Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
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.
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?
Q: How are all these political philosophies related? Which ones are closely related or inclusive?
A: Some labels and qualifiers are typically used to group together multiple political movements or ideologies or distance them from others. Below is a rough and simplified visual representation of how many of the political camps described in the article (i.e. groups that have either identified or been described as libertarian) relate to one another, without any regard to their affinity for one another, their prominence or their significance.
Libertarian classification diagram
Libertarianism diagram
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. OCLC37529250.
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."
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
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.
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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
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
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
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.
North's general thoughts
My efforts on libertarian articles over 10 years have been more as a facilitator than someone with strong opinions on the topics being discussed. This expanded into be a sort of mediator years ago when there were range wars at Libertarianism. The decision back then for the article is I think a good one for all of the libertarian articles which to cover all significant aspects of libertarianism. Contentious articles are usually fueled by some real-world contest/battle being played out in Misplaced Pages. Thank goodness I don't think that we have that here. I think that most or all participants want to simply do the best thing. The biggest challenge, probably uniquely strong here is that people have learned this topic and sources have covered this topic through fundamentally different frameworks and even different languages amongst the English languages. The latter refers to the words "libertarianism" and "liberal" having very different (but partially overlapping) meanings in the US vs. Europe. So here are some of those different lenses:
Fundamentally different English languages spoken in Europe vs. the US on political science terms like "libertarianism" and "liberal"
The numerically largest form of libertarianism is a large vague phenomena in the US, with 23% of Americans identifying as libertarians and 27% with libertarian voting pattern. It is not useful to try to define it as a philosophical strand. Operating in areas of libertarian where it is useful to dedine them primarily as philosophical strands creates a lens or bias. Even less useful to apply a foreign lens to it. For example, defining US libertarianism as being a pro-capitalism ideology is like defining European conservative ideology as one that is anti-canibalism.
It's pretty cool that we have so many conversations going on regarding coverage of libertarianism. It also presents a challenge that if we're talking about a zillion things at once we might not get anything done. Possibly the work we were doing at Right-libertarianism is now jammed up. Perhaps we should focus on a large scale general outline for libertarianism articles, while putting the above described "lenses" aside.
Keep and enhance articles about the strands of libertarianism with genuine unique names that have more or less consistent meanings.
Deprecate all of the other "two word" libertarianism articles into short articles about those terms and who uses those terms. So, if you have a "dogs" article, and 200 articles about the breeds of dogs, the "big dogs" article would be about the meanings and usage of the term "big dogs", not duplicate coverage about 100 breeds of dogs that somebody considers to be big.
Use this just as a general guide, there will be exceptions and special cases.
Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:10, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
@North8000: Numerical numbers are worthless. For over one hundred year, libertarian has been used in relation of anarchism and libertarian socialism; and it continues these days in most countries. We could also just easily say that 90% of Americans are liberals because conservatism, liberalism and modern liberalism are all variants of liberalism. I also don't understand your example in "defining US libertarianism as being a pro-capitalism ideology is like defining European conservative ideology as one that is anti-canibalism." While not all libertarianism is a "pro-capitalism ideology", some libertarianisms indeed are. Could you also more clear and give example of articles about "the strands of libertarianism with genuine unique names that have more or less consistent meanings" as well as the "two word" libertarianism articles" you keep referencing to, but without giving any example? Because there may be some that could be merged into a Libertarian schools of thought articles, but Left-libertarianism and Right-libertarianism aren't some of them. Could you also please make more political pertinents examples? Should we also delete democratic socialism, social democracy, social liberalism, classical liberalism, conservative liberalism, national conservatism, social conservatism, liberal conservatism et all other "two word" political related articles? Should we merge all of them in socialism, liberalism and conservatism articles? Most of these "two word" libertarianism articles don't refer to Libertarianism but rather to a specific strand of it, hence they have their articles. However, we could put them all in Libertarian schools of thought. Articles like Consequentialist libertarianism, Natural-rights libertarianism, Neoclassical liberalism and Neo-libertarianism are all short and could be included in the Libertarian shools of thought. I just disagree with deleting or merging Left-libertarianism and Right-libertarianism.--Davide King (talk) 10:37, 17 November 2019 (UTC) --Davide King (talk) 02:27, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
I think that I should reword my proposal for more clarity and fine-tuning, but your question points to a misread of something important that I did include. The likely fate of targeted articles isn't limited to "merge";just as likely would be to reduce the articles to be primarily about the term and it's usage. The reductions will invariably be material that is duplicated from other articles that are in the main plan anyway. Regarding the specific ones that you ask about, my proposal would just be setting the criteria framework between the two possibilities. Persons who know those terms/topics better than I (typically the main editors at those articles) would make the decision based on those criteria. North8000 (talk) 18:56, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Regarding the "I don't understand your example". "Anti-canibalism" is not a defining aspect of European conservatism, they merely tacitly accept anti-canibalims as the norm. If another strand of conservatism somewhere in the world advocates cannibalism, is not a reason to define European conservatism ideology as "anti-canibalism". Analogously, common American libertarianism tacitly accepts capitalism. Analogously, the fact that a different strand of libertarianism may oppose capitalism is not a reason to say that "pro-capitalism" or "anti-canibalism" are planks of the common US version. North8000 (talk) 19:08, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Neologism tag. Do not remove until resolved.
I have inserted a neologism tag on the top of the article to inform readers about the RFC and the controversy surrounding the use of "right-libertarianism". Do not remove this template until the issue is resolved. JLMadrigal@02:57, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or in larger society. To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term (see use–mention distinction). An editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms because this may require analysis and synthesis of primary source material to advance a position, which is explicitly prohibited by the original research policy.
Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Misplaced Pages. The term does not need to be in Misplaced Pages in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic, or use the term within other articles.
In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a neologism in such a case. Instead, it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title.
That all pertains to articles about neologisms. This is not an article about a neologism. "Right-libertarian" is not a neologism, but even if it were, this is not an article about that term, you just object to the use of the term in this article, despite its use in reliable sources. --Pfhorrest (talk) 20:24, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
The term "right-libertarianism" is a neologism - a relatively new term used to describe a POV about a topic through the lens of that POV. None of your so-called "reliable sources" describe the use of the term. They all take it as a given. Furthermore, if you read the template guide, you will note that this template can refer to an article title or sections within an article. BTW, you can't remove templates without consensus. JLMadrigal@00:49, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
According to Google Ngrams, the term "right-libertarian" is almost exactly the same age as the Libertarian Party (1972 vs 1971). What a coincidence, since the term was only coined to refer to the new kind of "libertarianism" that that party promotes, and prior to the rise of that there was no need to distinguish between left- or right-libertarianism. ("Left-libertarian", in contrast, is a much newer term, but I don't see you complaining about the use of that term on this article, or anywhere else). --Pfhorrest (talk) 03:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Ahh, so you concede that "libertarian" is the most common term to describe the ideology in question, and that the use of the term "libertarian" has already been expanded to include advocacy of a free marketplace - or as leftists call it, "capitalism". The only folks who "need" to use the "right" prefix advocate economic collectivism, AKA command economies, which have categorically been demonstrated to be anathema to economic liberty, AKA a "libertarian" society. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/command-economy.asp
That's some pretty bad-faith strawmanning you've got going there, and a nice demonstration that you haven't actually been reading anything I've been saying for all of these months. Nobody has contested that both kinds of libertarians (left and right) generally just call themselves "libertarians"; the question at hand is how to distinguish the two kinds from each other, given that they both use the same name, and the only terminology for distinguishing them I've seen in any sources is "left-" and "right-". Also, if you check the Ngrams for "Libertarian", you'll notice that that that term is way, way older than the Libertarian Party or the works of Rothbard etc, further emphasizing that it has never been exclusive to their ideology and that what's now called "left-libertarianism" to distinguish it from them is the original sense of the term.
In other words, Ngrams for "libertarian", "right-libertarian", and "left-libertarian" highlight the evolution of the terminology and ideologies we've been trying to get through to you this whole time: "libertarian" was for a century or more a term for a kind of socialism, until in the mid-20th century it was coopted for a kind of capitalism, immediately after which the original libertarians started calling that new kind "right-libertarianism" to distinguish it from themselves, and then eventually a decade or more later started calling themselves "left-libertarians" to distinguish themselves from the increasingly popular association of "libertarianism" with right-libertarianism.
Also, you've apparently not heard anything I've tried to teach you about what left-libertarians believe, as you continue to mischaracterize them and their disagreements with right-libertarians. All libertarians, left and right, favor free markets and oppose command economies. But "free market" ≠ "capitalism", and "command economy" ≠ "socialism". Left-libertarians support free markets but oppose capitalism, and support socialism but oppose command economies. Right-libertarians, as you demonstrate, generally can't tell the difference between them, and if they can, think that if capitalism is an inevitable result of a free market then that's fine, if the only way to socialism is a command economy. Left-libertarians don't think that's true: they aim for a free market without capitalism, and socialism without a command economy. I've said all of this several times before here, to you specifically. It would be nice if you listened for once. --Pfhorrest (talk) 19:10, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
I was just going to write that you clearly misrepresented Pfhorrest and that Pfhorrest didn't concede what you were referring to, but Pfhorrest already replied about it and also made other points I fully agree with. Just one thing I would like to add is that there's prominent trend within libertarianism that rejects free markets and property as authority/hierarchy and advocate some form of decentralised, non-compulsary and voluntary planned economy. Indeed, libertarian was coined to mean a form of anarchism that was opposed to markets and property as unjust or unnecesary authority and hirerachy. By the 1890s, it was associated to all anarchism, but mainly with social anarchism (rather than individualist anarchism, although individualist anarchists also used it). It's only certain American libertarians who regard themselves as individualist anarchists that use the term in that relation.--Davide King (talk) 21:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
I trust that you know this subject better than me, but I think at least for the purposes of this discussion (or the intended meaning of my previous comment), a free market just means "non-compulsary and voluntary", or the opposite of a command economy; it doesn't have to be propertarian, which seems to be the distinction you're making. I am curious if you know of better terminology for an economy that is not a command economy but isn't necessarily propertarian. --Pfhorrest (talk) 01:55, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Well, that's not really the definition I know being used, but I understand what you're saying and I don't disagree with anything you have said, just that there're forms of libertarianism that reject the market, whether free or not. I would consider propertarian mainly right-libertarianism since most forms of libertarianism are based either on use and possession property rights or on communism. I would redirect you to Decentralized planning (economics). In such a society, I think the law of value would no longer exist and the sell or exchange of commodities wouldn't either, just like money. There would be calculation in kind based on its use value rather than exchange value and production would be based on use and not on profit, or to be sold and exchanged on a market.
This is why Marxist–Leninist et similia states are seen as state capitalists, or simply capitalist, i.e. they all retained the capitalist mode of production and capitalist social relations, whether their form of capitalism was liberal or statist. This is also because socialism and communism are seen as synonymous by its proponents, with socialism being lower communism (like Lenin and Amadeo Bordiga argued) but still communism (no state, no classes, no money, no law of value; the only difference is that distribution would be based on contribution whereas in communism, with the higher development and efficiency, it would be based on needs. I think it was Stalin and his supporters who first widened the definition so as to say the Soviet Union had achieved socialism (I don't remember any Marxist–Leninist et similia state arguing that it had reached socialism, let alone communism; I think only Stalin did that with the 1936 Soviet Constitution and in Economic Problems of Socialism in the USSR), so in their view socialism still includes the law of value and commodity exchange (if others did too, their socialism was based on the Stalinist definition, which critics would argue is just state capitalism).
Anyway, another thing I wanted to say but forgot to add in my previous message is that both individualist and social anarchists largerly agree on the ends; their main arguments and debates was on the means and whether their means would reach their ends. Just like most anarcho-syndicalism or collecvist anarchists, many mutualists advocate communism as their ends but differ in their means and so on.--Davide King (talk) 04:20, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Allrightythen. I hope we can at least agree on a template for the dispute.
"The factual accuracy of part of this article is disputed. The dispute is about a generalized use of the term "right-libertarianism" to describe all libertarianism that is not "left-libertarian"."
Does that describe the dispute?
JLMadrigal@14:23, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
I think that it's proper. Plus it will give us a nudge to resolve this particular debate. North8000 (talk) 14:52, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
@JLMadrigal: @Pfhorrest: @North8000: I think it actually needs to be justified. Is the dispute based on Misplaced Pages guidelines or simply a POV? JLMadrigal ad North8000 has so far not being able to put up reliable sources or arguments to justify the change from a long-standing consensus. For what it's worth, this was already discussed years ago and I'm sure I can find similar discussions as well. It's also based on a false premise as right-libertarianism isn't used to describe all libertarianism that is not "left-libertarian" but mainly anarcho-capitalism, minarchism and conservative/right-wing variants. Many libertarian philosophies may not fall in either or they may be considered part of both by various sources. The Steiner–Vallentyne school may as well be the right-wing of left-libertariaism or the left-wing of right-libertarianism, so it isn't so easy; and the concepts of left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism are easily found, compared and discussed in reliable sources.--Davide King (talk) 19:18, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
David, I thought I had made the point to the sky-is-blue point. Prevalance of use in wp:RS is the standard, which is pretty much everything that is published. Libertarianism, and mentions in sources exists in massively greater numbers in the US, and in those sources, and they don't use the term right libertarian. They use "libertarian". If you want me to provide you with the 10 or 100 examples of which word gets used in wp:rs's but I thought that it would be obvious. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:41, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
OK, here's a start. I used google to look for sources and, ignoring Misplaced Pages and it's mirrors, here we go from the top of the list. So this is a sampling of the first sources, NOT a selection:
Source #4 https://www.lp.org/platform/"Libertarian" and "libertarianism" used many times, "right-libertarian and "right-libertarianism used zero times.
Source #5 https://www.iep.utm.edu/libertar/ Wide-ranging, multi-thousand word article. "Libertarian" and "libertarianism" used many times, "right-libertarian and "right-libertarianism used zero times.
Source #6 https://www.libertarianism.org/ Home page of libertariianism.org web site. I just hopped around a bit inside of it. "Libertarian" and "libertarianism" used many times, "right-libertarian and "right-libertarianism used zero times.
Source #11 (not a wp:rs) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIa35LlpqAc "Libertarian" and "libertarianism" used many times, "right-libertarian and "right-libertarianism used zero times.
Source #12 (not a wp:rs) https://rationalwiki.org/Libertarianism 10,300 word article. "Libertarian" and "libertarianism" used I'd guess 100 times, "right-libertarian use 2 times.
Then I googled "Right-libertarian". The first 5 hits were Misplaced Pages articles. Then there was a blog with someone giving their explanation of "right-libertarian". The next 14 had no use of the term "right libertarian" they were hits on libertarianism with the word "right" (as in "rights") also somewhere in the title or early in the article.
@North8000: Thank you for your response. However, you fail to understand that most of these sources refer to Libertarianism in the United States (they would be used there, or here when talking about libertarianism in the United States), that's why they use simply libertarianism because that's the most prominent view; but alas that's libertarianism in the United States, not libertarianism as a whole. So yeah, both you and JLMadrigal seem to confuse Libertarianism for what we have in Libertarianism in the United States. Also, Google searches aren't the most indicative; Google Scholar is. Left-libertarianism refers to libertarian socialism and egalitarian libertarianism whereas right-libertarianism refers to anarcho-capitalism, minarchism and other more conservative/right-wing variants. In the United States, left-libertarianism refers to free-market anti-capitalism whereas right-libertarianism refers to culturally conservative libertarianism.--Davide King (talk) 21:30, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
No, I know all of that and I'm not confusing anything. In fact, you are making my point rather than refuting it. The subject of the article the the form of libertarianism that is far more present in the United states. And the relevant question is: do wp:rs's predominantly use "right-libertarian" to refer to it? And wp:rs's means practically every publication that refers to the subject. And the result was a resounding NO. Of the perhaps 1,000 references to the subject form of libertarianism, sources used "right-libertarian" 3 times and something else the other 997 times. .003 fails the test by miles for prevalent usage in sources. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:44, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
@North8000: How does that make your point? Maybe the problem is the way Right-libertarianism currently is; it should be more globalised, for instance merging Libertarianism in South Africa and Libertarianism in the United Kingdom into it. Libertarianism in the United States and Right-libertarianism aren't exactly the same thing, although there's some overlap. The thing is that so-called socially liberals and fiscally conservatives libertarians are really just liberals who call themselves libertarians due naming issues; and they make the majority of libertarianism in the United States. So your questions are wrong because I have never said that sources refer to libertarianism in the United States as right-libertarianism. Reliable sources refer to right-libertarianis as a set of philosophies that includes anarcho-capitalism, minarchism and other coservative/right-wing variants. Even if what you said is true, we include many articles about topics that the average person may have never hear about, but that doesn't mean they should be deleted. I disagree that wp:rs's means practically every publication that refers to the subject; not every publication is reliable, although sources defined as not reliable may be used in certain cases.--Davide King (talk) 23:39, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm here more to contribute than to "win", and so I won't repeat my assertions, including the onest that we seem to have started going in circles on. But I will address a few narrower points in your post. For better or worse, wp:RS includes nearly every published source. One could debate that should not be so. But for the purposes of addressing article naming, it's I think a fine guide in additional to being the official guide. It's really talking about prevalence in the hundreds of millions of mentions in every day sources, not looking for the handful of people who are trying to come up with names to divide libertarianism into. Second, I've not been advocating deleting the article. My original idea, and the one that I proposed again would be to reduce it to an article about the term. In the extensive work done in talk the group decided to rename the article (but not what to rename it to) and so I was following that consensus rather than my original idea. But with that decided-on part seemingly forgotten, that "article about the term" is looking good again. Finally, just in case I didn't do a good job of saying it, I really think that you are seeing this through two lenses. One lens is European in the sense that you keep asserting that, where European English conflicts with elsewhere that the European meaning is the correct one. E.G that American libertarians is an incorrect name for liberals. I think that that second lens is subtler......that of European academics trying to come up with names trying to group philosophies, and who see libertarianism as something that is thoroughly defined as philosophies (as it is in Europe) vs. across the pond where it is a giant vague phenomena which isn't, other than having a few general tenets. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:07, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
@North8000: As stated by Pfhorrest, that wasn't really following the guidelines, so I don't think there's any actual consensus to rename it. Either way, if you don't want to merge and make it mainly about the term as it is now, then I don't see what other compliants or chages you want to apply. I think the issue has been solved by removing part from Libertarianism in the United States that made me wrongly appear like it was the exact same thing (so now it seems to be only JLMadrigal that wants to delete or rename the page, or that has problems with right-libertarianism). I think both Left- and Right-libertarianism needs a new, from the scratch History section that isn't copied from other articles specifically about them (for instance, the Alliance of the Libertarian Left and its predessors, the history of the libertarian spectrum, what movements identified as left or right did, etc.) and maybe a section that talks about the libertarian left and right in general terms, perhaps discussion their relation with the New Left and the New right, respectively. Either way, I'm not using or seeing through any lens, I'm simply what what reliable sources have been saying, namely that American libertarianism, liberalism and conservatism are all part of the liberal tradition/school, although by no means all libertarianism is (some strands of left-libertarianism are well within the anarchist/libertarian socialist one, which already came out from liberalism itself and has been strongly beenn influenced by it but ultimately rejected it or went beyond it). I also think this discussion should be at Talk:Right-libertarianism since that seems to be the main issue. We can't remove left-libertarian and right-libertarian refernces and namings as long as there're articles about them, so why should we simply remove right-libertarian from the lead liek JLMadrigal is proposing? And I think they both should remain.--Davide King (talk) 14:55, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm away for the holidays so barely able to participate here but some quick comments.
The new template is far less objectionable but still not correct. There isn't a dispute about factual accuracy but rather about neutral phrasing. Also, as Davide already pointed out, nobody's claiming that right-libertarianism is just anything that isn't left-libertarianism, just that there are left and right sides of a spectrum of libertarian views.
Also as Davide points out above, there really was no consensus as wiki policy means the term to rename the article. If anything, there was a more proper consensus months ago to not rename the article.
Everything else I have to say is just stuff I've already said a million times before. It doesn't matter if almost all sources talking about "football" mean soccer, that doesn't mean that the article Football should be about that rather than about the whole varieties of things called football, or that there's anything wrong with the name "Association football" to distinguish soccer from other varieties of football, if that's what reliable sources making such a distinction, as we need to do, predominantly use. --Pfhorrest (talk) 20:46, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
The principal problems with the term "right-libertarianism" are that it is not commonly used, and that it implies identification with the political right (social conservatism) - which the described brand of libertarianism certainly doesn't. JLMadrigal@12:44, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
@JLMadrigal: Not only is that false but it's just further proof you don't understand the topic. There're indeed libertarians who identify with the political right or work within it and who are indeed social or cultural conservatives. That doesn't mean all libertarianism is, it's just a faction/variant/whatever you want to call it.--Davide King (talk) 14:38, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
In politics, (= talking about government) social conservative advocates increased governmental controls in social areas. This is the opposite of libertarianism. North8000 (talk) 14:57, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Divide, as mentioned above, the brand of libertarian that identifies with the political right already has an article, Libertarian conservatism. The term "right-libertarianism" as used in this article, and the misnamed "right-libertarianism" article, however, is inappropriately used to describe all self-identified libertarians except for those who still oppose property. JLMadrigal@23:52, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Libertarian conservatism is just an ideology, Right-libertarianism is a set of philosophies. You continue to not understand the topic despite Pfhorrest and I being clear about it; you have a bias towards capitalist private property. Many left-libertarians support property, they just have different views towards it and advocate different property rights, so what you wrote isn't only misleading but outright wrong. Even Marx and Engels wrote: “You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society.” Communists simply want to socialise property in both production and distribution; socialists mainly production (i.e. non-capitalist property norms, or usufruct). So the division isn't necessarely between propertarians and anti-propertarians.--Davide King (talk) 00:11, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Most libertarians don't want some Marxist bureaucracy dictating what types of property they can and cannot have. On the contrary, they just want to be left alone, and can see through collectivist propaganda. JLMadrigal@03:57, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
You continue to demonstrate that not only do you have no idea what you’re talking about but you can’t even understand attempts to explain to you what other people think.
But I guess I’ll give it another try anyway. Anti-propertarian libertarians —- who are not all left-libertarians or all libertarian socialists — are not necessarily collectivist, are anti-bureaucratic, and are definitely not dictating anything to anyone. Rather, they think that nobody should have the authority to dictate who may or not make use of (certain kinds of) things: which is to say they should not have enforceable claims to (certain kinds of) private property. A claim to private property is a claim that you get to dictate who may or may not use something. In the absence of all governance, everything is free for everyone to use, because nothing is prohibited. Propertarians want certain things prohibited that anti-propertarians think should remain permitted. Like walking across some parcel of land, which in the absence of all governance would be permitted of anyone, but a propertarian would have permitted only to one person, designated its owner, and his guests, but prohibited to everyone else. —Pfhorrest (talk) 05:48, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
That may all look good on paper, Pfhorrest, but hindsight is 2020. In a free-for-all situation, no one can stop a polluter from contaminating (reducing the value of) his property. Thus collectivist countries are cursed with an abundance of every form of contamination - and the bureaucracy necessary to collectivize property. No one can even build a structure with any confidence that his investment will pay off. P2P transfers of property, on the other hand, only require agreements between the immediate parties concerned. I understand Marxist idealism better than you think. But in the realm of libertarianism, antipropertarians have become an anomaly. JLMadrigal@13:28, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
You’re arguing that anti-propertarianism is a bad idea, which you’re free to do, but that’s different from misrepresentating what anti-propertarian libertarians believe. They are not necessarily in favor of “collectivism”, and they are against bureaucracy, and definitionally against “collectivized property” because they are against property in general. You can argue that that would lead to pollution etc and so would be a bad idea, but that’s the idea they support nevertheless. Your argument is formally akin to saying there’s no such thing as anarcho-capitalism because capitalism is a form if statism: and real anarchists would say yeah, capitalism is un-anarchist, but would not deny that there are people who are anti-state but pro-capital, just that those people’s ideas are bad. But it’s nevertheless the idea they support. —Pfhorrest (talk) 16:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
As correctly pointed out by Pfhorrest, you seem to believe as a ever lasting, natural fact in the tragedy of the commons, even when Elinor Ostrom was awarded the 2009 Nobel Prize in Economics for demonstrating how local communities were able to without top-down regulations or privatization. You seem to be taking it as a given that there must be a bureaucracy necessary to collectivize property. You seem to see it only through the lens of capitalist property rights, even when there're many other non-capitalist or anti-capitalist property rights. One could just as easily say that there must be a bureaucracy necessary to privatise property; indeed, that's exactly what we have. Not only just a burueacracy but a full-on state to protect all these rights; you simply cannot possible consider the fact that the propertyless people are coerced into this; you don't consider the state protecting private property rights as using "force" against the propertyless people. One could just as easily say that communism is the true advocate of freedom and property because it actually gives property to everyone; not only that but also the free access to the means of production. You also probably see collectivized property as the forced collectivisation in the Soviet Union. Later in his life, Engels argued that a program should be presented that foresees the development of agricultural cooperatives because "when we gain the power of the state, we will not be able to think of violently expropriating small owners, with or without compensation, as will instead be done with large owners. Our task will be to direct their individual production and their private property into a cooperative regime, without using force, but with example and help". You also seem to believe that from the start everything is or should be private property whereas even liberals like Locke argued that originally it was the commons; that God gave the Earth's resources to mankind. Indeed, what Locke was trying to do is to justify private property. Communists believe common property (free access) should be the norm; you and capitalists believe that it should be private property, even when many other people are actually propertyless. Even then, most communists and socialists aren't actually opposed to individual property, provided there's free access and one own it only for as long as one uses it. You simply assume that a bureaucracy is the only way to manage that; you just cannot think or imagine anything else, ignoring all thinkers and philosophies that have actually proposed solution to problems. You're free to think so, but you aren't free to use that as arguments; Pfhorrest is more neutral and knowledgable, so I suggest you to actaully read and reasearch the topic and then come back because otherwhise it merely looks like an "I don't like it".
Either way, I'm glad you started discussing again back at Talk:Right-libertarianism because that's where it should be discussed. I believe the template here is misleading and it should be removed because the issue seem to be mainly with using right-libertarianism, but as long as Right-libertarianism and Left-libertarianism are here I don't see why we shouldn't use the current wording.--Davide King (talk) 14:25, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
When one person owns something, he has an incentive to care for it and improve its value. When two people own something, the incentive is diminished by 50%. The greater the number of owners, the greater the tragedy. Simple math. Simple economics. Nevertheless, today's libertarians accommodate all views - even collectivism which is rapidly becoming akin to the flat earth minority. These "true believers" are certainly not half of libertarians anymore. They have become the fringe. JLMadrigal@01:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Well, that certainly doesn't always happen in real lfe, does it? Or was that not real captalism, or not true libertarianism or private propertarianism? Honestly, after this comment I'm done here. You're ideologically blind. I hope Pfhorrest can reply you though.--Davide King (talk) 10:25, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! "Ideologically blind" is the greatest compliment I could ask for. Most libertarians today are also ideologically blind. They don't push ideological agendas - as does the political left - and right. They just want politicians and utopianists to leave them alone. JLMadrigal@17:34, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure he meant "blinded by your ideology", not "blind to ideologies", though in effect those are the same -- just like everyone has an accent and those who think they "don't have an accent" are just ignorant of their bias toward their own accent, likewise everyone has an ideology, and those who think they "don't have an ideology" as just ignorant of their bias toward their own ideology. In the case of right-libertarians like you: you "just want politicans and utopianists to leave you alone", except to defend what you consider to be your property, despite others' claims to the contrary. --Pfhorrest (talk) 18:39, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
I count myself among the bulk of libertarians, who despise the political right (social collectivism) and the political left (economic collectivism), along with the influences of political ideologies (politics) in general, in favor of natural market processes and social interactions. I strive to be politically blind in the same way that markets are colorblind, &c. One can be more ideological or less ideological in the same way that one can be more religious or less religious, &c. JLMadrigal@19:45, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
That "natural market processes and social interactions" is where the bias gets baked in -- for you, or for anyone else who appeals to such a thing, even when those people disagree with you. What processes and interactions are "natural"? You have one idea of that, other people have other ideas, and both of those opinions constitutes an ideology. I expect your answer will be "uncoerced", but that just pushes the problem back further -- things that you think are "natural and uncoerced", others will see as the artificial product of coercion (like private ownership of the means of production). "Ideologically neutral" is really just a euphemism for "correct and undistorted", and of course everyone feels like their ideology is neutral, correct and undistorted, otherwise they would think differently -- just like everyone thinks their accent is the neutral, correct and undistorted accent, but nevertheless other people still disagree about that. --Pfhorrest (talk) 21:01, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
This discussion is now far away from the purpose of the Talk page, which is to discuss potential improvements to the article; it is not a forum for general discussion of the article subject. - Ryk7221:21, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
This is directly relevant to improvement of the article because it's about whether what Madrigal things is a neutral point of view actually is or not. --Pfhorrest (talk) 00:27, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
This Talk page is WP:NOTAFORUM for general discussion of the article subject. Focus on content, sources and policies & guidelines. Do not discuss other editors or their beliefs. - Ryk7201:09, 31 December 2019 (UTC)}}
We are focusing on content. Other editors and their beliefs are directly relevant to that, as the neutrality of this (and related) articles is the principle point of contention, so recognizing bias and how to avoid it is an important part of settling whether the article is actually neutral or not. --Pfhorrest (talk) 03:57, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Ryk72, I agree with Pfhorrest. The issue is that the template is used to push a POV and doesn't have an actual basis; it's an ideological POV-pushing that amounts to not liking the name and the user in question was clearly dismissive of both mine and Pfhorrest's attemps at explaining other forms of libertarianism. Either way, I already ended that discussion there and I didn't add anything as soon as you warned us, so I hope we're fine.--Davide King (talk) 15:04, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
The dispute has not been resolved, but the tag has unilaterally been removed because it is supposedly not the correct one. Although it is not accurate to term majority libertarianism as "right-libertarianism", It may technically be something other than "factual" accuracy (although that is disputed as well). The template will thus be replaced to one more to the liking of the disputants - unless edits bringing neutrality to the article (i.e. clarification of the term) - cease to be reverted. JLMadrigal@12:43, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
The tag at Right-libertarianism is more than enough and that's where the main issue is. As long as Right-libertarianism exists and reliable sources use this left–right libertarianism categorisation to refer to different variants and distinguish various forms of libertarianism, there's no need to change the current wording or pushing a POV by adding the unnecessary ideologies deemed by some to be which isn't supported by reliable sources.--Davide King (talk) 14:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
I have been forced to reinsert a dispute template. This time I am using a general disputed neutrality tag, which covers all bases. I hope we can resolve this soon. JLMadrigal@21:01, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
You have been forced to reinsert a dispute template? So now it's mine and the other two users, who rightly reverted you, fault too? As far as I know, these templates shouldn't be used just because you think something isn't neutral when you just don't like the name and reject any sources I presented to you, either ignoring them or arguing they're biased, etc. You need to give a valid reason and justification for that. As far as I'm aware, there's no consensus to support your proposals and indeed the consensus has been for months to keep the status quo, but you continued dragging this for months, making up new name proposals or tallies, not following the actual Misplaced Pages guidelines.
I'm just not seeing many people agreeing with you that there's a problem here. You've been arguing variations on this point for (as far as I can see) months, without getting anywhere. If you think you have a proposal that could reach a consensus, start an RFC; but otherwise, maybe it is time to WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on to other disputes. As it is, it seems to me fairly obvious from the sources that right-libertarianism is an established academic concept which the current article covers fairly excellently.
”
As far as I'm concerned, the current template is even worse and misleading because there's no neutrality issue; your simply want us to drop right-libertarian and your main issue isn't at Libertarianism but rather at Right-libertarianism; and as long as Right-libertarianism exists, you will have a problem at Libertarianism because it mentions it.--Davide King (talk) 21:40, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Davide, JLMadrigal put in a minor (and IMO good) edit to attribute the use of the term (vs. implying it's universality) and you reverted it which let back to this. North8000 (talk) 22:11, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
I've already explained why here. There's already the sourced phrasing Different categorizations have been used to distinguish various forms of libertarianism. There's no need to add that; reliable sources support that wording. Just because right-libertarians reject this categorisation, it doesn't mean we should be making sound like the term is never used as JLMadrigal implies. Many right-libertarians consider themselves the true libertarians; the same is for left-libertarians, so why not add that phrasing to left-libertarians too? Or maybe it was just an attempt to show that right-libertarian isn't a real thing, it's just a term used by academics, when it's not true. The simplest and easiest thing to do is to actually use the categorisation by reliable sources, whether they like it or not. It certainly seems to be only right-libertarians to dislike that and no one seems to worry that left-libertarians don't call themselves as such either, but JLMadrigal only cares about making sure right-libertarians aren't called as such, even when reliable sources call them as such. So again, this whole dispute is based on POV, at least regarding JLMadrigal; and so I think templates aren't justified.--Davide King (talk) 22:39, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Have you even read all that section and the responses? That's clearly not a thoroughly refut, with all due respect. Besides, that's not how Misplaced Pages works; Misplaced Pages works by consensus and you continue to ignore all the users who rejected the move back in July and more recently the merge, stating either that right-libertarianism is the common name or that there's nothing wrong with it/it's still the best common name.--Davide King (talk) 01:11, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Sourcing - Libertarianism & Anarchism
On review of the sourcing used in the article, I notice that there are a number of instances taken from sections or chapters of sources which have a primary topic of "anarchism". e.g. The Routledge Companion to Social and Political Philosophy; The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Thought. Those sources also appear to have separate sections on "libertarianism", which are not used. Why is this so? - Ryk7221:22, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
I also notice a number of other sources whose primary topic is "anarchism", not "libertarianism". Some of these do not seem particularly reliable. e.g. Cuban Anarchism, which is explicitly a "tribute" to Cuban Anarchists. - Ryk7221:24, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
@Ryk72: Thanks for your comments. As established by other sources, libertarian and libertarianism have been used as a synonym for anarchism and libertarian socialism. As for the source, left-libertarianim has also been used as a way to describe 19th century, classical libertarianism (i.e. anarchism) that is now classified as left-libertarianism and in that case it's referring to this; it just calls it left-libertarianism to distinguish it from right-libertarianism and then use the term left-libertarianism to refer to modern libertarian ideologies that are seen as part of this broad left-libertarianism. I don't know if I explained it well, let me know.--Davide King (talk) 21:36, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Appreciate the reply. I'm not certain, unfortunately, that that does explain things well. That the terms "libertarian" or "libertarianism" were used as a euphemism for "anarchism" may well be true; but to combine this with sources which primarily describe "anarchism", and ignore the portions of those sources which describe "libertarianism" (whatever that may be), and then use this combination as the basis for the article seems like synthesis. Probably worth discussing the use of the Routledge source in a separate section; which I've started, below. - Ryk7200:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
@Ryk72: Thanks again for your concers and comments. Anarchism and libertarianism, especially left-libertarianism, are interrelated. As far as I understand it, even if it use left-libertarianism in that case, it supports that phrasing and it's using left-libertarianism simply to distinguish it from right-libertarianism but I don't think there's really any controversy that libertarianism began as a left-wing and anarchist, communist thing/movement that by the late 19th century came to involve all anarchism, by the 20th century also libertarian communism/Marxism and non-anarchist libertarian socialism and by the mid-20th century also what has been called right-libertarianism (anarcho-capitalism, minarchism et all). I admit I'm not an expert with source/sourcing, so I could be wrong but I think the reason why is that is that libertarianism in that case is referring to what we have in Libertarianism in the United States. So what we do for Liberalism and Modern liberalism in the United States, the same is done for libertarianism, i.e. sources may simply say liberalism or libertarianism but it's made clear which tradition they're actually referring to.--Davide King (talk) 14:38, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
If a source says that Roquefort was developed in France, it is not for us to say that this applies to all cheese. It does not matter whether we personally consider there to be a controversy that libertarianism began as a left-wing and anarchist, communist thing/movement... or not; what matters is what reliable sources say, and we do not (yet?) have a reliable source which says such. We are, however, wandering blithely past the sections of sources which deal with "Libertarianism", in order to source the content of this article to sections of sources which do not (directly?) deal with "Libertarianism". That is not what policy says we should do. - Ryk7204:15, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
This article is primary source about the use of the term
This Misplaced Pages article is the main source of this original theory that conflates the polisemic term "libertarian" with the non-polisemic term "libertarianism". Where in the common use the anarchists (in the historical and left wing sense) or libertarian socialists use the term "libertarianism" to define their ideology?: In no place, they use anarchism or in last case libertarian socialism but never libertarianism. This article is an original essay where the author(s) expose how they think ideologies should be named and classified but not how they are actually named and classified in the common use. And that common use of libertarianism as a free market capitalism ideology is not only a reality in the US (the supposed US exclusivity of the use is another primary source theory of this Misplaced Pages article) but in all the American continent at least, you can consult "libertario" or "libertarismo" or "libertarianismo" in Google for Spanish and Portuguese results and what you will get are very predominantly free market capitalist descriptions of the terms (from places like Argentina, Chile, Mexico, Venezuela, Colombia, Brazil, and even in Spain that is in Europe). Maybe was just an US social movement in the 70s — like historical anarchism was a particularly French social movement in the 1880s before become international —, but now we are 50 years after that. --Hades7 (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
This was already opened by you and discussed in February 2019. I do not see anything new that has changed. This article includes both capitalist or right and socialist or left libertarian viewpoints. If you are asking us to make Libertarianism only about the American/capitalist/right viewpoint, which is what I seem to gasp from your comment, I do not think that is going to pass. For that free-market capitalist viewpoint, we already have Libertarianism in the United States (specifically about the United States) and Right-libertarianism (internationally). As noted by The Four Deuces in that discussion, modern American libertarianism developed out of 19th century libertarianism and retains some of its tenets, terminology and symbols. Hence it is both historically and philosophically related. This is why we mention both capitalist and socialist libertarian views.
I also agree with Finx's comment that the purpose of the article is to answer the question "what is a libertarian" – and I don't think that making some contrived distinction between "libertarian" and "libertarianism" helps to answer that question clearly. I think you are generally wrong about that as George Woodcock and others used libertarianism, certainly not to refer to the free-market capitalist viewpoint. Another relevant comment by Finx from that discussion which I believe is relevant is that here was a deliberate effort to hijack (or "capture" in the words of Rothbard) pivotal leftist terminology, with considerable success. I don't think we can just remove a syllable and eliminate that issue, somehow. I guess your argument is that socialist libertarians used libertarian rather than libertarianism and so libertarianism should only refer to the free-market capitalist viewpoint, but that is wrong because socialist libertarians have used libertarianism too.--Davide King (talk) 18:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
There wasn't any "libertarianism" in the 19th century. There was an anarchism in that century and not a "libertarianism". Libertarianism is a word and philosophy of the 20th century. This article is creating a use of words and philosophical classification where this Misplaced Pages article is the primary source. Eventualy this have to change, a primary source article couldn't be preserved forever.
Also, the neutrality of an article not implies equal importance of, in this case, a use of a word - a marginal use couldn't be in the same rank of common use. And, what is the most common use of the word libertarianism? Well, main sources and search point to a capitalist free market ideology and not to historical anarchism. You shouldn't construct an article founded on exceptions. --Hades7 (talk) 23:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
I think the comment that olitical descriptions in almost all cases were invented long after the ideologies they described had become established is spot on. I am not sure whether, for example, Locke called himself a liberal, yet he is widely considered to be the father of liberalism. I think the same thing applies to the 19th-century libertarian tradition. Anarchist, libertarian and liberal ideas go back to ancient history (see for example Laozi), but there are clearly timelines about when the actual movement truly developed and formed. I think the 19th-century libertarian tradition cannot simply be put away like that.--Davide King (talk) 00:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Hades7, first this article is not AN essay by any long shot. It is the product of about 13,000 article space edits plus 15,000 discussion page posts by hundreds of editors over 19 years of evolution, countless discussions and RFC's including a giant range war about a decade ago which I was the pseudo-mediator/moderator on. Most of the debates stemmed from people who figure that they know the one true meaning of libertarianism/libertarian and that all others are mistaken. The result of the rfc's including the mega rfc in particular is to acknowledge that there are widely varying strands of libertarianism and meanings of the term and that we are to cover and try to explain all of the significant ones. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:21, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
view · edit Frequently asked questions
