to use the term; and I am against making any changes to the current lead.''' -- ] (]) 09:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
:::::::You should make that argument on the ] talk page: "A ] indicates that its noun is a particular one (or ones) identifiable to the listener. It may be something that the speaker has already mentioned, or it may be something uniquely specified. The definite article in English, for both singular and plural nouns, is the." ] (]) 10:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
::::::::Lockean One, you may be right on this, (the "means of production" item) but with 1 for it (you) 1 neutral/slightly against (me) and everybody else against, I don't think it's going to go anywhere. <b><font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font></b> (]) 12:52, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::Like I pointed out above, that's not really an issue with my proposed statement, and I struck through my previous comments. You were right that ''collectively owned'' means of production could be considered a single unit. And "the" could refer only to those ''particular'' ones owned collectively, not ''any'' that could or might be privately built otherwise. So "the" is grammatically fine for that case, even if vague. I wish I had read your comments about that more carefully to begin with. ] (]) 18:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

So how about this: ""The term libertarianism is also used by some to refer to ''Libertarian Socialism'', which opposes capitalism, wage labor, and private production of goods and services, instead advocating common or cooperative ownership and management of the means of production (see ])." ] (]) 21:02, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

:How about "Libertarianism includes Libertarian Socialism, which opposes capitalism, wage labor, and private ownership of the means of production, instead advocating common or cooperative ownership."
::That would falsely imply that they share an ideology instead of just the term. ] (]) 08:26, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
:::They share libertarian ideology and in fact many writers are common to both traditions. ] (]) 13:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
::::LOL, being a classical liberal and a socialist simultaneously is logically impossible. A single writer might write about both, but he can't simultaneously be both. It is the label, not actual ideology, that they share. How difficult can it be to comprehend the difference between "same name" and "same thing"? ] (]) 21:06, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
:::::Lockean One, I'm assuming that you mean the common meaning of Socialism in the US, and in it's actual implementation countries, both of which mean/involve a large and powerful state. However, there can be a strand (e.g. libertarian socialism) which posits a situation where that socialist ideals can exist without that, and which is consistent with the short list of common tenets of libertarianism. <b><font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font></b> (]) 00:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
::::::No, I was referring Libertarian Socialism. I would not use the general term "socialist" to refer to only some socialists but not others. Libertarian Socialism is not consistent with classical liberalism, and one can not logically be both simultaneously. ] (]) 10:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
:::::::On your first sentence, thanks for the clarification; I was taking a guess on what you meant. On your second sentence, I agree 100%, but that is simply saying the those conflict on certain things. The can still have some common tenets. Sincerely, <b><font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font></b> (]) 14:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
::::::::Yes, but those "certain things" that they conflict on are their major defining tenets. It's not like the reason someone can't simultaneously be both is due to the style of clothing each wears. Anyway, the relevant factor here is what the term "libertarianism" is used to mean by each, and that is not something they have in common. ] (]) 03:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

== Lead revert ==
The summary by North8000 says: "That last edit didn't just tweak the edit, it made fundamtal change else where to something unsourced and unsourcable.....undid that piece."

Please explain for clarity how this is a fundamental change. What particularly is controversial, reflecting something un-sourced and un-source-able?

I changed "many" to "some" because "many" is stilted language and not neutral in tone. There is no reference quantifying this type of "libertarian" and concluding "many" as if to imply far more than any other variety. "Advocate capitalism" is an obvious description of the USLP position, and is easily sourced, if there are not sufficient sources in the article. ] (]) 12:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

:Opposing political control over all production isn't the same thing as "advocating capitalism". As has been pointed out many times, capitalism is a consequence, not a tenet, of economic liberalism. ] (]) 13:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

::I have no idea what "political control over all production" means. Your position is that the USLP and similar neoliberal currents do not advocate laissez faire capitalism or private ownership of the means of production? I'm trying to understand what I need to source. ] (]) 14:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

:::Of course they don't advocate that, they merely oppose political control of economic activity. Advocating liberty isn't the same as advocating the particular actions of individuals with that liberty. And "political control over all production" is an actual tenet of socialism, isn't it? They just use it as an underlying assumption instead of explicitly stating it. ] (]) 14:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

::::No, that's not "a tenet of socialism" and it doesn't make any sense, actually. I'm not sure how private ownership of something is any more or less political than social ownership of something - but I also fail to see how it's relevant to what I asked. I will provide a source that neoliberal capitalism and the USLP brand of libertarianism are pro-capitalist, if that's what is required. Apologies, I didn't realize this was such a contentious claim. ] (]) 14:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

:::::Private ownership of something is non-political by definition, since the purpose is private, not political. And socialism is political control of production by definition. Are you really unaware of the meanings of the terms "private" and "political"? Also I said nothing of "neoliberal capitalism", but that by definition would actually ''be'', not advocate, capitalism. The term "capitalism" refers to economic activity, not a political philosophy. ] (]) 14:41, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

::::::Again, you seem to be expressing your personal opinions on the topic, concerning what is apolitical and what isn't. I am not aware of any serious academic consensus stating that the capitalist system or mode of production is somehow apolitical. In fact, it came out of something called "political economy". If you want to debate this topic further and offer your own analysis, a blog or some kind of discussion forum would be more appropriate than Misplaced Pages.

::::::I have added an additional source for the contested claim and reverted your changes, which clearly failed to get consensus above. ] (]) 15:01, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

:::::::I don't want to debate anything, and I wasn't stating my personal opinion of anything. And you shouldn't need an academic consensus to know what the terms "private" and "political" mean. And capitalism didn't "come out of something called political economy", that makes no sense. ] (]) 15:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

::::::::I suggest you take a quick glance at the articles on ] or ] and consider briefly why they were described as "political economists"; that said, please stop using the talk page for your personal soapbox or this will inevitably (once again) end up on the noticeboards. As far as I can tell, no one asked your personal views on the political nature of private ownership. You have been reminded time and again to stop flooding the comments with pet ideological disputes and it's becoming increasing more disruptive. ] (]) 15:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

:::::::::Complete nonsense. And your deliberate falsehoods are as irrelevant as they are uncivil. ] (]) 17:08, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

:::::::''Private ownership of something is non-political by definition, since the purpose is private, not political.''
::::::Comedy gold. &mdash; ] 15:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

::::::::It actually is pretty funny, the fact that I felt the need to actually state such a thing. ] (]) 15:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

:::Did you miss the term "hence" in that source? It says exactly what we've been trying to tell you, that capitalism is a consequence, not a tenet, of ''Rothbardian'' libertarianism. The "right to unrestricted private property and free exchange" is the tenet, "a system of 'laissez faire capitalism" is the (accepted) consequence of respecting those rights. ] (])
::::Do I need to explain what the term "verbatim" means, too? ] (]) 15:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

::::Again, even if there was any distinction of tenet and consequence, it's a non-issue. That's like arguing that anarcho-syndicalists are not in favor of libertarian socialism/communism, they're merely in favor of a militant labor movement taking over their workplaces and deposing the owners of those of their private property rights, which ''just happens'' to lead to socialism/communism. Who cares? Rothbard excplicitly states that anarcho-'''capitalists''' (shockingly!) and his brand of libertarianism advocate laissez faire '''capitalism'''. ] (]) 15:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

To preemptively reply to one common objection, which has been raised before, to say that some people identifying as libertarian are (for lack of better words) neither for nor against capitalism, I would just like to state the obvious. Saying that ''some'' people identifying as such are pro-capitalist (obvious and easily sourced, which I have just done) and ''some'' are anticapitalist (equally trivial to prove), does not claim that, let's call it, 'third-positionist libertarianism' is conceptually impossible. If, for example, Georgists are not in favor of either position, that would just be yet another group of "some libertarians" - so I see no issue here except contrarianism. ] (]) 15:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

:Except that it's missing the point. Capitalism would exist in a "Georgist state" because it's permitted, not because it is advocated. Same for other classical liberalism strands. Capitalism, unlike socialism, doesn't need to be advocated, planned, or coordinated in order to exist. It only needs to be permitted. Your analysis is analogous to saying that some people advocate short pants while others oppose short pants, missing the point that in reality the former are actually advocating the freedom to wear short pants, and short pants are often worn as a consequence. It's not "short pants vs long pants", it's liberty vs restriction. The fact that some may actually advocate short pants is irrelevant to the point. ] (]) 16:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

::I will not be responding to any more of your posts if they veer off into irrelevancy. It is believed by libertarian socialists and '''mainstream'''/liberal figures in the social sciences and economics that private property requires coercive enforcement of private property, as through a state. And yet, that has nothing to do with this topic. I don't know how I can express any more clearly, that I just do not care or have time for what you personally believe liberty means. This article is not a diary for your personal ideological views. ] (]) 17:17, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

:::Sure socialists believe private property requires state enforcement, but you are falsely attributing that belief to classical liberals when you say they advocate it rather than accept it. And please stop making false statements about me. ] (]) 00:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

::::Fortunately, as I've said about a dozen times now, this article is not about you. ] (]) 04:45, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

:::::Why don't you say it a dozen more? I'm just so interested in reading your incessant derogatory and false comments about me. Whatever you do, don't focus on content. Focusing on content instead of insulting other editors is just square, man. ] (]) 05:03, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

:::And it's funny that you try to attribute the belief that private property requires a state to the very same libertarians you quote Rothbard (an anarchist) as your source for. Talk about comedy gold! ] (]) 17:12, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

==Back and forth on advocating vs. accepting capitalism==

There has been recent aggressive editing to work towards changing "accepting" to "advocating". Looking at this, first, "advocate" is clearly a statement about tenets of strands of libertarianism, not just an observation like some people who are libertarians like kittens or prefer Toyota cars. That said, there is no sourcing for a strand "advocating" capitalism......that is not a plank in libertarian platform. If you have evidence and sourcing for that, produce it and then lets put it in. If not, quit trying to war it in, in direct conflict with not only warring rules but also wp:verifiability. "Accept" is informative, because that is the actual case, is sourced, and accurately provides info via the contrast with strands that reject capitalism. <b><font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font></b> (]) 16:37, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

:This is very simple and clear cut. See reference 13 which I just provided and the talk section above. Rothbard (co-founder of CATO, creator of 'anarcho-capitalism' and one of the chief ideological exponents of the libertarian right) published the following on this matter:

:{{quote|text=The libertarian favors the right to unrestricted private property and free exchange; hence, a system of 'laissez faire capitalism'|sign=]|source=''For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto'' (published by the Ludwig von Mises Institute)}}

:"Advocate" is clearly appropriate, your personal feelings notwithstanding. Do you have any further objections? ] (]) 16:46, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

:"Advocate" is both obviously true and well-sourced. The only mystery here is why you are aggressively removing the word. &mdash; ] 16:53, 18 March 2014 (UTC)



:Just to be thorough, here's more references, mostly from CATO-aligned think tanks and institutions waving the libertarian flag as high as possible. Please pick your favorite and I will include it in the article:

:{{cite book|last=Himmelstein|first=Jerome L.|title=To the right : the transformation of american conservatism.|date=1992|publisher=Univ Of California Press|location=|isbn=0520080424|page=47|quote=In the libertarian view, freedom and capitalism are two sides of the same coin. The defense of one implies the defense of the other. Libertarianism is above all a defense of what is best called ''pristine'' capitalism}}

:{{cite book|last=Boaz|first=David|title=The Libertarian Reader: Classic and Contemporary Writings|isbn=1439118337|page=175|quote=Rand's theory of rights is what informs her defense of capitalism. Indeed, for Rand, the essence of capitalism is represented by a moral rather than an economic doctrine. If individual rights are respected in a society, then that society is capitalistic.}}

:{{cite book|last=Miller|first=Wilbur R.|title=The social history of crime and punishment in America. An encyclopedia. 5 vols.|date=2012|publisher=Sage Publications|location=London|isbn=1412988764|page=1006|quote=Right-libertarians see strong private property rights as the basis of freedom and thus are—to quote the title of Brian Doherty's text on libertarianism in the United States—'radicals for capitalism.'}}

:{{cite book|last=Hamowy|first=Ronald|title=The encyclopedia of libertarianism|date=2008|publisher=SAGE|location=Los Angeles|isbn=1412965802|coauthors=editors, Ronald Hamowy ; assistant; Kuznicki, Jason; editor, Aaron Steelman ; consulting; founding, Deirdre McCloskey ;; Schultz, consulting editor, Jeffrey D.|quote=So, too, it is maintained, the dependents of the crumbling socialist societies should be brought into a market capitalist system as rapidly as possible.}}

:I see no use in further debating this other than to entertain your and Lockean One's contrarianism, so I think the matter is closed. If you continue reverting this, we need some kind of arbitration or outside opinion. The point is not ambiguous or at all unclear. ] (]) 17:09, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

::The real question is whether it is included in what the various strands advocate. I think that the 5 references that you gave not only do not support "advocate" but 4 infer the opposite. .....Himmelstein by saying that defense of it is ''implied'' by a tenet, (if it was a tenet, it would not be just implied by a tenet), Boaz by saying that (for Rand) it is a ''consequence'' of a libertarian tenet (it it was a tenet, he would not be saying that it is consequence of a tenet). Miller by saying that it is a derivation of a tenet (if it was a tenet he would not be saying that it is a derivation of a tenet), (in your Himmelstein quote) the subject is missing so I'm not sure what it is referring to. And Rothbard by saying that it is inferred by or a consequence of libertarian tenets....if it was a tenet, it would not be just inferred by or a consequence of libertarian tenets. <b><font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font></b> (]) 19:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

:::This is religious obscurantism, plain and simple. ] (]) 19:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
::::You've been blowing AGF by two levels, not only failing to do that, but by inventing bad faith. Your supplying of those quotes was nice work on a substantive conversation, but then you broke bad by completely ignoring the arguments made and instead going to name calling. My only goal is to have it accurate. Sincerely, <b><font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font></b> (]) 19:44, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

:::::The sources back up the proposed wording more than sufficiently. North8000's objections are unpersuasive, as is his faux outrage. &mdash; ] 19:52, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

:::::You offered no arguments. You offered to stomp your feet and demand deference, as usual. You've been camping on this article for years, and I've yet to see anything remotely resembling a contribution. My assumption of good faith had runneth dry. I don't think it matters much if you're that cynical and insincere or that utterly incompetent. Stop jamming up the works with total rubbish objections just to be the contrarian and do something an editor does, like research and reading references. ] (]) 20:19, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

::::::If you want that change retained in there, please provide a source showing that ''advocating'' capitalism is a tenet of at least some strand of libertarianism. Not a consequence of, derivation from, result of a tenet, but an actual tenet. <b><font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font></b> (]) 20:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
:::::::Five reference provided above and obscurantist/contrarian "argument" (as you call it) debunked in the comment section made for you above, which you apparently elected not to read, like a lot of other things. ] (]) 20:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
::::::::See previous comment, which you ignored. If want that assertion in there, provide a source that directly supports the assertion, not something that takes creative reinterpretation to arrive at the assertion. <b><font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font></b> (]) 21:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::I ignored it because it was asinine and contradicted by every secondary and primary source available - all of which say the new right libertarians are proponents of neoliberal capitalism. The fanciful interpretations and magical leaps of mental gymnastics are your own. This article is not your religious shrine. If you can't check the cultist dogma of personal politics at the door, you should find another article which you can approach objectively. Nobody cares, in the slightest if the capitalist advocacy of "anarcho-capitalist" libertarians is a matter of "tenets" or (according to neoliberal dogma) the logical consequence of tenets when all sources explicitly say they advocate capitalism. They advocate unimpeded private property and capitalism. The end. ] (]) 21:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
::::::::::Quit the crap with the personal attacks, insults, and bogus accusations (e.g. that I consider the article to be my "religious shrine", "cultist dogma"). If you can't act in a civilized fashion, you should leave. And my comment was that if you want that assertion in there, you must provide source that directly supports it. Which part of that was "asinine"? <b><font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font></b> (]) 01:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
:::::::::::I have never once insulted you personally. I don't know you and your character is not the issue here. I have been consistently patient and considerate toward you; I've extended every courtesy and always given you the benefit of the doubt. We are supposed assume good faith until there is enough evidence to the contrary. So, this is a direct indictment of your ability to contribute to this article, which you have decided to perch yourself atop of several years ago only for the purpose of hammering the party line. All of your efforts are focused on distortion and apologia, whether foot-stomping to demand the removal of socialist history, ban the use of "right libertarian" or insisting anarcho-capitalists are not proponents of capitalism, when every source in the universe says they are. Whether out of blinding religious conviction, malice or ''spectacular'' incompetence, your participation here has been detrimental to progress on this page and if you have no regard for the most basic level of intellectual integrity you should leave and let the editors here get on with their work - which, by every indication so far, you have no intention of contributing to. ] (]) 02:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


== Whole page and related wiki stuff reads like an ideological campaign for someone's idiosyncratic politics ==
Goethean, your claim of OR in the edit summary was false. The content was well sourced, unlike your OR:synthesis version. ] (]) 01:10, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
:I haven't taken part in the edit warring here, but I've followed events. I think Lockean One's edits have been awful and have also been made in a disruptive way; Goethean and other editors have obviously been right to revert him. ] (]) 00:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


Needs a major clean up <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 15:48, 22 August 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== Origin of the term "libertarian" (in modern usage). ==


:Could you elaborate on that point? ] (]) 00:24, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
I tried to add some relevant, factual information to this article, but now see that it is protected.
I strongly believe this article should give credit to Dean Russell,
for suggesting modern usage of the term "libertarian"
and also for his influence upon John Hopsers,
who in turn had enormous influence upon both the party and the movement of that name.
I'd like to compose (brief) text to do so, but don't know how make edits to this "protected" page.


The whole discussion that tries to shoehorn libertarian thought into a one dimensional axis is terrible. Human thought isn't as simple as left and right. ] (]) 23:24, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
In 1955, Dean Russell wrote a short essay entitled "Who is a Libertarian" (published in "The Freeman"),
in which he proposed the term "libertarian" to describe a specific set of views (see excerpt, below).
Some time thereafter, the publisher (FEE) issued a small pamphlet with that title and the text of the essay.
Here is a URL for the article: <ref>http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/who-is-a-libertarian</ref>


:@] The article does mention other forms of libertarian thought that aren't explicitly right or left wing, including libertarian paternalism, neo-libertarianism and libertarian populism. However, I can understand your point that the article might focus too much on the left-right divide. I think the reason this left-right divide was created was to distinguish between more socialist and anti-capitalist libertarians and more pro-capitalist libertarians. If you have any suggestions on how to fix this problem, please share them with me. ] (]) 01:04, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
:Link:
:Pinging {{ping|North8000}} to this discussion ] (]) 01:05, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
::I do reject the right and left libertarian terminology attempts to divide along those lines, and think that those two articles should be reduced to short articles on those terms. But I don't see where this article has that problem. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 18:53, 13 December 2022 (UTC)


::: You all DO realize that libertarianism in and of itself is an asinine, poorly reasoned, vague and nebulous conception, dont you? Libertarianism is nonsensical from the get go, which is why its difficult to write any coherent descriptions about it. The libertarians cannot even decide what libertarianism is, by enumerating specific tenets and values, and by designing a functional system. Everything is so abstract all the time to the point of vagueness. And idealistic, as well, akin to the socialists utopian ideal; just as delusional and idealistic, merely occupying a different political space. Whenever one libertarian decides a policy is too libertarian, others in his ilk will naturally think him an authoritarian. And the push for ever more libertarianism at the expense of the ejection of prior proponents who are now too authoritarian by comparison is inevitable, precisely because no limits are defined. Simply put, libertarianism is, or will inevitably lead to, anarchism. The typical libertarian, though, is too strung out on pot to ever realize it, and has his mind set on a fantasy world. If you truly simply want less government involvement, but still appreciate the need for the rule of law and for society to set standards of conduct, well then, welcome to the conservative movement and let me introduce you to the tenth amendment. ] (]) 03:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
During the early 1960s, Prof. John Hospers often advocated use of the word "libertarian"
::::"let me introduce you to the tenth amendment." The tenth amendment of what? And ] is not about less government involvement, it tends to support hierarchical society and traditionalism, and to oppose social reforms. ] (]) 08:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
and distributed copies of this pamphlet at Brooklyn College
:::::Not exactly. Fiscal conservatism is in favour of smaller government in the economic sense, while traditionalist conservatism and social conservatism primarily favour hierarchy and traditionalism and oppose social reform. ] (]) 02:35, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
(where he was faculty advisor for "Students of Objectivism") and elsewhere.
::::Not going to respond to that other than to say that the topic is far more complex and diverse than you imagine. You should start by reading the article. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 16:02, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
''(I still have a few of the pamphlets that he handed me!)''
::::We’re not here to debate the merits of libertarianism, we’re here to discuss improvements to the article on libertarianism. ] (]) 02:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Below, I have inserted the opening paragraph of Dean Russell's short essay,
::::Are you saying libertarianism is nonsense because (unlike any other political philosophy) it has factions that disagree? If so, then what – the article ought not to exist? —] (]) 06:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
and also the beginning of the postscript which appeared on the back of the FEE pamphlet.
:::I would agree with this point. I’ve noticed as of recently that there is an obsession on Misplaced Pages with categorizing every single political ideology and movement into a simple left vs. right spectrum. This greatly oversimplifies the many complexities of politics. ] (]) 02:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
::::Agree and agree that this is a problem. Plus even "left" and "right" are in the eye of the beholder. The left/right concept makes a particular mess out of covering libertarianism, because in that area the meanings of the terms are very different in the US vs. Europe. Also see my comment below. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 13:25, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
:::::Agreed. Maybe you could take this issue to the NPOV noticeboard for discussion? ] (]) 21:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
::::::We should just edit this article and the other relevant ones. There is no group with any entrenched viewpoint defending the status quo. There is just 10+ years of random discussion, random viewpoints and random debates. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 23:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
:::::::Fair enough ] (]) 20:53, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
:::::::@]: "Random" is a good way of describing this article. I keep coming back to it and keep being surprised by how incoherent it is, it reads more as an ideological tug-of-war than an actually informative encyclopedic article. Even just the lead section is a rambling grab-bag of nonsense, from that ] for different random concepts that libertarians "emphasise" (which honestly reads as ]), to the paragraphs about random sub-schools, to the ] about elected heads of state. I wouldn't know where to start with improving this, because I'm not even sure it can be improved. I worry this article is doomed to forever be an ideological battleground where different editors claim different people, movements and philosophies, without ever caring to explain what "libertarianism" actually is... ] (]) 09:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::{{Ping|Grnrchst}} I've been through all of the battles here and there are reasons that give me more hope than that. The battles are usually "Tower of Babel" based rather than an ideological war. The term (plus other related terms) has a completely different meaning in Europe vs. the (common meaning in the) US and so even well meaning people think that the article is screwed up. To complicated it more, the most prominent libertarian organization in the US (the USLP) is more philosophical and Europeanish than the common meaning of the term in the US. So everybody thinks that half of the article has been hijacked and is totally wrong. Second, it easy to make the mistake of thinking that it fundamentally a philosophical topic (rather than "in practice") and so we tend think that by covering the philosophies and we are covering the topic. So, to be a bit facetious, if one philosopher guy invents a libertarian term and philosophy, he is considered to be a "source" on his invention and then it gets a whole section in the top level libertarian article. IMO the article just needs a lot of work, while acknowledging and dealing with the above issues. Also not using other terms to describe the topic which have opposite meanings or at least acknowledge the problems with the terms. An example: "Right Libertarian" is a term which is an oxymoron in the USA but used by Europeans to describe the forms libertarianism which are common in the US. So we'll tell people about the term but otherwise use it to describe libertarianism. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 20:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::"Right-wing libertarian" is used in U.S. works and it is also well-founded. ]'s ideas, for example, are evidently ] and described as such by sources. ] (]) 22:38, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
:::::::::::I don't agree that it is used in the US....of course there are probably rare exceptions. And the fact that some (non-US sources) use it does not refute that. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 23:06, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
::::::::::::Consider that on the Spanish Misplaced Pages some editors say that "right-wing libertarian" is an American term... In common parlance the term is probably not used in the United States, but in U.S. books and academic papers "right-libertarian" is used.
::::::::::::Most of the sources using "right-wing libertarian" are Australian, British, Irish and U.S. sources (i.e., the ]). ] (]) 23:33, 24 November 2023 (UTC)


== Freedom of movement (right-libertarianism) ==
Hospers also crafted a simple statement of ethical principles
(i.e. the "non-agression" or "non-initiaton of force", which later became the LP "pledge")
and suggested the term "libertarian" to describe anyone subscribing to such principles
-- regardless of whether or not they agreed with Objectivist metaphysics and epistemology.
] (]) 16:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


In the right-wing area of libertarianism this civil freedom is not supported by ], ] and the ]. A note should be added; additionally, is not mentioned the .
Opening paragraph of the 1955 essay:
:''Those of us who favor individual freedom with personal responsibility have been unable to agree upon a generally acceptable name for ourselves and our philosophy of liberty. This would be relatively unimportant except for the fact that the opposition will call us by some name, even though we might not desire to be identified by any name at all. Since this is so, we might better select a name with some logic instead of permitting the opposition to saddle us with an epithet.''


] (]) 14:40, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Text from back of FEE pamphlet:
:''The beliefs which identify a libertarian - as defined by Dean Russell - are not in vogue today. And in their absence grow and thrive the opposite beliefs - label them interventionism, socialism, communism, Fabianism, nazism, fascism, the planned economy, the Welfare State, or whatever. ...''
--] (]) 16:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC) <small>''(I have obtained permission from FEE to quote this essay, either in full or via excerpts in context.)''</small>


:Another problem are the Rothbard's views on ]:
:We would need some coverage of the incident by a secondary source, indicating the incident's importance. &mdash; ] 16:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
:"In the second place, alleged “human rights” can be boiled down to property rights, although in many cases this fact is obscured. Take, for example, the “human right” of free speech. Freedom of speech is supposed to mean the right of everyone to say whatever he likes. But the neglected question is: Where? Where does a man have this right? He certainly does not have it on property on which he is trespassing. In short, he has this right only either on his own property or on the property of someone who has agreed, as a gift or in a rental contract, to allow him on the premises. In fact, then, there is no such thing as a separate “right to free speech”; there is only a man’s property right: the right to do as he wills with his own or to make voluntary agreements with other property owners. The concentration on vague and wholly “human” rights has not only obscured this fact but has led to the belief that there are, of necessity, all sorts of conflicts between individual rights and alleged “public policy” or the “public good.” These conflicts have, in turn, led people to contend that no rights can be absolute, that they must all be relative and tentative. Take, for example, the human right of “freedom of assembly.” Suppose that a citizens’ group wishes to demonstrate for a certain measure. It uses a street for this purpose. The police, on the other hand, break up the meeting on the ground that it obstructs traffic. Now, the point is that there is no way of resolving this conflict, except arbitrarily, because the government owns the streets." Government ownership, as we have seen, inevitably breeds insoluble conflicts. For, on the one hand, the citizens’ group can argue that they are taxpayers and are therefore entitled to use the streets for assembly, while, on the other hand, the police are right that traffic is obstructed. There is no rational way to resolve the conflict because there is as yet no true ownership of the valuable street-resource. In a purely free society, where the streets are privately owned, the question would be simple: it would be for the streetowner to decide, and it would be the concern of the citizens’ group to try to rent the street space voluntarily from the owner.
:https://cdn.mises.org/Power%20and%20Market%20Government%20and%20the%20Economy_2.pdf p. 292 ] (]) 14:51, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
::Also in the ''Rothbard-Rockwell Report'':
::"Left-libertarians are being grossly unrealistic by saying that anti-discrimination laws should only apply to strictly government operations, while private operations must be totally free. The problem is that, particularly in our State-ridden society, the line between “public” and “private” has grown increasingly fuzzy, and it is precisely because of that fuzziness that left-liberalism has been able to expand very easily, and with virtually no opposition, the original application of civil rights from public to all sorts of private facilities. Everywhere, for example, and in front of or next to every private property, there are public streets and roads" So what is the remedy for all this? Certainly not to take the standard libertarian path: to endorse civil rights for public operations and then, if-they are interested at all in the real world, to try to sort out precisely what is private and what is public nowdays "What has to be done is to repudiate “civil rights” and antidiscrimination laws totally, and in the meanwhile, on a separate but parallel track, try to privatize as much and as, fully as we can."
::https://www.rothbard.altervista.org/articles/marshall-civil-rights.pdf ] (]) 15:04, 18 October 2023 (UTC)


"Right Libertarianism" and "Left Libertarianism" are European terms, each representing dozens of strands of libertarian ism and philosophies. So it is not valid or useful to lump all of those under either banner and say that a particular characteristic or belief applies to the (entire) group. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> (]) 15:12, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
:That's a pretty interesting bit of history, though. Page is protected for a week, but could you make your edits in a sandbox? I'll try to find some secondary sources on this. {{strikethrough|Also, your first link above is seems to be broken.}} ] (]) 16:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


:I get it, but in the article, it sounds like the anarcho-capitalists and the paleolibertarians are not big supporters of freedom of expression and freedom of movement. In all of this talk by ], it seems to be an obvious corollary that there is no right of expression and movement without the permission of the owners of the respective streets and roads. Heh, but it also seems that abolishing ] has a suppressive end. ] (]) 15:19, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
The funny thing is that Russell proposed using the (already existing and accurate) term "libertarian" instead of "liberal" because the word "liberal" was corruptly being used by leftists to "identify themselves and their program of more government ownership of property and more controls over persons", and continuing to use the term "liberal" was at best "awkward and subject to misunderstanding." Sound familiar? ] (]) 17:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
::There is much of this kind of content in the anarcho-capitalist wing:
::"In a covenant concluded among proprietor and community tenants for the purpose of protecting their private property, no such thing as a right to free (unlimited) speech exists, not even to unlimited speech on one's own tenant-property. One may say innumerable things and promote almost any idea under the sun, but naturally no one is permitted to advocate ideas contrary to the very purpose of the covenant of preserving and protecting private property, such as democracy and communism. There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and expelled from society. they the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order."
::https://archive.org/details/HoppeDemocracyTheGodThatFailed/page/n239/mode/2up (])
::"How about this compromise: we remove all barriers to immigration except one: we charge a fee. I propose we charge somewhere between $1 million and $10 million per family. That way you guarantee you get fairly decent (non-criminal, educated, successful, civil, etc.) quality immigrants.
::If, say, 100,000 families (about 400,000 people, say) immigrate per year and pay $1 million each, that’s $100 billion per year."
::https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/immigration-idea/ (]) ] (]) 15:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC)


== "Libertarianism supports body autonomy" ==
:You need a secondary source to establish the significance of the article. ] (]) 17:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
::No, I don't. Did you intent to reply to someone else? ] (]) 00:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
:::See ]. I was replying to the initial posting. When you post a comment without indenting, as you just did, you are not replying to anyone. ] (]) 01:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


This is false for several reasons,
== Possible solution for lead ==


1- The first libertarian president ever in the world is completely against abortion.
While it is certainly true that some libertarians do "advocate capitalism", it is the context that makes the statement as a whole misleading by implying that advocating capitalism defines classical liberal ideology in the same way that opposing capitalism defines socialist ideology. The structure of that sentence "While some X, others Y" is problematic for several reasons: it presents a false dichotomy (that X and Y are the relevant alternatives), it falsely implies that capitalism itself is a political philosophy or system of government, and other reasons discussed previously. If it's that important to reflect some sources that say "some X" and other sources that say "others Y", at the very least the article should avoid synthesizing those sources to create a misleading combined statement (]).
2- The idea of "body autonomy" is completely contradictory and it hides lies, because you arent exercting "body autonomy" if you are killing another human, otherwise
a murder in the street would be exerting "body autonomy" when he kills another human, and libertarianism is against this.
3- Libertarianism supports the principle of "non agression" which is completely contradictory with abortion.
4- There are many remarkable and very influential libertarian thinkers in the world who are completely against abortion.


:It's funny to me that the above complaints about the terms "freedom of movement" and "bodily autonomy" leant so hard on ideologically-charged complaints, when they could have just ] and seen ]. That alone is far better justification for removal than any political rant one could write or quote. --] (]) 13:53, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
So my suggestion is to eliminate the "While some X, others Y" structure, without necessarily eliminating content. A separate sentence somewhere that says "BTW, some libertarians advocate capitalism" wouldn't be misleading even if it is superfluous. ] (]) 08:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


== "libertarian beliefs that claim the Earth's natural resources belong to everyone in an egalitarian manner, either unowned or owned collectively" ==
:I think that your analysis is accurate, with the caveat that you are taking for granted and not clarifying that you are basing it on reading "some libertarians do "advocate capitalism"" literally. I.E. that that it is saying that some people who are libertarians advocate capitalism, it is not saying that advocating capitalism is a tenet of their strand of libertarianism. I think that you have "logician" in your list of skills and understand the difference. <b><font color ="#0000cc">''North8000''</font></b> (]) 11:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


These beliefs aren't libertarian. Libertarianism supports individual ownership or ownership by groups of individuals who consent to such shared ownership. As the phrase hints, this, rather, is egalitarianism, bordering dangerously on collectivism, socialism and state-dictatorship. It's also hard to imagine how resources can be "unowned". Furthermore, the matter of ownership includes more than natural resources. It also includes man-made/man-organised goods such as agricultural land, the means of production, the products of such production (such as food, clothing, cars and computers), buildings and infrastructure. ] (]) 16:50, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
:The only issue here is ]'s continuing failure to understand that his ideology is an ideology. He thinks that his ideology (right-libertarianism) is the natural order of things. This is a common misunderstanding among undergraduate students who haven't taken philosophy 101 yet. &mdash; ] 12:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 16:50, 22 November 2024

Skip to table of contents
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Libertarianism article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
? view · edit Frequently asked questions
Q: Are libertarianism and socialism mutually exclusive?
A: No. Libertarians believe liberty consists of personal autonomy, and they justify a strong distrust of the state upon this foundation. Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system. Although socialism is commonly associated with the planned economies proffered by Marxism-Leninism and other "authoritarian socialists," libertarian socialism rejects economic direction from a central authority such as the state. Thus, libertarianism and anarchism have been synonyms since the 1890s, and other equivalents include libertarian socialism, socialist anarchism, and left-libertarianism. The libertarianism of the 19th century had two strong currents, social anarchism and individualist anarchism, both of which fall under the umbrella of libertarian socialism and were explicitly anti-capitalist.
In the 20th century, members of the Old Right in the United States such as Albert Jay Nock and H. L. Mencken began identifying as libertarians to declare their commitment to individualism and distance themselves from liberals who supported welfare capitalism. Some libertarians (e.g. Murray Rothbard, who popularized the libertarian philosophy anarcho-capitalism) were explicitly influenced by the American individualist anarchists, but most were "a rather automatic product of the American environment." This modern American libertarianism is also referred to as right-libertarianism.
Q: What is right-libertarianism? What is left-libertarianism?
A: Right-libertarianism refers to those libertarian ideologies that extoll private property without recompense paid by the owner to the local community, and includes anarcho-capitalism and laissez-faire, minarchist liberalism. This is contrasted with left-libertarianism, which either rejects private property, or accepts it only under the condition that the local community is compensated for the exclusionary effects thereof (e.g. a land value tax). Left-libertarianism includes libertarian socialism, left-wing market anarchism, and geolibertarianism.
Q: How are all these political philosophies related? Which ones are closely related or inclusive?
A: Some labels and qualifiers are typically used to group together multiple political movements or ideologies or distance them from others. Below is a rough and simplified visual representation of how many of the political camps described in the article (i.e. groups that have either identified or been described as libertarian) relate to one another, without any regard to their affinity for one another, their prominence or their significance.
Libertarian classification diagram
Libertarianism diagram
Libertarianism diagram
References
  1. Badie, Bertrand; Berg-Schlosser, Dirk; Morlino, Leonardo (2011). International Encyclopedia of Political Science. SAGE Publications, Inc. p. 2456. ISBN 978-1412959636. "Socialist systems are those regimes based on the economic and political theory of socialism, which advocates public ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources."
  2. Sacco, Nicola and Vanzetti, Bartolomeo (1928). The Letters of Sacco and Vanzetti. New York: Octagon Books. p. 274. "After all we are socialists as the social-democrats, the socialists, the communists, and the I.W.W. are all Socialists. The difference—the fundamental one—between us and all the other is that they are authoritarian while we are libertarian; they believe in a State or Government of their own; we believe in no State or Government."
  3. Nettlau, Max (1996). A Short History of Anarchism (in English, translated). London:Freedom Press. p. 162. ISBN 978-0-900384-89-9. OCLC 37529250.
  4. Guérin, Daniel (1970). Anarchism: From Theory to Practice. New York:Monthly Review Press. ISBN 978-0853451754. "Some contemporary anarchists have tried to clear up the misunderstanding by adopting a more explicit term: they align themselves with libertarian socialism or communism."
  5. Ostergaard, Geoffrey. "Anarchism". The Blackwell Dictionary of Modern Social Thought. Blackwell Publishing. p. 14.
  6. ^ Bookchin, Murray and Biehl, Janet (1997). The Murray Bookchin Reader. New York:Cassell. p. 170.
  7. Marshall, Peter (2009). Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism. Oakland:PM Press. p. 4. ISBN 978-1-60486-064-1. " emerged at the end of the eighteenth century in its modern form as a response partly to the rise of centalized States and nationalism, and partly to industrialization and capital. Anarchism thus took up the dual challenge of overthrowing both Capital and the State."
  8. ^ Chartier, Gary. Johnson, Charles W. (2011). Markets Not Capitalism: Individualist Anarchism Against Bosses, Inequality, Corporate Power, and Structural Poverty. Minor Compositions. pp. 4-5. ISBN 978-1570272424. "The anticapitalism of the 'first wave' individualists was obvious to them and to many of their contemporaries."
  9. Burns, Jennifer (2009). Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right. New York:Oxford University Press. p. 309. ISBN 978-0-19-532487-7.
  10. DeLeon, David (1978). The American as Anarchist: Reflections on Indigenous Radicalism. Johns Hopkins University Press. p. 127. "only a few individuals like Murray Rothbard, in Power and Market, and some article writers were influenced by . Most had not evolved consciously from this tradition; they had been a rather automatic product of the American environment."
  11. ^ Goodway, David (2006). Anarchist Seeds Beneath the Snow: Left-Libertarian Thought and British Writers from William Morris to Colin Ward. Liverpool:Liverpool University Press. p. 4. "'Libertarian' and 'libertarianism' are frequently employed by anarchists as synonyms for 'anarchist' and 'anarchism', largely as an attempt to distance themselves from the negative connotations of 'anarchy' and its derivatives. The situation has been vastly complicated in recent decades with the rise of anarcho-capitalism, 'minimal statism' and an extreme right-wing laissez-faire philosophy advocated by such theorists as Murray Rothbard and Robert Nozick and their adoption of the words 'libertarian' and 'libertarianism'. It has therefore now become necessary to distinguish between their right libertarianism and the left libertarianism of the anarchist tradition."
  12. Hamowy, Ronald. "Left Libertarianism." The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism. p. 288
  13. Foldvary, Fred E. "Geoism and Libertarianism". The Progress Report. Progress.org. Retrieved 2013-03-26.
Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.
Peace dove with olive branch in its beakPlease stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Former featured articleLibertarianism is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 25, 2005.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 19, 2004Refreshing brilliant proseNot kept
March 20, 2005Peer reviewReviewed
May 11, 2005Featured article candidatePromoted
August 16, 2005Featured article reviewKept
January 15, 2007Featured article reviewDemoted
October 24, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
February 12, 2014Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former featured article
This  level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconConservatism High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPolitics: American / Libertarianism High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Top-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Libertarianism (assessed as Top-importance).
WikiProject iconPhilosophy: Social and political Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Associated task forces:
/ 
Taskforce icon
Social and political philosophy
WikiProject iconSociology Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconHistory Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconUnited States: History Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. history (assessed as High-importance).
WikiProject iconHuman rights Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconAnarchism
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Anarchism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anarchism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnarchismWikipedia:WikiProject AnarchismTemplate:WikiProject Anarchismanarchism
 Anarchism WikiProject open tasks
watch · edit · history · talk · purge
Recognized content · Drafts & requests · Subscribe · Member list · Resources · How can I help?

Did you know

Articles for deletion

Good article nominees

Peer reviews

Requested moves

Articles for creation

Cleanup (0) · Potentially related articles · Recent edits · Recent Commons images · Stub expansion project (512)

Media mentionThis article has been mentioned by a media organization:
Text and/or other creative content from this version of Thin and thick libertarianism was copied or moved into Libertarianism with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.


Whole page and related wiki stuff reads like an ideological campaign for someone's idiosyncratic politics

Needs a major clean up — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.29.166.232 (talk) 15:48, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on that point? X-Editor (talk) 00:24, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

The whole discussion that tries to shoehorn libertarian thought into a one dimensional axis is terrible. Human thought isn't as simple as left and right. Rjedgar (talk) 23:24, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

@Rjedgar The article does mention other forms of libertarian thought that aren't explicitly right or left wing, including libertarian paternalism, neo-libertarianism and libertarian populism. However, I can understand your point that the article might focus too much on the left-right divide. I think the reason this left-right divide was created was to distinguish between more socialist and anti-capitalist libertarians and more pro-capitalist libertarians. If you have any suggestions on how to fix this problem, please share them with me. X-Editor (talk) 01:04, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Pinging @North8000: to this discussion X-Editor (talk) 01:05, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
I do reject the right and left libertarian terminology attempts to divide along those lines, and think that those two articles should be reduced to short articles on those terms. But I don't see where this article has that problem. North8000 (talk) 18:53, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
You all DO realize that libertarianism in and of itself is an asinine, poorly reasoned, vague and nebulous conception, dont you? Libertarianism is nonsensical from the get go, which is why its difficult to write any coherent descriptions about it. The libertarians cannot even decide what libertarianism is, by enumerating specific tenets and values, and by designing a functional system. Everything is so abstract all the time to the point of vagueness. And idealistic, as well, akin to the socialists utopian ideal; just as delusional and idealistic, merely occupying a different political space. Whenever one libertarian decides a policy is too libertarian, others in his ilk will naturally think him an authoritarian. And the push for ever more libertarianism at the expense of the ejection of prior proponents who are now too authoritarian by comparison is inevitable, precisely because no limits are defined. Simply put, libertarianism is, or will inevitably lead to, anarchism. The typical libertarian, though, is too strung out on pot to ever realize it, and has his mind set on a fantasy world. If you truly simply want less government involvement, but still appreciate the need for the rule of law and for society to set standards of conduct, well then, welcome to the conservative movement and let me introduce you to the tenth amendment. 50.34.32.46 (talk) 03:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
"let me introduce you to the tenth amendment." The tenth amendment of what? And conservatism is not about less government involvement, it tends to support hierarchical society and traditionalism, and to oppose social reforms. Dimadick (talk) 08:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Not exactly. Fiscal conservatism is in favour of smaller government in the economic sense, while traditionalist conservatism and social conservatism primarily favour hierarchy and traditionalism and oppose social reform. X-Editor (talk) 02:35, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Not going to respond to that other than to say that the topic is far more complex and diverse than you imagine. You should start by reading the article. North8000 (talk) 16:02, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
We’re not here to debate the merits of libertarianism, we’re here to discuss improvements to the article on libertarianism. X-Editor (talk) 02:36, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Are you saying libertarianism is nonsense because (unlike any other political philosophy) it has factions that disagree? If so, then what – the article ought not to exist? —Tamfang (talk) 06:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
I would agree with this point. I’ve noticed as of recently that there is an obsession on Misplaced Pages with categorizing every single political ideology and movement into a simple left vs. right spectrum. This greatly oversimplifies the many complexities of politics. X-Editor (talk) 02:39, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Agree and agree that this is a problem. Plus even "left" and "right" are in the eye of the beholder. The left/right concept makes a particular mess out of covering libertarianism, because in that area the meanings of the terms are very different in the US vs. Europe. Also see my comment below. North8000 (talk) 13:25, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. Maybe you could take this issue to the NPOV noticeboard for discussion? X-Editor (talk) 21:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
We should just edit this article and the other relevant ones. There is no group with any entrenched viewpoint defending the status quo. There is just 10+ years of random discussion, random viewpoints and random debates. North8000 (talk) 23:29, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Fair enough X-Editor (talk) 20:53, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
@North8000: "Random" is a good way of describing this article. I keep coming back to it and keep being surprised by how incoherent it is, it reads more as an ideological tug-of-war than an actually informative encyclopedic article. Even just the lead section is a rambling grab-bag of nonsense, from that sea of blue links for different random concepts that libertarians "emphasise" (which honestly reads as synth), to the paragraphs about random sub-schools, to the recent claims about elected heads of state. I wouldn't know where to start with improving this, because I'm not even sure it can be improved. I worry this article is doomed to forever be an ideological battleground where different editors claim different people, movements and philosophies, without ever caring to explain what "libertarianism" actually is... Grnrchst (talk) 09:40, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
@Grnrchst: I've been through all of the battles here and there are reasons that give me more hope than that. The battles are usually "Tower of Babel" based rather than an ideological war. The term (plus other related terms) has a completely different meaning in Europe vs. the (common meaning in the) US and so even well meaning people think that the article is screwed up. To complicated it more, the most prominent libertarian organization in the US (the USLP) is more philosophical and Europeanish than the common meaning of the term in the US. So everybody thinks that half of the article has been hijacked and is totally wrong. Second, it easy to make the mistake of thinking that it fundamentally a philosophical topic (rather than "in practice") and so we tend think that by covering the philosophies and we are covering the topic. So, to be a bit facetious, if one philosopher guy invents a libertarian term and philosophy, he is considered to be a "source" on his invention and then it gets a whole section in the top level libertarian article. IMO the article just needs a lot of work, while acknowledging and dealing with the above issues. Also not using other terms to describe the topic which have opposite meanings or at least acknowledge the problems with the terms. An example: "Right Libertarian" is a term which is an oxymoron in the USA but used by Europeans to describe the forms libertarianism which are common in the US. So we'll tell people about the term but otherwise use it to describe libertarianism. North8000 (talk) 20:03, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
"Right-wing libertarian" is used in U.S. works and it is also well-founded. Murray Rothbard's ideas, for example, are evidently right-wing and described as such by sources. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 22:38, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
I don't agree that it is used in the US....of course there are probably rare exceptions. And the fact that some (non-US sources) use it does not refute that. North8000 (talk) 23:06, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Consider that on the Spanish Misplaced Pages some editors say that "right-wing libertarian" is an American term... In common parlance the term is probably not used in the United States, but in U.S. books and academic papers "right-libertarian" is used.
Most of the sources using "right-wing libertarian" are Australian, British, Irish and U.S. sources (i.e., the anglosphere). 93.45.229.98 (talk) 23:33, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Freedom of movement (right-libertarianism)

In the right-wing area of libertarianism this civil freedom is not supported by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Stephan Kinsella and the paleolibertarians. A note should be added; additionally, is not mentioned the right to discriminate of right-wing libertarianism.

93.45.229.98 (talk) 14:40, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Another problem are the Rothbard's views on freedom of expression:
"In the second place, alleged “human rights” can be boiled down to property rights, although in many cases this fact is obscured. Take, for example, the “human right” of free speech. Freedom of speech is supposed to mean the right of everyone to say whatever he likes. But the neglected question is: Where? Where does a man have this right? He certainly does not have it on property on which he is trespassing. In short, he has this right only either on his own property or on the property of someone who has agreed, as a gift or in a rental contract, to allow him on the premises. In fact, then, there is no such thing as a separate “right to free speech”; there is only a man’s property right: the right to do as he wills with his own or to make voluntary agreements with other property owners. The concentration on vague and wholly “human” rights has not only obscured this fact but has led to the belief that there are, of necessity, all sorts of conflicts between individual rights and alleged “public policy” or the “public good.” These conflicts have, in turn, led people to contend that no rights can be absolute, that they must all be relative and tentative. Take, for example, the human right of “freedom of assembly.” Suppose that a citizens’ group wishes to demonstrate for a certain measure. It uses a street for this purpose. The police, on the other hand, break up the meeting on the ground that it obstructs traffic. Now, the point is that there is no way of resolving this conflict, except arbitrarily, because the government owns the streets." Government ownership, as we have seen, inevitably breeds insoluble conflicts. For, on the one hand, the citizens’ group can argue that they are taxpayers and are therefore entitled to use the streets for assembly, while, on the other hand, the police are right that traffic is obstructed. There is no rational way to resolve the conflict because there is as yet no true ownership of the valuable street-resource. In a purely free society, where the streets are privately owned, the question would be simple: it would be for the streetowner to decide, and it would be the concern of the citizens’ group to try to rent the street space voluntarily from the owner.
https://cdn.mises.org/Power%20and%20Market%20Government%20and%20the%20Economy_2.pdf p. 292 93.45.229.98 (talk) 14:51, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Also in the Rothbard-Rockwell Report:
"Left-libertarians are being grossly unrealistic by saying that anti-discrimination laws should only apply to strictly government operations, while private operations must be totally free. The problem is that, particularly in our State-ridden society, the line between “public” and “private” has grown increasingly fuzzy, and it is precisely because of that fuzziness that left-liberalism has been able to expand very easily, and with virtually no opposition, the original application of civil rights from public to all sorts of private facilities. Everywhere, for example, and in front of or next to every private property, there are public streets and roads" So what is the remedy for all this? Certainly not to take the standard libertarian path: to endorse civil rights for public operations and then, if-they are interested at all in the real world, to try to sort out precisely what is private and what is public nowdays "What has to be done is to repudiate “civil rights” and antidiscrimination laws totally, and in the meanwhile, on a separate but parallel track, try to privatize as much and as, fully as we can."
https://www.rothbard.altervista.org/articles/marshall-civil-rights.pdf 93.45.229.98 (talk) 15:04, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

"Right Libertarianism" and "Left Libertarianism" are European terms, each representing dozens of strands of libertarian ism and philosophies. So it is not valid or useful to lump all of those under either banner and say that a particular characteristic or belief applies to the (entire) group. North8000 (talk) 15:12, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

I get it, but in the article, it sounds like the anarcho-capitalists and the paleolibertarians are not big supporters of freedom of expression and freedom of movement. In all of this talk by Rothbard, it seems to be an obvious corollary that there is no right of expression and movement without the permission of the owners of the respective streets and roads. Heh, but it also seems that abolishing public property has a suppressive end. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 15:19, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
There is much of this kind of content in the anarcho-capitalist wing:
"In a covenant concluded among proprietor and community tenants for the purpose of protecting their private property, no such thing as a right to free (unlimited) speech exists, not even to unlimited speech on one's own tenant-property. One may say innumerable things and promote almost any idea under the sun, but naturally no one is permitted to advocate ideas contrary to the very purpose of the covenant of preserving and protecting private property, such as democracy and communism. There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and expelled from society. they the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order."
https://archive.org/details/HoppeDemocracyTheGodThatFailed/page/n239/mode/2up (Hoppe)
"How about this compromise: we remove all barriers to immigration except one: we charge a fee. I propose we charge somewhere between $1 million and $10 million per family. That way you guarantee you get fairly decent (non-criminal, educated, successful, civil, etc.) quality immigrants.
If, say, 100,000 families (about 400,000 people, say) immigrate per year and pay $1 million each, that’s $100 billion per year."
https://www.lewrockwell.com/lrc-blog/immigration-idea/ (Kinsella) 93.45.229.98 (talk) 15:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

"Libertarianism supports body autonomy"

This is false for several reasons,

1- The first libertarian president ever in the world is completely against abortion. 2- The idea of "body autonomy" is completely contradictory and it hides lies, because you arent exercting "body autonomy" if you are killing another human, otherwise a murder in the street would be exerting "body autonomy" when he kills another human, and libertarianism is against this. 3- Libertarianism supports the principle of "non agression" which is completely contradictory with abortion. 4- There are many remarkable and very influential libertarian thinkers in the world who are completely against abortion.

It's funny to me that the above complaints about the terms "freedom of movement" and "bodily autonomy" leant so hard on ideologically-charged complaints, when they could have just checked the sources and seen they weren't in there. That alone is far better justification for removal than any political rant one could write or quote. --Grnrchst (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

"libertarian beliefs that claim the Earth's natural resources belong to everyone in an egalitarian manner, either unowned or owned collectively"

These beliefs aren't libertarian. Libertarianism supports individual ownership or ownership by groups of individuals who consent to such shared ownership. As the phrase hints, this, rather, is egalitarianism, bordering dangerously on collectivism, socialism and state-dictatorship. It's also hard to imagine how resources can be "unowned". Furthermore, the matter of ownership includes more than natural resources. It also includes man-made/man-organised goods such as agricultural land, the means of production, the products of such production (such as food, clothing, cars and computers), buildings and infrastructure. 2A02:C7C:AA6B:F800:C5B4:971E:405C:F94B (talk) 16:50, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Categories:
Talk:Libertarianism: Difference between revisions Add topic