Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 08:20, 30 March 2014

Libertarianism was nominated as a good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (February 12, 2014). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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: 14 days

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 References 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." 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." Nettlau, Max (1996). A Short History of Anarchism (in English, translated). London:Freedom Press. p. 162. ISBN 978-0-900384-89-9. OCLC 37529250. 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." Ostergaard, Geoffrey. "Anarchism". The Blackwell Dictionary of Modern Social Thought. Blackwell Publishing. p. 14. ^ Bookchin, Murray and Biehl, Janet (1997). The Murray Bookchin Reader. New York:Cassell. p. 170. 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." ^ 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." 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. 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." ^ 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." Hamowy, Ronald. "Left Libertarianism." The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism. p. 288 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.

	Libertarianism 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.
	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 25, 2005.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 19, 2004 Refreshing brilliant prose Not kept March 20, 2005 Peer review Reviewed May 11, 2005 Featured article candidate Promoted August 16, 2005 Featured article review Kept January 15, 2007 Featured article review Demoted October 24, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed Current status: Former featured article

Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Template:WikiProject LibertarianismPlease add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics High‑importance This 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Philosophy: Social and political Mid‑importance This 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Social and political philosophy Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology Mid‑importance This 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

Template:Misplaced Pages CD selection Template:V0.5

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Please 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.

Suggested alternative to perceived equivocation and faulty grammar in lead.

The following statement is a clear case of misleading equivocation (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 Libertarian Socialism)."

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. Lockean One (talk) 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. TFD (talk) 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. Lockean One (talk) 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. TFD (talk) 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. Lockean One (talk) 05:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

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. --Somedifferentstuff (talk) 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. Lockean One (talk) 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. North8000 (talk) 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). Lockean One (talk) 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, North8000 (talk) 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. Lockean One (talk) 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" Finx (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The "dominant meaning" statement pretty much conflicts with every source. Even amongst strands that want to abolish capitalism. North8000 (talk) 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. Finx (talk) 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. Lockean One (talk) 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. Finx (talk) 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? Lockean One (talk) 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. Finx (talk) 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. Lockean One (talk) 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? Finx (talk) 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. Lockean One (talk) 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. Finx (talk) 04:28, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Purposely misrepresenting another editor, like you did above, is not civil discourse. Lockean One (talk) 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. Finx (talk) 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. Lockean One (talk) 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? North8000 (talk) 21:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

If I insulted you, I apologize. I was questioning your competence, not your intentions or your character. Finx (talk) 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, North8000 (talk) 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. Finx (talk) 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) North8000 (talk) 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:

1. Significant libertarian strand(s) that reject "capitalism, wage labor, and private production of goods and services," generally all fall under "Libertarian Socialism".
2. 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.
3. Changing "the means of production" to "all means of production".

North8000 (talk) 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, North8000 (talk) 14:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The problem with "the means of production" is that the word "the" is a definite article 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. Lockean One (talk) 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. North8000 (talk) 17:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

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. Lockean One (talk) 19:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

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. Lockean One (talk) 10:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

"The means of production" 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 Talk:Means of production. — goethean 22:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

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. Lockean One (talk) 04:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

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. Lockean One (talk) 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. — goethean 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. TFD (talk) 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. Lockean One (talk) 10:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Writers from Marx to Mises to Friedman used the term "the means of production." TFD (talk) 15:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

"The means of production" is absolutely the correct way to use the term; and I am against making any changes to the current lead. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:25, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

You should make that argument on the Article (grammar) talk page: "A definite article 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." Lockean One (talk) 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. North8000 (talk) 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. Lockean One (talk) 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 Libertarian Socialism)." Lockean One (talk) 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. Lockean One (talk) 08:26, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

They share libertarian ideology and in fact many writers are common to both traditions. TFD (talk) 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"? Lockean One (talk) 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. North8000 (talk) 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. Lockean One (talk) 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, North8000 (talk) 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. Lockean One (talk) 03:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Lead revert

The revert 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. Finx (talk) 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. Lockean One (talk) 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. Finx (talk) 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. Lockean One (talk) 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. Finx (talk) 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. Lockean One (talk) 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. Finx (talk) 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. Lockean One (talk) 15:22, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you take a quick glance at the articles on Adam Smith or David Ricardo 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. Finx (talk) 15:57, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Private ownership of something is non-political by definition, since the purpose is private, not political.

Comedy gold. — goethean 15:14, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

It actually is pretty funny, the fact that I felt the need to actually state such a thing. Lockean One (talk) 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. Lockean One (talk)

Do I need to explain what the term "verbatim" means, too? Lockean One (talk) 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. Finx (talk) 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. Finx (talk) 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. Lockean One (talk) 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. Finx (talk) 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. Lockean One (talk) 00:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Fortunately, as I've said about a dozen times now, this article is not about you. Finx (talk) 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. Lockean One (talk) 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! Lockean One (talk) 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. North8000 (talk) 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:

The libertarian favors the right to unrestricted private property and free exchange; hence, a system of 'laissez faire capitalism'

— Murray Rothbard, 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? Finx (talk) 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. — goethean 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:

Himmelstein, Jerome L. (1992). To the right : the transformation of american conservatism. : Univ Of California Press. p. 47. ISBN 0520080424. 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

Boaz, David. The Libertarian Reader: Classic and Contemporary Writings. p. 175. ISBN 1439118337. 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.

Miller, Wilbur R. (2012). The social history of crime and punishment in America. An encyclopedia. 5 vols. London: Sage Publications. p. 1006. ISBN 1412988764. 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.'

Hamowy, Ronald (2008). The encyclopedia of libertarianism. Los Angeles: SAGE. ISBN 1412965802. So, too, it is maintained, the dependents of the crumbling socialist societies should be brought into a market capitalist system as rapidly as possible. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

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. Finx (talk) 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. North8000 (talk) 19:20, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

This is religious obscurantism, plain and simple. Finx (talk) 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, North8000 (talk) 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. — goethean 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. Finx (talk) 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. North8000 (talk) 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. Finx (talk) 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. North8000 (talk) 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. Finx (talk) 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"? North8000 (talk) 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. Finx (talk) 02:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Goethean, your claim of OR in the edit summary was false. The content was well sourced, unlike your OR:synthesis version. Lockean One (talk) 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. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Origin of the term "libertarian" (in modern usage).

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.

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:

Link: Who is a Libertarian

During the early 1960s, Prof. John Hospers often advocated use of the word "libertarian" and distributed copies of this pamphlet at Brooklyn College (where he was faculty advisor for "Students of Objectivism") and elsewhere. (I still have a few of the pamphlets that he handed me!) Below, I have inserted the opening paragraph of Dean Russell's short essay, and also the beginning of the postscript which appeared on the back of the FEE pamphlet.

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. Tripodics (talk) 16:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

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.

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. ...

--Tripodics (talk) 16:17, 19 March 2014 (UTC) (I have obtained permission from FEE to quote this essay, either in full or via excerpts in context.)

We would need some coverage of the incident by a secondary source, indicating the incident's importance. — goethean 16:36, 19 March 2014 (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. Also, your first link above is seems to be broken. Finx (talk) 16:59, 19 March 2014 (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? Lockean One (talk) 17:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

You need a secondary source to establish the significance of the article. TFD (talk) 17:58, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't. Did you intent to reply to someone else? Lockean One (talk) 00:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

See Help:Using talk pages#Indentation. I was replying to the initial posting. When you post a comment without indenting, as you just did, you are not replying to anyone. TFD (talk) 01:36, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I remind user Lockean One that there were people like Sebastien Faure and Joseph Dejacque in the 19th century naming newspapers "Le Libertarie" and that now there are spanish language periodicals named "El Libertario". We are not writing here the "United States wikipedia" but the english language wikipedia. His discussion here is relevant so as to establish the origins of contemporary US usage of the word "libertarian" for right wing pro laissez faire capitalism views but clearly not "for suggesting modern usage of the term "libertarian"".--Eduen (talk) 19:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Eduen, what are your thoughts on the previous question? Would you consider libertarian socialism to be a form of libertarianism? North8000 (talk) 20:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

The english language major general work on the history of anarchism by the canadian George Woodcock shows the intimate relationship that libertarian socialism has with the word "libertarian". His book from 1962 is called Anarchism: A History of Libertarian Ideas and Movements. No pro-capitalist movement is included in that book unless as a political enemy of anarchism. All the political movements there discussed are anti-capitalist. Another more recent work in the english language is Anarchism Volume Three: The New Anarchism (1974-2008) (Anarchism: A Documentary History of Libertarian Ideas) by Robert Graham. I don´t think anything can be more "libertarian" than anarchism-libertarian socialism as far as representing the usage of the word "libertarian" in a worldwide scale. This is why this article has to pay special attention to the US centered use of the word "libertarian" for right wing laissez faire capitalist economics.--Eduen (talk) 23:40, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

In the U.S., the term "libertarianism" is generally used the same way it is used by mainstream English language media outlets and encyclopedias on both sides of the pond, ie to mean classical liberalism. The "libertarianism" article in Encyclopedia Britannica, for example, defines libertarianism as essentially classical liberalism, as do other major encyclopedias. It's not just the common or normal meaning used by those mainstream sources, it's the exclusive one. And they define libertarianism in a way that logically excludes socialism. Of course the term libertarian has been and is still used by some socialists to describe themselves, but there is no indication in any reliable sources cited in this article that the term has ever been used to any significant extent by non-socialists to refer to socialism. It's a minor alternate meaning at best.

And I'm not trying to be rude, but lecturing about this being "English language Misplaced Pages" instead of "U.S. Misplaced Pages" because I recognize the "common" meaning of a term to be the same as that used by Encyclopedia Britannica is pretty bizarre. So is assuming that I was ignorant of the historical use of the term libertarian by some socialists to refer to themselves, when this very article takes up a inexplicably huge amount of space just to give examples of it. Lockean One (talk) 12:20, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Possible solution for lead

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 (OR:synthesis).

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. Lockean One (talk) 08:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

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. North8000 (talk) 11:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The only issue here is User:Lockean One'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. — goethean 12:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Please be civil and stop making false statements about me. Your incessant falsehoods and personal attacks are disruptive and violate several Misplaced Pages policies. If you choose to delete your comments above, you may delete this post as well. Lockean One (talk) 21:51, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I can't imagine any other reason why you would spend months vandalizing this article and trolling the talk page attempting to delete coverage of left-libertarianism. — goethean 00:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Please be civil and stop making false statements about me. Your incessant falsehoods and personal attacks are disruptive and violate several Misplaced Pages policies. If you choose to delete your comments above, you may delete this post as well. Lockean One (talk) 08:24, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Goethean, why don't you engage on the specifics instead of mis-fire insults and misreads of what Lockean said. They discussed a reasonable proposal to resolve the issue and rational reasons for it and you baselessly come up with "his ideology is an ideology" out of that. Then you claim that their editing is "vandalizing" and their talk page discussion are "trolling". You have crossed far over the line. North8000 (talk) 01:06, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Two reasons. One, Lockean One is a vandal and a troll. Those are not serious edits. They are vandalism. They violate WP:POINT. If we had administrators who were worth their salt, we wouldn't have to deal with his idiotic antics any more. Two, no change to the lead is needed. Lockean One has been advocating to remove the coverage of left-lib. He has presented no sources, except for the stunning perfection of his own intuitions. The presentation in this article follows the best sources. Left libertarianism is a type of libertarianism. It's a fact, and all the whining and crying in the world won't change it. Lockean One has done nothing but troll this page with nonsense for months, and you have done nothing but enable him. No change is needed, and no change is going to happen. — goethean 12:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Please be civil and stop making false statements about me. Your incessant falsehoods and personal attacks are disruptive and violate several Misplaced Pages policies. If you choose to delete your comments above, you may delete this post as well. Lockean One (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Left libertarianism is going to stay, period. The one in question a few weeks back was libertarian socialism. Not sure where that should end up, but there is no current impetus for removal.

There have been a lot of different versions in on that most-edited lead sentence, but the one that is in there at the moment includes a potential change from the long-standing version. North8000 (talk) 13:27, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

As usual, your willful opacity makes communication impossible. — goethean 14:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah yes, you are referring to your continuing denial of the well-established and well-sourced fact that right-libertarians advocate for the capitalist system. Not too much to be done about that. Many, many, high-quality sources were cited by User:Finx to support the term advocate; in response you offered nothing but rhetoric. — goethean 14:14, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Or maybe you're talking about something else! Who knows? — goethean 14:25, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Please be civil and stop making false statements about other editors. Your incessant falsehoods and personal attacks are disruptive and violate several Misplaced Pages policies. If you choose to delete your comments above, you may delete this post as well. Lockean One (talk) 16:26, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll stop pointing out your deep-seated behavioral problems when you start contributing constructively to the Misplaced Pages project. That means citing sources for your proposed changes to the article rather than blanking large section of well-sourced material. When you blank large sections of well-sourced material, I will call this vandalism, because it is vandalism. — goethean 16:29, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Again, please be civil and stop making false statements about me. Your incessant falsehoods and personal attacks are disruptive and violate several Misplaced Pages policies. If you choose to delete your comments above, you may delete this post as well. Lockean One (talk) 17:16, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Here — again — are the diffs which back up my statements. — goethean 17:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Again, please be civil and stop making false statements about me. Your incessant falsehoods and personal attacks are disruptive and violate several Misplaced Pages policies. If you choose to delete your comments above, you may delete this post as well. Lockean One (talk) 18:02, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

It looks like Goethean is just going to continue insulting instead of discussing. Maybe the others can make sore serious civil efforts. Much of the back-and forth has involved one particular sentence, there have been many different potential new versions of it. I'll try to list them. North8000 (talk) 17:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

1. Long-time and last stable version: 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
2. Another recent version (Circa March 19th): 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, in favor of common or cooperative ownership and management of the means of production (see Libertarian Socialism).
3. Another recent version (circa March 19th): While some libertarians advocate laissez-faire capitalism and private property rights, such as in land and natural resources, others wish to abolish capitalism and private ownership of the means of production in favor of common or cooperative ownership and management (see libertarian socialism).

#2 is the result of LockeanOne's obsession with painting socialism as a big government ideology. It has no sources or support.

#3 is the current version. As I just said, User:Finx has provided plenty of sources for the term "advocate". In response, you edit-warred, you provided no sources, and your arguments, if one can call them that, were half-hearted and persuaded no one.

In reality, of course, the idea that right-libertarians advocate for capitalism is completely uncontroversial. But in wiki-reality, it is held up as one of three possible options, and edit-warred over fiercely. Why? Just because you don't like it? — goethean 18:22, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Again, please be civil and stop making false statements about other editors. Your incessant falsehoods and personal attacks are disruptive and violate several Misplaced Pages policies. If you choose to delete your comments above, you may delete this post as well. Lockean One (talk) 18:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Another problem with the current version is that Rothbard is not only (slightly) misrepresented by omitting the "hence, a system of 'laissez faire capitalism'", he also was not using the term "libertarian" the same (equivocating) way that sentence uses it. Another possible solution might be to use the Rothbard quote ("The libertarian favors the right to unrestricted private property and free exchange; hence, a system of 'laissez faire capitalism'"), somewhat as written instead of misconstrued (ie, capitalism as a consequence, as believed by Rothbard and others), if it's considered that important to include it. And the second version you list above as a separate sentence. Lockean One (talk) 18:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

That might be a good solution. Of the 5 sources given by Finx, this is the one that sounds the closest to their /the "advocate" assertion....using something closer to or quoted from what the source said (instead of the disputed wiki-editor-created wording) might be a good solution. North8000 (talk) 19:37, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, if there is interest in including what Rothbard actually said in that quote. But it's really the "While some X, others Y" structure that is the most misleading and problematic, I think whether that Rothbard quote is (accurately) used or not is more of a personal preference issue than a Misplaced Pages policy issue. Lockean One (talk) 21:05, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

On your second sentence, the valid underpinnings of it are that some strands reject capitalism and some (simply) don't. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:18, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Full compilation of sources unambiguously stating that libertarians (in contemporary mainstream American parlance) advocate laissez faire capitalism

• Huebert, Jacob H. (2010). Libertarianism Today. Santa Barbara, Calif.: Praeger. p. 55. ISBN 0313377545. but it is not a failure of the laissez-faire capitalism that libertarians advocate because that has not existed

• Younkins, ed. by Edward W. (2005). Philosophers of Capitalism: Menger, Mises, Rand, and Beyond. Lanham: Lexington Books. p. 223. ISBN 0739110772. The concept of limited government libertarianism has been subjected to withering criticism in intellectual circles. These three -- Robert Nozick, Michael Levin, and Ayn Rand -- are united in their view that laissez-faire capitalism is the only just economic system. {{cite book}}: |first= has generic name (help)

• Hussain, Syed B. (2004). Encyclopedia of Capitalism. Vol. II : H-R. New York: Facts on File Inc. p. 492. ISBN 0816052247. In the modern world, political ideologies are largely defined by their attitude towards capitalism. Marxists want to overthrow it, liberals to curtail it extensively, conservatives to curtail it moderately. Those who maintain that capitalism is a excellent economic system, unfairly maligned, with little or no need for corrective government policy, are generally known as libertarians.

• Rigney, Daniel (2001). The Metaphorical Society: An Invitation to Social Theory. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. p. 95. ISBN 0742509389. Libertarianism has two aspects — economic and civil. Economic libertarians, in the spirit of the Scottish economic philosopher Adam Smith ( 1937), advocate laissez-faire ("let it be") capitalism with minimal state interference

• Paul, edited by Ellen Frankel (2011). Liberalism and Capitalism: Volume 28 - Part 2. New York: Cambridge University Press. p. 55. ISBN 1107640261. There are other classical liberals and libertarians who reject such welfarism and advocate laissez-faire capitalist freedoms and robust or absolute property rights on different grounds {{cite book}}: |first= has generic name (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

• Schmidt, Steffen; Shelley, Mack; Bardes, Barbara (2012). Cengage Advantage Books: American Government and Politics Today, Brief Edition, 2012-2013. Cengage Learning. p. 13. ISBN 1133708684. Libertarians support laissez-faire capitalism.

• Schmidt, Steffen; Shelley, Mack; Bardes, Barbara (2012). American Government and Politics Today, No Separate Policy Chapters Version, 2013-2014 (2011-2012 ed. ed.). Boston, MA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning. p. 18. ISBN 053849719X. Libertarians strongly support property rights and typically oppose regulation of the economy and redistribution of income. Libertarians support laissez-faire capitalism. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)

• Reidy, edited by Jon Mandle, David A. (2014). A Companion to Rawls. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. p. 438. ISBN 1118328434. The opposite perfectionist notions are no doubt at work, sub rosa, in libertarians' ostensibly instrumental justifications for laissez-faire capitalism and strong private property rights {{cite book}}: |first= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

• Schmidt, Steffen; Shelley, Mack; Bardes, Barbara; Ford, Lynne (2013). American Government and Politics Today, 2013-2014 (Brief ed. ed.). Belmont, Calif.: Cengage Learning. p. 19. ISBN 113395605X. For that reason, many libertarians today refer to themselves as classical liberals. Outside of the United States and Canada, the meaning of the word liberal never changed. meaning enthusiastic advocates of laissez faire capitalism. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)

• Wortham, Anne (1981). The other side of racism: a philosophical study of Black race consciousness. Ohio State University Press. p. 35. Not all libertarians and conservatives endorse the "individualist expectancy" to the same extend or with the same degree of consistence. While they both advocate capitalism as the politico-economic system that can best eliminate racial disharmony, they are at irreconcilable odds over the moral foundations of capitalism.

• Chomsky, Noam (2013). Understanding Power: The Indispensable Chomsky. New York: The New Press. ISBN 1595585885. "libertarian" has a special meaning in the United States. The United States is off the spectrum of the main tradition in this respect: what's called "libertarianism" here is unbridled capitalism. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

• Bast, Herbert J. Walberg, Joseph L. (2003). Education and capitalism : how overcoming our fear of markets and economics can improve America's schools. Stanford, Calif.: Hoover Institution Press. p. 167. ISBN 0817939717. Libertarians and other proponents of capitalism do not speak with one voice, and this chapter is not intended to suggest they do.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

• Hans-Hermann, Hoppe. Theory of Socialism and Capitalism, A. Ludwig von Mises Institute. p. 255. ISBN 1610163214. by force of logic one is committed to abandoning liberalism and accepting instead its more radical child: libertarianism, the philosophy of pure capitalism, which demands that the production of security be undertaken by private business too.

• Koval, edited by Ramona (2011). The best Australian essays 2011. ISBN 1921870435. Most but not all were anarchists of the Right, or in American parlance, libertarians, who supported laissez-faire capitalism. {{cite book}}: |first= has generic name (help)

• Edney, Julian (2005). Greed: A Treatise in Two Essays. New York: iUniverse, Inc. p. 43. ISBN 0595360009. Libertarianism: A Primer says so. It states that laissez-faire capitalism is the answer to everything because it brings incredible wealth to all. And it proudly champions Adam Smith's ideas as its heritage.

• O'Flynn, Micheal (2009). Profitable Ideas: The Ideology of the Individual in Capitalist Development (. ed.). Leiden: Brill. pp. 172, 175. ISBN 900417804X. As far as libertarians are concerned, capitalism would work to the benefit of the vast majority if left alone, without interference. Though the minds of libertarians are occupied by an imaginary capitalism, their thinking is often influenced by interests generated under existed conditions. As far as libertarians are concerned, capitalism would work to the benefit of the vast majority if left alone, without interference

• Janda, Kenneth, Jeffrey Berry, Jerry Goldman. The Challenge of Democracy: American Government in Global Politics. p. 25. ISBN 1133170137. This kind of economic policy is called laissez faire, a French phrase that means "let (people) do (as they please)." Such an extreme policy extends beyond the free enterprise that most capitalists advocate. Libertarians are coval advocates of hands-off government in both the social and the economic spheres. Whereas Americans who favor a broad scope of government action shun the description socialist, libertarians make no secret of their identity.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

• Mankiller, Wilma (2000). The Reader's Companion to U.S. Women's History. Boston, Mass.: Houghton Mifflin. p. 126. ISBN 0618001824. the philosophy of objectivism and celebrated unbridled individualism, rationalism, and laissez-faire capitalism

• Himmelstein, Jerome L. (1992). The Transformation of American Conservatism. : Univ Of California Press. p. 47. ISBN 0520080424. 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

• Boaz, David. The Libertarian Reader: Classic and Contemporary Writings. p. 175. ISBN 1439118337. 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.

• Miller, Wilbur R. (2012). The social history of crime and punishment in America. An encyclopedia. 5 vols. London: Sage Publications. p. 1006. ISBN 1412988764. 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.'

• Hamowy, Ronald (2008). The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism. Los Angeles: SAGE. ISBN 1412965802. So, too, it is maintained, the dependents of the crumbling socialist societies should be brought into a market capitalist system as rapidly as possible. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

• Rothbard, Murray (1978). For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto. Ludwig von Mises Institute. p. 28. ISBN 1610164482. The libertarian favors the right to unrestricted private property and free exchange; hence, a system of 'laissez faire capitalism

• Zafirovski, Milan (2007). Modern Free Society and Its Nemesis: liberty versus conservatism in the new millennium. Lanham Md.: Lexington Books. p. 258. ISBN 0739115154. In particular, as critics comment, U.S. "libertarians want to institute a form of moral and political authority that is only compatible with the social framework of laissez-faire capitalism"

• Merrill, Ronald E. (2013). Ayn Rand explained from tyranny to tea party ( ed.). Chicago: Open Court. p. 36. ISBN 0812698010. Many pro-capitalist intellectuals are producing a rich array of commentaries, articles, blog posts and books addressing the moral issues. And, after decades of arguing for "the free market," libertarians are finally defending "capitalism." {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

• Wiley, A. Terrance (2014). Angelic Troublemakers: Religion and Anarchism in America. A&C Black. p. 100. ISBN 1623569958. Indeed, because so many right-libertarians are unmistakably procapitalism

• Farmer, Brian (2005). American conservatism : history, theory and practice (1. publ. ed.). Newcastle-upon-Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Press. p. 75. ISBN 1904303544. Libertarians, like Classic Liberals, celebrate the writings of Adam Smith and his free-market laissez-faire capitalism.

• Eberly, edited by Don E. (1994). Building a community of citizens : civil society in the 21st century. Lanham: University Press of America. p. 183. ISBN 0819196142. Their failure to deal with moral and social values encourages the conclusion that libertarians, whose favorite institution is capitalism, are inherently materialistic. {{cite book}}: |first= has generic name (help)

• Soltan, Karol Edward; Elkin, Stephen L. The Constitution of Good Societies. p. 13. ISBN 0271041064. One approach calls for more extensive development of the institutions of capitalism, especially the market. In practice, its proponents are often hostile to the democratic state. Various anarcho-capitalists and libertarians are examples.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

• Okereke, Chukwumerije (2007). Global Justice and Neoliberal Environmental Governance: Ethics, Sustainable Development and International Co-Operation. Routledge. p. 41. ISBN 1134126883. However, Nozick, instead, extends his theory to argue in favour of free market capitalism as well as a minimal state. Nonetheless, these scholars are better known as libertarians — a term that reflects their belief that individual liberty

• McDonald, Chris (2009). Rush, rock music and the middle class : dreaming in Middletown (. ed.). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. p. 92. ISBN 0253221498. By referencing Rand, Rush seemed to align itself with a politics that emphasized laissez-faire capitalism, individualism, and a decidedly pro-business posture, often associated with libertarianism, neoliberalism, and secular neoconservatism.

• Cunningham, Frank (2003). Philosophy : the big questions. Toronto: Canadian Scholars' Press. p. 242. ISBN 1551302306. The Libertarian Capitalist Position - Marvin's libertarian opinion corresponds in politics to advocacy of neoliberal capitalism.

• Herbst, Susan (1994). Politics at the Margin historical studies of public expression outside the Mainstream (1. publ. ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 138. ISBN 0521477638. Libertarians argue that free markets, where they are allowed to flourish, work very well, and that capitalism should be our guiding metaphor when it comes to systems of governance

To Lockean One and North8000: your insistence on good faith and consideration of your beliefs leads me to believe this is a matter of a basically unimaginable level of editorial incompetence, especially for someone who's been "editing" this particular page for a number of years, so here is a helpful article I've found, called "Internet Research for Beginners: How to Properly Research Facts/Opinions Online". Assuming your intentions are pure, please take some time to read it thoroughly and try a bit of independent research before wasting any more of anyone's time.

I propose adding this to the FAQ above, so that this talk page can function as something other than a blog comment section. Finx (talk) 02:43, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

If you read the first sentence of the last section, which starts with me saying "While it is certainly true that some libertarians do "advocate capitalism....", hopefully you will agree that nobody is disputing that point, in and of itself. The issue is that it's misleading to portray the difference between classical liberals and socialists as being no more profound than whether they like capitalism. As you yourself have pointed out (I think, correct me if I'm wrong), the difference between those two ideologies is far more profound than that.

And as I pointed out in that last section, I don't object to that Rothbard quote being used in the article (and neither does North8000 AFAIK). It's the structure of that particular sentence and its being a misleading synthesis of multiple sources that's the issue. Would you object to Rothbard's quote being used for a separate sentence instead? Lockean One (talk) 04:26, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

"correct me if I'm wrong" - okay: you're wrong; neoliberal libertarians eagerly advocate capitalism; libertarian socialists want to abolish capitalism; very simple, no bloviation required

and yes, I would object strongly to anything that distorts the plain verifiable truth, which is "some libertarians advocate laissez-faire capitalism" Finx (talk) 04:52, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, maybe I was wrong about that. I thought I remembered you acknowledging that it wasn't that simple, something about "self-ownership", but perhaps that was someone else. My bad. Regardless, it's certainly not that simple. The difference in ideologies is far more profound than that, and involves self-ownership and Locke's theory of property, and is described quite well in some of the sources (without even mentioning capitalism). In addition, capitalism as described by classical liberals is very different from capitalism as described by socialists, so it's still misleading to synthesize those different sources into a single sentence that way.

OK, but you're objecting strongly to something that nobody is proposing. My question was whether you would object to that being in a separate sentence instead of combined as a synthesis of radically different sources. Lockean One (talk) 06:19, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

No, "synthesize" in WP policy does not mean "state directly what every source says precisely or verbatim." Yes, I would object to creative writing and bloviation in place of directly stating a straightforward, verifiable fact. This is not the article for classical liberalism; the article for classical liberalism is over this way. Your musings about socialism belong in a blog's comment section, not here. Please stay on topic, and also you're still misusing indentation. Learn to indent properly, like you were told above and save everyone some time. Better yet, refrain from posting if you have nothing to contribute. Finx (talk) 06:44, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure you can see that that sentence does not "state directly what every source says precisely or verbatim". And I never said WP synthesis meant that. It means "combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". The conclusions implied by that combined statement (by using the "while some...others..." structure) are that classical liberals advocate capitalism in the same ideological sense that socialists oppose it, that their notions of what capitalism consists of are the same, and that the term "libertarian" itself has the same meaning in each case. Those implications are not "explicitly stated" by the sources used, and contradict many of the sources.

As far as your "advice": while I'm sure it's a completely altruistic gesture on your part intended to aid me in my effectiveness in convincing others to agree with me, I think I'll pass on it nevertheless. Lockean One (talk) 08:30, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that a part of the problem is the difference between what the phrase says literally, and it's meaning in that context. What it says literally is that some people who are libertarians advocate capitalism. Of course this is true, just as some libertarians like apple pie. But a meaning in that context is that it is, to a significant, a tenet of some some strnads of libertarianism. I think that this is neither established or correct. I think that it can be solved but a much cleaner, correct, sourcable sentence which also conveys the original intent: "Some forms of libertarianism reject capitalism, others don't."North8000 (talk) 03:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is that you believe this page ought to placate your religious convictions instead of saying what all the sources say. Finx (talk) 06:08, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Another false implication of that sentence is that classical liberals oppose socialism in and of itself, as a mode of production, instead of merely opposing an agenda to abolish capitalism. Worker owned and managed cooperatives are not politically opposed by classical liberals according to any of the sources, and many of them currently exist in the U.S. In fact, the tenets of classical liberalism, as described in all the sources, clearly support the freedom of such enterprises to operate. Perhaps something like "advocate a laissez-faire economy" might be appropriate, since it would correctly include non-capitalist enterprises as well. Lockean One (talk) 12:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Let's dissect and untangle it and move forward

I think that a first step in working on a sentence is that the wording should refer to forms or strands of libertarianism, not people. While I think that the sentence was originally intended to imply that, that is not what it literally says, and I believe that that ambiguity has allowed the process to become much more protracted. Second, we should unbundle "capitalism" and "property rights" (except those endemic to capitalism) Next, there has not been a dispute about the statement on property rights (of the type not endemic to capitalism); let's presume that there will be a sentence on such. So then it comes down to a statement about capitalism or the converse of capitalism. Now within that, I think that there has been strong but non-unanimous support of the statement about forms of libertarianism that reject capitalism. And so I think that a sentence that puts that into words is:

Some forms of libertarianism oppose capitalism and private ownership of the means of production in favor of common or cooperative ownership and management.

Leaving the core of the question any possible addition to that sentence regarding forms of libertarianism that do not oppose capitalism. North8000 (talk) 11:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Umm... capitalism is private property. It would be nice if you learned something about politic philosophy. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:21, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Of course capitalism involves private property, but they are not synonyms. More specifically, (and germane to this discussion) there are private property tenets unrelated to capitalism, and capitalism covers more than private property. North8000 (talk) 16:49, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Utter nonsense. Please feel free to support anything you've said with reliable sources. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:56, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

I am talking about your unsourced assertion that capitalism is private property. North8000 (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize a dictionary was forever out of your reach.

capitalism (n):

1. An economic and political system in which a country’s trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state. (Oxford English Dictionary)

2. An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development occurs through the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market. (American Heritage Dictionary) -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:31, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

How you feel about factual, verifiable, sourced and appropriate statements is irrelevant. If you remove them from the article because you don't like them, your changes will be reverted. Finx (talk) 18:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Finx, you statement/insult has a false implied premise. MisterDub, those definitions support the first part of my statement (capitalism involves private property) but not your assertion essentially that "private property" and "capitalism" are synonyms. North8000 (talk) 22:02, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. The definitions provided above by MisterDub (talk · contribs) define capitalism in terms of private property; they don't equate the two concepts, as he did in the statement, "capitalism is private property". --B2C 00:18, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

If you have private property, your means of production are controlled privately for profit; you cannot have private property in a socialist society. Conversely, if the individuals of a society are usufructuaries (i.e. private property is not protected), the means of production are operated by the workers. The presence of private property is not just a feature of capitalism, it is the defining feature. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:45, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Fortunately, we don't have to deal with that particular branch of idle contrarianism since 32 out of the 32 references above used the word capitalism. Like I said, edit to proselytize and it will be reverted. Finx (talk) 01:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Also agree that "private property" isn't "capitalism", but would add that this is clearly not a legitimate dispute. How can one miss the word "profit" in those definitions of capitalism? Non-profit enterprises are common, own private property, and their property rights are supported by classical liberals in the exact same way as those used for profit (capitalism). Classical liberals support private property rights generally, regardless of how the property is used.

Other than that, again, the article should clearly say that the term itself is being used differently compared to the rest of the article. I think it's clear from all the sources Finx posted above that it is the term itself being used differently, not just discussing different "strands". Note how none of those sources are referring to "some libertarians", they are each referring to libertarians in general, as the term is being used by them. Even Chomsky's quote makes that clear (even if he thinks it's odd or "special" to associate the term liberty with being "unbridled". Silly Americans!). Lockean One (talk) 02:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

In academic consensus, capitalism refers to private ownership of the means of production for the purpose of capital accumulation. There are no homonyms. Libertarian refers to pro-capitalists or (traditionally) the anti-state branch of the socialist/anticapitalist movement. It's obvious why someone would simply say "libertarian" once the subject has been established, the same way that anarchist sources, old and new, will refer to "libertarians" and "libertarianism" without qualifiers, except to distinguish from state socialism and authoritarian communist ideologies. Finx (talk) 02:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Make it a dab page?

The ongoing never-ending controversies indicates something is fundamentally very wrong here.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The concept of an umbrella general "libertarianism" is rarely used in reliable sources. Instead, the term is almost always used in reliable sources to refer to one or another specific type of libertarianism.

Yes, there are obscure academic references that try to look at "libertarianism" from 40,000 feet or whatever, but most everyday references in newspapers, magazines, and even most academic books are referring to one or another specific kind of libertarianism. Attempting to describe the topic in general terms when everyone who comes here has a specific topic in mind is why it's so controversial, and why this article has got to be one of the worst and most useless on Misplaced Pages.

So, I'm still convinced that the best content at Libertarianism is the dab page. Personally, I would delete this article, but if there is consensus to keep it I would move it to something like Libertarian philosophies. --B2C 00:11, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no controversy. Two users don't like what the three dozen sources say and want them to say something different. There is no issue to resolve. Finx (talk) 01:43, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Maybe if you repeat that enough times someone who doesn't bother to compare it to the text that you are claiming it supports will believe you even though your claim about the references is false. Unless you mean it in its literal pointless ambiguity, I.E. that some people who are libertarians advocate capitalism, which of course, is true, even if it is not a tenent of their form of libertarianism. North8000 (talk) 02:10, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Seeing as how the statement has nothing to do with what's a tenet and what's a consequence of tenets, as I've already said, nobody cares and we don't have to consider it. As stupendously asinine as the brand of sophistry you've chosen is, for everyone who isn't employed in professional apologia (considering one could squabble the exact same way about the Third Reich's advocacy of racial purity -- i.e. "nuh-uh, eugenics is a consequence of nativism, not a tenet!!"), we simply don't have to consider it or entertain it and you can stop the soapboxing at your convenience. It's a very simple issue, entirely obvious to anyone disinterested in the subject. You insisted a statement was "unsourced and unsourceable"; I provided 30+ sources proving you wrong. If you want to resolve your objections on the ANI page, we can do that. Finx (talk) 02:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

If it was ANI, it would be about your behavior towards editors, not the topic of debate. North8000 (talk) 02:30, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I am available to discuss my behavior towards editors whenever you'd like to do so and we can address the matter at your earliest convenience. Please post a noticeboard report on what you perceive as my misbehavior and let me know. I'm prepared to back up everything I've said and explain why I think a topic ban would be the most appropriate course of action, for both you and Lockean One. Finx (talk) 02:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no controversy? 37 pages of talk page archives. The article is currently locked from being edited. If there is no controversy here, there is no controversy anywhere. --B2C 06:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't realize "controversy" was measured in talk archive pages. I suppose the Sarah Palin article is also pretty controversial with 65 talk pages, along with the Lady Gaga article and its 18 and the Grand Theft Auto IV article, with its 15. Maybe we should turn them into disambiguation pages? The article is currently locked because user Lockean One, who had been the star of several ANI complaints and previously already administratively blocked from editing this article, decided to spam content removal, yet again. There's literally just a couple disruptive editors. Ban them from editing and this will become regular, boring article people try to research and improve. There is nothing unusual or undefinable about this political camp, except for the fact that some obstructionist people who can't put aside their zealous politics refuse to let it have any definable features. What is the point you're trying to make? Nothing you've mentioned has been a case for deletion. Finx (talk) 07:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Please be civil and stop making false statements about other editors. Your incessant falsehoods and personal attacks are disruptive and violate several Misplaced Pages policies. If you choose to delete your comments above, you may delete this post as well. Lockean One (talk) 13:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

There is no controversy in reliable sources. There are just some editors who have decided to call themselves libertarians and never bother to read Rothbard. Hess, or Nolan, or the history of the Libertarian Party or libertarianism in the U.S. It would be the same as if editors called themselves Communists but had never heard of Marx or Lenin. My suggestion is that before editors argue about libertarianism they spend a few minutes reading about the subject. TFD (talk) 06:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Please be civil and stop making false statements about other editors. Your incessant falsehoods and personal attacks are disruptive and violate several Misplaced Pages policies. If you choose to delete your comments above, you may delete this post as well. Lockean One (talk) 13:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I propose that we have honest and civil discussions about article content instead of having them constantly disrupted and derailed with personal attacks, falsehoods, misguided and rude lecturing, etc. How about that for a topic ban, since it's already Misplaced Pages policy? Lockean One (talk) 13:50, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Set of philosophies?

Neither of the cited sources (both Rothbard) supports the claim of the opening sentence, that Libertarianism "is a set of related political philosophies..." --B2C 06:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

How would you phrase it differently? Starting out with Rothbard references for "liberty as the highest political end" does seem a bit obscure (as there are better-known writers on this topic), but the "set of related political philosophies" part of the statement seems to be reasonably well supported through the article.

1. "set" meaning "a number of things of the same kind that belong or are used together" (i.e. political groups all describing themselves as anti-authoritarian)
2. "related" because they oppose state and/or private authority, in some capacity, to one or another extent
3. "political philosophies" because they represent bodies of critical ideas concerning "topics such as politics, liberty, justice, property, rights, law"

Maybe there is a better way to phrase this? Finx (talk) 08:09, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I missed it, but I don't see Rothbard describing libertarianism as being comprised of multiple distinct (related or not) philosophies. Beyond that, it doesn't make sense for any -ism to refer to multiple philosophies or belief systems or whatever. Every -ism is a separate and distinct philosophy or belief system.

Is there a better way to phrase it? Is there a way to divide by zero? I think it's unhelpful to have one article about multiple topics, just because they have been given the same name and are related. Each major libertarianism is fundamentally different, because each is based on a different conception of liberty. They're each called "libertarianism" because each upholds some form of "liberty", but since they're based on different concepts of liberty, they are fundamentally different. In particular, Rothbard makes no mention of "libertarian socialism", though he does say socialism has "manifestly failed, politically and economically", yet our article includes LS as part of "libertarianism". That is, Rothbard does not even refer to "libertarian socialism", let alone include it in his conception of "libertarianism".

Put another way, any statement that starts with "Libertarianism is ..." must be referring to one of several uses of the term; which one depends on the context. If the context is Rothbard, that use is not libertarian socialism. The sentence will be nonsensical if "libertarianism" is referring to all uses of the term. Yet that's exactly what we try to do. Worse, we try to cover all philosophies that happen to be named libertarianism in this article, rather than having separate articles about each distinct major flavor of libertarianism.

My major objection is to the inclusion of "libertarian socialism" in this article. Maybe the others are related close enough, but LS is a beast of its own, starting with a different conception of liberty. --B2C 09:42, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

"I don't see Rothbard describing" - Rothbard didn't describe it that way, it's just an accurate summary of the content of the article. "it doesn't make sense for any -ism to refer to multiple philosophies or belief systems or whatever" - there's a ton of articles describing conflicting ideologies all sharing the same label: criminal justice (restorative vs. retributive), conservatism (divine-right monarchism/theocracy or secular 'progressive conservatism'), socialism (a gamut from Tuckerite individualism to unreconstructed Stalinism). "In particular, Rothbard makes no mention of 'libertarian socialism'" - oh, yes he does:

Rothbard, Murray (2007). The Betrayal of the American Right. Auburn (Ala.): Ludwig von Mises Institute. ISBN 1933550139. One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, 'our side,' had captured a crucial word from the enemy 'Libertarians' had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over...

"If the context is Rothbard, that use is not libertarian socialism" - of course not, and Rothbard was well aware, having stated that "capturing" the word for propaganda was a major victory. Libertarianism is, however, a description of any one of a number of political camps promoting themselves anti-authoritarian. That part applies to Rothbard and Kropotkin alike. Whenever discussing history or the core of the ideas, yes, context does matter. "My major objection is to the inclusion of 'libertarian socialism' in this article. Maybe the others are related close enough, but LS is a beast of its own, starting with a different conception of liberty." - So? Is there any basis for that objection other than personal preference? How is this different than highly conflicting ideologies calling themselves conservative, for example?

Just for the sake of it though, let's assume everyone decides this is a special case that needs two articles. Why do you assume so casually that CATO and the USLP should stay and lib-soc is what doesn't belong? Why not the converse? Why not an article describing Dejacque, left communism, the situationist international, insurrectionists, autonomists, platformists, etc, with a little bitty blurb at the top that says "perhaps you're looking for this other recent thing also incidentally labeled libertarian in one or two countries in the world"? It's amazing how the US has so little of the world's population, and yet I've not seen anyone insisting that all this Koch brothers stuff belongs some other place. fi (talk) 10:51, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Just to be a little more constructive, this has come up before, and my own opinion hasn't changed much. I think this article should make very clear, from the start, that "libertarianism" is not a singular, coherent ideology but a word applied to (and self-applied by) multiple groups with often almost diametrically opposed political views, which can be irreconcilable and antagonistic to one another. I think it's very bad to evade or try to obscure that fact; I just don't think separate articles are necessary to describe what has been called libertarian in the not-quite-two-centuries of that word's political use. There are more detailed articles already available for both Libertarianism in the United States and Libertarian Socialism and even the less prominent groups mentioned here, like Geolibertarians, etc. There is no article tracing the history all "libertarian" groups and movements, indiscriminately, whether or not they all happen to agree. In other words, if there was a notable white-ultra-nationalist group, or a group of puritans calling itself "libertarian" in a socio-economic/political context, then it does warrant coverage here. We should contextualize the best we can and leave it to the historians and anthropologists to comment on why they chose that name. fi (talk) 11:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Finx, I mostly agree with what you've said here. We need to be explicit about the differences between these ideologies, but all libertarian philosophies do share commitments to liberty, diminution of government power, and individual autonomy. The consequences and phraseology differ, such as right-libertarians supporting self-ownership, minimal government, and private property. I tried to accomplish this when I first proposed changes to the lead: the first paragraph should explain these shared commitments, the second should explain the differences between the major currents, and anything beyond that should present historical information.

Another point to make is that, some time ago, we decided to minimize coverage of libertarian socialism here because it has its own article with a more thorough treatment. I reduced a lot of this in the changes I made, but the "Libertarian socialism" section was edit warred back into the "History" after the edit was discussed. I think we ought to honor this agreement or work toward a new consensus. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not all too surprised that editors had a problem with removing libertarian socialism from a more-or-less chronological description of the history of people who use the label. That just gives the impression of erasing it from history. On the other hand, reduction sounds fine to me, where appropriate. I see no reason to duplicate articles, if we can summarize the relevant parts and link instead. The same does apply to "Libertarianism in the United States" by the way. This article just needs more of its own content, with links to main articles where that's appropriate. Other than that, I think we agree. Different people all see themselves as proponents of liberty and clearly disagree about what liberty means. fi (talk) 18:15, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree, B2C. This article should discuss libertarianism, as the term is commonly used (on both sides of the pond), with a disambig section for other uses. The simple fact is that, regardless of claims to the contrary, major encyclopedias and mainstream media sources use the term libertarianism (logically) to refer to classical liberalism, while fringe and biased sources use it to mean the opposite. And if this article is going to discuss other uses, it should clearly say that the term is being used differently (disambiguate it). Lockean One (talk) 14:07, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

All of your major encyclopedias are written by classical liberals... you don't think that's a biased sampling of sources??? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:13, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Of course I do, there are no unbiased sources. But the fact remains that "major encyclopedias" are far more representative of society than the sources used in this article to contradict them. That doesn't mean Misplaced Pages shouldn't mention them, but it does mean that they are the exception rather than the general rule. The term "libertarianism" is generally used to refer to classical liberalism, biased or not. Lockean One (talk) 00:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

So you would support a reduction but not complete removal of anarchism from this article? Minimize the coverage of libertarian socialism so that classical liberalism has the bulk of the content? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I have never suggested removal of anarchism (in general), only socialism, and only separation or disambiguation, not actual removal from Misplaced Pages. In fact, I think "Libertarian Socialism" should be described (separately) in much more detail than it currently is in its own article, since reading it leaves far more unanswered questions than answers. I think "Libertarian Socialism" should be covered separately because it is very different (to say the least), but if it is covered here, it should be differentiated accurately, including disambiguating all the terms that are used differently by socialists than how they are used in common speech or in dictionaries. The former would be far more practical than the latter. Lockean One (talk) 00:00, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

It sounds like you do want to remove the common meaning of anarchism (i.e. libertarian socialism) then. I don't agree with that, but I would support a reduction. In fact, that was the consensus before, and I'm just trying to determine whether this decision needs to be revisited. As for terminology, I think we need to use terms in accordance with their meanings in political philosophy, not with what the general populace thinks. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:37, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I was referring to terms that socialists use differently from their standard meanings, not terms used in political philosophy that are unfamiliar to the general populace. But even the latter shouldn't be used without specifically defining them. It is Misplaced Pages policy to use standard English. Lockean One (talk) 16:15, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm curious to know what terms socialists use differently from their standard meanings; honestly, I doubt this claim very much. I do agree that we should be careful to define the terms we use here, but we still should be using the terms accurately (i.e. an article on political philosophy should use terms consistent with the academic field). If we can agree on that much, we can hopefully move on to improving the article. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:23, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree about accuracy, but I'd say consistent with standard dictionaries, since the article is intended for a general audience. And any term used differently should be specifically defined. As far as examples, I seem to remember you using the word "wrong" to describe the standard dictionary definition of "private property" specifically because it wasn't the way socialists use the term, although it was exactly the way non-socialists use the term (ie "movable property (as distinguished from real estate) " or "land or belongings owned by a person or group and kept for their exclusive use"). How can you say you "doubt that claim very much" when we have already discussed how at least one term is used differently by socialists than in standard dictionaries and by classical liberals. (If I have you confused with another editor, I apologize, I'm too lazy to search for it now) As far as other terms used differently, I'm too lazy (again) to try to list and explain them at the moment, but if you don't recognize "private property" as one of them, there wouldn't be much point, anyway. Lockean One (talk) 05:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

I stand by my initial objection. None of the cited sources support the opening statement. The word libertarianism is obviously used in various sources to refer to different related philosophies. Some sources like Rothbard acknowledge the different uses of the word. But we don't have articles about words; we have articles about topics. If we can't agree that one of the topics to which "libertarianism" refers is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, then there should be a dab page at Libertarianism (like there is at Mercury). But combining libertarian socialism with what is the more prevalent use of the term in the English speaking world today in one article, because both topics share the same name and are both socio-political concepts, makes almost as little sense as incorporating the contents of Mercury (element) and Mercury (planet) into one article at Mercury because they both share the same name and are both scientific concepts.

Such unnatural combinations forces us to use contrived and awkward constructs, like this introductory sentence, which is not only grist for disagreement and conflict, but arguably a violation of WP:NOR. The insistence to keep them combined baffles me. It's totally confusing and unhelpful. --B2C 17:08, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

More to the point, libertarianism is NOT "a set of related political philosophies...". That's like saying mercury is a set of a concepts. It makes no sense. Mercury is an element. Mercury is not an element. Both sentences are true, depending on which mercury is being used. But the following statement is not true: mercury is and is not an element. That would be using two different meanings of the same word at once. It's nonsensical. And that's what this article is, nosensensical, for the same reason: it's trying to use one word to refer to two (or more) distinct meanings at once.

Now here is a statement that is true: "Libertarianism", the word, like "mercury", is a homonym. All of its meanings are socio-economic philosophies related to some concept of liberty, but essentially they are distinct, and it's impossible to coherently have the word refer to all of the meanings in any particular context. --B2C 17:21, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Now here is a statement that is true: "Libertarianism", the word, like "mercury", is a homonym.

Quick! Alert the dictionaries, because they all got it wrong! — goethean 17:38, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Rothbard is correct, that libertarianism is an ideology that supports liberty. They disagree among themselves in how that should be achieved. In the same sense, socialism is an ideology that supports equality, but socialists disagree on what approach to take. In both cases there is a shared history and core literature. TFD (talk) 17:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The various types of socialism all have much more in common than do property rights libertarianism and libertarian socialism. The libertarian socialism sense of the word, at least referred to explicitly as just "libertarianism", is so obscure, dictionaries don't even recognize it. --B2C 17:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

It's so obscure that it was the only definition for over a century and was used as the exclusive meaning of libertarian by both George Woodcock and Robert Graham? And you really think self-described socialists have more in common? Maybe Benjamin Tucker and Joseph Stalin would have made good dinner pals? fi (talk) 18:29, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Born2cycle, I don't know why you're so baffled by a pretty simple concept. There are, as MisterDub put it, several political camps/ideologies claiming "commitments to liberty, diminution of power, and individual autonomy" - at least three distinct groups. Some of them (like the ones around since Dejacque) claim that the fullest liberty can be achieved by abolishing both capital and state; some of them claim that the fullest liberty can be achieved by curtailing/privatizing state functions through deregulation and devolution into the hands of private enterprise, extending vast or limitless power to capital to do what it does unhindered; some of them claim that the fullest liberty can be achieved if capital is only modified or restricted in a few very particular ways. Respectively, those loose groups are:

1. labor radicals, anarchists (individualists, syndicalists, etc), certain marxists (left communists, council communists - depending on whom you ask, autonomists, etc)
2. various advocates of laissez faire capitalism, typically with links to USLP, CATO (or Reason, AFP or name your favorite Koch-funded NPO), Rand, Rothbard, Hess, Mises and heterodox economics, to some extent Hayek, etc
3. geolibertarians, georgists, a few other not-quite-socialists

There's no homonyms here and it's really not that confusing when explained properly. As the quote above shows (and there's others like it I can provide), when what Ayn Rand described as the new right chose labels like "libertarian" and "anarcho-", it wasn't just some weird coincidence. Some leading figures consciously decided, a bit like Falangist fascists who draped themselves in red and black to mimic anarchist style/rhetoric, that it would be tactically useful to appropriate the language of the left, claiming to do what they claim to do, only better. So, the connection was chosen quite a few decades ago by people like Rothbard and it's really not our call to make. fi (talk) 18:00, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Those three bullets above make my point. There is no coherent use of the word "libertarianism" that refers to all three meanings. The word is used to refer to each of the three distinct meanings, but not to ALL of them at once. That's a homonym, by definition. Each meaning should have its own article. An article about all three is going to necessarily be incoherent and disjointed, full of awkward and contrived statements, like this one is. --B2C 18:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

"There is no coherent use of the word 'libertarianism' that refers to all three meanings." - sure there is. A libertarian is an advocate of social and political/economic liberty. The same way, a socialist is someone who wants socialism, a conservative is someone who wants to preserve traditions and values and a criminal justice activist is someone who wants justice for criminals. People disagree about what those things are exactly and how to achieve them. It doesn't mean that the words become useless, just because people with very different or opposite views both decided to use them. fi (talk) 18:20, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

FWIW though, I think Mercury-style disambiguation page would at least be kind of funny. "Did you want Libertarianism (political philosophy), Libertarianism (political philosophy) or Libertarianism (political philosophy)?" fi (talk) 18:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

More like

• Anarchism
• Minarchism
• Libertarian socialism
• Geolibertarianism
• Georgism
• Etc.

I'm sorry, but that statement is not coherent. It is meaningless, or at least uselessly ambiguous, because for it to apply to each of the three types of libertarians, the word "liberty", and the phrase "social and political/economic liberty", must be interpreted very differently. It's like saying, "Mercury is a heavy entity comprised of atoms". It's contrived to technically apply to both the element and planet named mercury, but it says nothing with clarity. Neither does your statement. Neither can any statement that attempts to use "libertarian" or "libertarianism" in a way that applies for all uses of those words. And when you try to adhere to such a restriction, not just in one 10-word sentence, but in an entire article, the result is an incoherent mess, like this article is, starting with the opening nonsensical sentence. --B2C 19:28, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

"the word 'liberty', and the phrase 'social and political/economic liberty', must be interpreted very differently." - yes, and again, the same can be said for conservative, socialist, liberal, etc. We don't have any control over people who redefine the crux of political terms. All an encyclopedic article can do is note, in a disinterested manner, that a wide variety of people refer to themselves (or are referred to) as conservatives. You need a more convincing argument to turn every political label into a giant disambiguation page. There are reasons why all of these different groups call themselves libertarian. They each see themselves as the true advocates of maximum liberty. That's not a band-the-musical-ensemble vs band-the-elastic-loop-of-stretchy-rubber distinction. fi (talk) 19:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Put another way... without a clear definition of "social and political/economic liberty", the following statement is meaningless:

A libertarian is an advocate of social and political/economic liberty.

But if you clearly define "social and political/economic liberty", then you're referring to one of the types of libertarians, not all of them. In other words, you simply moved the ambiguity from "libertarian" to "liberty". --B2C 19:40, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The world is a complicated place. If every concept was clearly and uncontroversially defined, there would be little need for disinterest or neutrality. fi (talk) 19:44, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

The concept of "liberty" has been understood since antiquity, and is clearly defined in dictionaries all around the world. It basically means "freedom of action" or "freedom from restriction". The only controversy is created by those who choose to use such a commonly understood term to refer to a completely different (and far more vague) concept. Lockean One (talk) 00:42, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

That is not true. There is a conservative view of freedom where only a loyal subject of the king can be free. ~

That's a non sequitur. Your conclusion "that is not true" does not logically follow from that observation. Lockean One (talk) 15:16, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not really freedom. — goethean 15:39, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Your sarcastic "No true Scotsman" analogy is way off the mark and way off topic. My comments above were about the meaning of the term "liberty" not what is or isn't "really freedom". Lockean One (talk) 00:00, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

You said that the concept of liberty has been understood since antiquity. But my point is that there are different conceptions of liberty, and when writers in antiquity wrote about liberty, they did not have the same conception as the average member of the Libertarian Party USA today. In modern times, Frank S. Meyer drew a distinction between Liberty which he espoused, and libertinism, which he said Rothbard and others supported. TFD (talk) 16:13, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

LOL, again, I was referring to the meaning of the term "liberty", not which liberties are supported (or not) by whom. The meaning of the term itself, ie "freedom of action". The same exact meaning of the term used by both "writers in antiquity" and the Libertarian Party, even if they disagree about what specific liberties should be supported. Lockean One (talk) 16:32, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

ROFL, defining liberty as freedom is a tautology. Freedom and liberty are synonyms, but one derives from German while the other derives from Latin. TFD (talk) 16:53, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Just to give one example.

Democracy and aristocracy alike belong to the stage where some are free, despotism to that where one is free, and monarchy to that in which all are free.

— Bertrand Russell, describing Hegel's philosophy, A History of Western Philosophy, p667

Please don't "guess" at things like this just because something sounds right to you ideologically. fi (talk) 19:52, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Please be civil and stop making false statements about other editors. Your incessant falsehoods and personal attacks are disruptive and violate several Misplaced Pages policies. If you choose to delete your comments above, you may delete this post as well. Lockean One (talk) 06:11, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

The point is that although classical writers wrote about liberty or freedom they did not mean what the average member of the Libertarian Party USA means by the term. TFD (talk) 06:59, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they did, assuming you mean classical liberal writers. They used the term "liberty" to mean "freedom of action". The Libertarian Party uses it to mean "freedom of action". They may disagree about which particular actions people should have the freedom to perform, but not the meaning of the term itself. Are you confusing multiple referents with multiple definitions? Lockean One (talk) 08:11, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

By classical I meant people writing in classical history not during the classical period of liberalism. You are the one who said "The concept of "liberty" has been understood since antiquity...." We are talking about Plato and Aristotle, not Malthus and Ricardo. And to say liberty=freedom is a tautology. It is like saying the US is defined as the USA. TFD (talk) 08:54, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

LOL, Plato and Aristotle also used the term liberty to mean "freedom of action". And liberty=freedom is not a tautology. They are synonyms when used in the same sense, but not in "every possible interpretation". The term freedom (unlike liberty) is often used to refer to a mere absence of something, ie "freedom from cancer", "freedom from head lice", "freedom from want", "freedom from vaginal dryness", etc. The term liberty, as used by Plato and Aristotle, did not refer to those latter types of freedom, they referred to freedom of action. Lockean One (talk) 20:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

ROFLOL Be very interested to know where you got your info. The English words liberty and freedom both translate into the Classical Greek word eleutheria. Aristotle would not have defined "eleutheria" as "eleutheria of action", because as the author of Logic he would have identified its circularity. And Plato's model of freedom was the Republic, complete with a rigid class system ruled by a philosopher king and aristocrats. Incidentally, your examples are extremely vulgar. TFD (talk) 20:37, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

LOL, you seem confused about what the term "tautology" means. It does not mean "can be translated into the same Greek word". And it doesn't mean that two terms can be or often are used as synonyms. It means that terms are necessarily interchangeable under every possible interpretation, which is clearly false, since no one ever says "liberty of action" ("of action" would be redundant with "liberty", but not with "freedom"). Perhaps less obvious in this context is that the term freedom, unlike liberty, may also refer to a concept in math and physics (degrees of freedom, an objects freedom to rotate, etc). Freedom=liberty is simply and obviously not a tautology, and it has nothing to do with Aristotle or how the words translate into other languages.

And you are absolutely right about how Aristotle would have used the word (eleutheria). He would have used it to mean liberty, not to refer to a kitchen sink being free of dirty dishes (less vulgar?). Nor would he have used it to refer to asymptotic freedom. Regardless, none of this has anything to do with the issue at hand, and I regret participating in this sidetracking. Lockean One (talk) 02:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Not commenting on your overall post, but translation does not necessarily mean "the same meaning"; at its best it essentially means "the word in the language with he closest meaning". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:05, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Certainly the way classical writers envisioned the world differed from ours. But the point is they had only one word for freedom/liberty. TFD (talk) 21:27, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and that single word was used to mean the same thing classical liberals mean when they use the term "liberty". It meant freedom of action, not freedom from cooties, systolic freedom, or any other kind of freedom. Lockean One (talk) 02:54, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

And other than demonstrating that Lockean One knows as little about history as he does about political science, this thread is completely off-topic. — goethean 21:44, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Please be civil and refrain from such personal attacks. If you would like to delete the above post, you may delete this one as well. Lockean One (talk) 02:59, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Saying you're incompetent is not a personal attack. It's a value judgment on your competence, which matters here. No one called you a gaudy dresser. If you're angry that people are complaining about your competence, try being less useless/clueless/incompetent. fi (talk) 07:19, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The only relevant fact in all of the above sidetracking (including my regretful participation in it) is that socialists (rightly or wrongly) use the term "liberty" differently than classical liberals. By the socialist definition, classical liberals are anti-liberty and vice versa. Can we seriously not just agree on that instead of sidetracking the issue into oblivion? Lockean One (talk) 03:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

The issue is about free market libertarianism and socialist libertarianism, not classical liberalism and socialism. TFD (talk) 03:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I won't be getting dragged into another irrelevant sidetracking this soon. How gullible do you think I am? You gotta give it more time than that. Lockean One (talk) 03:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Right, so, once again, absolutely everything Lockean One has decided to share with us is flimsy personal opinions that honestly don't hold up to any halfway serious investigation. I've already provided two dozen examples of important, pre-capitalist, classical liberal writers that argued against neoliberal principles, which somehow went unnoticed. More importantly, we can drop it because nobody cares, as this isn't the article about classical liberalism and the connection between classical liberalism and the CATO institute (a few ideologues and politicians claiming it) is about like the connection between Archimedes and Ross Perot. If you want to cite that someone made it, great. We can also cite that a whole slew of scholars think that's basically a joke. Either way, I don't see what there is to discuss. fi (talk) 07:03, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Again, please be civil and stop making false statements about other editors. Your incessant falsehoods and personal attacks are disruptive and violate several Misplaced Pages policies. If you choose to delete your comments above, you may delete this post as well. Lockean One (talk) 07:16, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Then report it on ANI and stop spamming the talk page with your copy-pasta, for probably the twentieth time now. If you think questioning your competence is a serious offense, report it already. fi (talk) 07:24, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

If you have a problem with my "copy-pasta", you are free to delete it in each case, just like it says, along with the uncivil post it refers to. If you don't want to delete your uncivil post along with my "copy-pasta", then don't. And if you want it on ANI you are free to put it on ANI, too. (FYI, this same issue with Goethean is already on Only's user talk page, if you're interested.) Lockean One (talk) 07:48, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Copy

I think the Tea party section should be copy-pasted to the Libertarian Republican page for two reasons. First the tea party does not hold mainstream libertarian views, hence i think it confuses people when you give so much coverage to them. Secondly, they are primarily affiliated with the GOP and we already have such an article. Isn't that what spin-off pages are for? Cinemwallz44 (talk) 21:02, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you have sources supporting these claims? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:10, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

What claims are you referring to? As far as I can tell, Cinemwallz44 wasn't suggesting adding any content, just moving already sourced content. Lockean One (talk) 00:11, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I think "cut-pasted" would be better. Lockean One (talk) 00:11, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, thats what i meat, cut and paste it. That section should not be on this article. Cinemwallz44 (talk) 00:27, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

@Misterdub Just read on the page link and its plainly obvious. Cinemwallz44 (talk) 00:29, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

You mean like this? "Many political scientists and political pundits who have not examined the data wrongly conclude the Tea Party is the GOP's base of extreme fiscal and social conservatives. Instead, examination of nationwide survey data reveals the Tea Party has at least two major groups: one libertarian leaning and the other socially conservative." (source) I have reinstated the material until a time that someone can actually provide an argument for its removal. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:22, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

1. http://www.fee.org/the_freeman/detail/who-is-a-libertarian

• Former good article nominees
• Misplaced Pages former featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• Misplaced Pages former brilliant prose
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class politics articles
• High-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• C-Class Philosophy articles
• Mid-importance Philosophy articles
• C-Class social and political philosophy articles
• Mid-importance social and political philosophy articles
• Social and political philosophy task force articles
• C-Class sociology articles
• Mid-importance sociology articles
• Misplaced Pages articles that use American English