Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lockean One (talk | contribs) at 18:08, 5 March 2014 (→Remove Libertarian Socialism subsection?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

Significant problems with so-called "left-libertarianism" section

I feel like I'm beating the same drum over and over, but we've got problems here with a really incoherent narrative. I am referring to this section.

Once again, libertarian socialism has on its spectrum everything from anarcho-communism and anarcho-syndicalism to autonomism and council communism. It is simply not a movement of fair-day's-pay-for-a-fair-day's-work unions, centrist/center-left reformists who are just after "improving worklife"; it is not a movement for mere "wealth redistribution." It is not a US Democratic Party election campaign. It is an umbrella term for people who want a radical redistribution of productive power and authority and a radical transformation of the social and economic order. They want a different economic system - not just capitalism with a really great welfare state. They typically contemptuously dismiss, not "affirm" that "belief in self-ownership" and even oppose it strongly. Libertarian socialism is even generally recognized as distinct from 'democratic socialism' in that it's ultimately revolutionary in its purpose.

If there is a kind of "left libertarianism" (perhaps Georgism?) that exists outside of this very broad but distinct category, with definable features, that's great. We should describe it as a separate and distinct phenomenon.

So, whatever "left libertarianism" means (after trying to investigate I confess I honestly haven't got the inkling of a clue), we need to do one of two things - either:

- decouple it from the libertarian socialism, which is only united by the fact that they all say they want capitalism gone and generally have absolutely no moral systems based on principles of private ownership

- stop bowdlerizing the professed views of people who say they wish to wholly eliminate capitalism and abolish private property Finx (talk) 04:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

It is a term for people who believe that individual freedom is primary and see the state as an evil. Their writings were adopted by Rothbard, Hess and other modern writers. We use the terms left and right to distinguish between the original libertarianism and the version developed by these writers. TFD (talk) 05:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

So, to be clear, does original libertarianism include libertarian socialism-slash-communism or does it not? If it does, then I repeat that we ought to refrain from describing it as a moderate bunch of mild mannered reformists who (although committed to a "belief in self-ownership") want a wee little bit of "wealth redistribution" and "improv worklife" - as if they think the entrepreneurial John Galts of the world ought to just take more pity on the poor, and be more compassionate and generous. Finx (talk) 07:12, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but I didn't see the movie. But whether or not people are libertarianians is not something to be resolved through discussion, but based on sources. TFD (talk) 07:55, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

There's a movie? TFD, I'm not interested at all in "whether or not people are libertarians". I'm interested in not distorting history, misrepresenting facts and warping reality so much that reds come out looking right of Richard Nixon on the political spectrum. You know, the way that the article on abolitionism doesn't say that their goal was to make slavery kinder and more palatable, because to say anything other than the goal being to end slavery is dishonest. Which would you like referenced? The libertarian socialist opinion on ideologies claiming "wealth redistribution" will do the trick? What radical syndicalism means? Denunciation of self-ownership? All of them? If no one's got any idea, and can't make a distinction between the "left" and the other left, I guess I'll remove the section, on the grounds that it's clearly a bunch of nonsense. Finx (talk) 08:40, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Left-libertarianism includes libertarian socialism/communism, but also capitalist private property with--for lack of a better word--remuneration to the local community through taxation. Please see the Left-libertarianism for a more complete description. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 08:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

In other words, I take that to mean it's a flimsy, useless term with little to no meaning and we should probably avoid it in favor specificity - unless of course this only works with "right-libertarianism" which, in all its infinite complexity, can never be reduced to such pedestrian... one-dimensional language. Finx (talk) 09:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

They made "Who was John Galt?" into a movie. Anyway it is not up to us to correct "distorting history, misrepresenting facts and warping reality", just to report what reliable sources say. To be fair, right libertarians, such as Rothbard and Hess, acknowledge the libertarian tradition, which is why they decided to call themselves libertarians and "anarcho-capitalists." ("Anarcho" is short for anarchist.) TFD (talk) 09:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I know what "anarcho" means. Like I've said several times already, "reliable sources" say very clearly that libertarian socialists explicitly reject and oppose pretty much everything that section says they propound. Do you want them or no? I'm not buying this argument that you can slather a thin layer of Georgism on top of a giant heap of communists and then describe it as Goergism. It's like saying that the vehicles on the street have one wheel because there's ten thousand cars and one unicycle. The section is total garbage and needs to be clearly and exclusively related to Georgism/Steiner-Vallentyne or removed for being garbage. Finx (talk) 09:27, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

It does not matter what you buy. Someone else might say that you can't slather a thin layer of Emma Goldman on top of the Republican Party platform and call it libertarianism. But these conversations are more suited to blogs than to article talk pages. TFD (talk) 09:38, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

The section makes claims which are provably false and I am removing it now. Thank you. Finx (talk) 09:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

If you have a strong objection to this, I'll mark it disputed or something more appropriate. I have a vague hunch there's a WP policy somewhere that articles have to be factually accurate or at the very least internally consistent. e.g. if section 1 says thing is black, section 2 probably should not say thing is white. Finx (talk) 09:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Finx, could you please let us know what parts are provably false? I've recently worked on the Left-libertarianism article and I'm fairly certain all the necessary sources are there to support the claims made. Feel free to add a disputed template, but I've reverted the removal until such a time that the information is proven to be inaccurate. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

To me it's already very clear that the term "right libertarian" is worse than worthless. It really has no specific meaning, it's really nothing more than a two word sequence. I've sort of left it to the "left libertarians" to decide whether or not the same is true for the term "left libertarians". Perhaps we are seeing that here. North8000 (talk) 11:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Both terms have specific meanings, even though they may refer to a broad range of libertarians. Right-libertarians are those who value unfettered capitalism and private property without payment to those who are thereby disallowed access. They typically participate in parliamentary politics and include most of the US libertarians, both neo-classical liberals and anarcho-capitalists. Left-libertarians, on the other hand, believe there ought to be an egalitarian distribution of natural resources, be that the socialism/communism/syndicalism of traditional anarchism, the more market-oriented but still anticapitalist anarchism associated with folks like Gary Chartier and Charles Johnson, or the Georgist/Steiner-Vallentyne left-libertarianism that values private property, but with the caveat that payment is made to those who would otherwise have access to these resources. Left-libertarians also typically eschew parliamentary politics in favor of direct action. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, that particular definition of "right libertarianism" would mean that the most common form of libertarianism in the US is not "right libertarian". Where capitalism and private ownership are tacitly accepted and not a part of a libertarian "platform". North8000 (talk) 16:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. US libertarians don't need to explicitly value capitalism for the definition to remain accurate, and it is clear that, in use, the term right-libertarianism refers to exactly these libertarians. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:47, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

MisterDub, as I understand, you want me to reference my claim that libertarian socialism is not describable as Georgism. Since the section on "left-libertarianism" describes it precisely as such, I will provide references to contradict three claims made by that section about libertarian socialists. Should these references verify that:

• Libertarian socialists are not interested in mere "wealth redistribution"

• Libertarian socialists are not interested in merely "improving of work"

• Libertarian socialists are neither "committed to self-ownership" nor do they "affirm the belief in self-ownership"

- would you agree that the section is inappropriate? Finx (talk) 00:21, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

And just to be clear, if this section clarified that what's being described is non-socialist "egalitarian" trends in libertarianism instead pushing these tendencies on socialists, my objections to it are zero. It's not an excuse that some right wing reference out of several hundred comes from a source that obviously doesn't understand what socialism means. Finx (talk) 00:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Again this is not a blog, and we are not here to determined what should or should not be classified as libertarian. Read the policy on synthesis. Since you appear to be confused on this subject, I suggest you read up on it before making recommendations. TFD (talk) 00:41, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Again, if you'd bothered to read more than two words of anything I said, you'd probably understand by now than I do not care in the slightest "what should or should not be classified as libertarian"; the article is contradicting itself by making VERIFIABLY FALSE STATEMENTS according to reliable sources about the subject it describes, some already cited in the article. I know I'm speaking English and stringing together coherent sentences. What about this do you find so incredibly difficult to understand? Please familiarize yourself with WP policy on verifiability and factual contradictions between sources, and kindly don't waste my time by responding if you haven't read anything I said. Plugging your ears and accusing me of soapboxing doesn't eliminate the factual contradictions from this article. Finx (talk) 01:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

You are telling us what libertarian means, and why you don't think it applies to some of the groups listed, i.e., synthesis. This is not the place to discuss whether the experts are wrong. TFD (talk) 01:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I am telling you that socialists (according to reliable sources) are socialists and not self-ownership-affirming liberal welfare-state capitalists, as described in the section -- because you've got fifty sources saying that socialists are socialists, and one source throwing socialists in with self-ownership-affirming liberal welfare-state capitalists.

Do you understand what socialist means? How much explanation is required to figure this out? One source says penguins fly, twenty sources say penguins do not fly. This is not a matter of synthesis. Stop derailing this discussion if you've nothing at all of substance to say because you have trouble distinguishing between synthesis and a factual error. Finx (talk) 01:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

You should read "Synthesis", click here and you will be taken there. The purpose of talk pages is not to discuss what we think about topics. Articles are supposed to explain what sources say. If we think that the sources for libertarianism are mistaken, confused, etc., it is not our role to correct them.

As for your penguin analogy, arguing that penguins cannot be birds because they cannot fly would be an example of synthesis.

01:48, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Read the page I linked, explaining the difference between synthesis and a factual conflict between sources, and WP policy on what to do when sources disagree. If one source says that this, that, the other, and revolutionary socialists love them some capitalism, that doesn't mean you ignore the 5,000 other sources saying revolutionary socialists want to abolish capitalism. You don't change the part saying Spanish anarcho-syndicalists moved to abolish the capitalist system to say, instead, that they were laissez faire capitalists; you throw out the oddball reference as garbage or, at most, note it as someone's academic dissent. Can somebody with their blood pressure in normal range explain to this master logician why "all B are blue; B is an A; thus all A are blue" does not work in the simplest logical terms? Finx (talk) 01:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

As another Leftist libertarian, I can understand why it is so hard to get left or right wing libertarians sorted out. It is because Libertarian is one of the scales of the political compass. Authoritarian at the top, Libertarian at the bottom, Left on the left, Right on the right. Libertarians want "liberty". Leftist Libertarians want that liberty for individuals, but want companies regulated. Rightist Libertarians want liberty for companies but want individuals regulated. Centralist libertarians want freedom for both equally. For example, leftist libertarians may support same sex marriage as that is allowing an individual the freedom to follow their wishes whilst they may stand against a company from having the freedom to pollute. A right wing Libertarian may have no issue with a company polluting as the market would decide if that action is acceptable but they may have issues with same sex marriage. Both want less regulation, but not complete anarchism. The Libertarian party in the US is actually extreme right wing but not very libertarian (kind of like how the German Democratic Republic was far from Democratic). Have a look at http://politicalcompass.org/faq as it explains it pretty well with examples of politicians that occupy the spectrum. Infiltratr (Infiltratr) 02:31, 17 Feburary 2014 (UTC)

Let's try again

• The article, throughout, complete with references, states that libertarian socialism (run-of-the-mill anarchism, libertarian Marxism/left communism) wants to abolish capitalism and does not share the property-based moral framework of neoliberals/ancaps/etc

• The article, in the "left-libertarian" section states that the category "left-libertarians" includes libertarian socialists

• The article, in the "left-libertarian" section clearly states that "left-libertarians" want to maintain and reform, not abolish capitalism and that they are committed to the moral principle of self-ownership

• Thus, the article is simultaneously claiming that libertarian socialists both do and do not want to abolish capitalism while simultaneously affirming and rejecting propertarian principles

As this is a logical impossibility and a plain-as-day factual contradiction, how do you propose the article should resolve this? Finx (talk) 02:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The section "left libertarianism" does not say that they want to maintain capitalism or that they reject self-ownership. TFD (talk) 02:36, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, you're really not contributing anything to this until you can improve your reading comprehension. The section says they believe, affirm and are committed to self ownership -- as I've quoted half a dozen times now. That's the problem, as it's contradicted by other sources, and I can provide additional ones. Socialists almost universally do reject self-ownership (duh). It also says that they want "wealth redistribution" and "improving worklife" which is false. As I've said above, they want a revolution for 'productive power redistribution' instead of wealth and 'no bosses' instead of just better working conditions. Finx (talk) 02:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

By the same token, it would be erroneous (whether they're libetarians or not -- once again, I don't give a rat's ass about that) to say that Georgists want a revolution to take possession of all the means of production. It's descriptive one thing (revolutionary anarchism/marxism) which is (apparently) "left-libertarian" but it is not descriptive of Georgism. Is that synthesis too? Finx (talk) 02:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

You wrote that the section says, "clearly states that "left-libertarians" want to maintain...capitalism", now you say that the section "is contradicted by other sources." Which is it? There is no contradiction btw between socialism and self-ownership. But that is to digress into synthesis, which appears to be the basis of your arguments. TFD (talk) 03:06, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

No, what you're telling me is that you personally believe there is no contradiction between socialism and self-ownership. So far as most of the socialists you're referring to and scholars on the socialist movement, they do believe there is contradiction and say they reject dualism along with moral frameworks based on state legal principles, least of all property. Since you can't digest the most simple, straightforward statements and have done nothing but flood this conversation with irrelevant nonsense, apologies, I will not be reading any more of your worthless, confused posts. Finx (talk) 03:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Gerald Cohen wrote extensively about the importance of self-ownership, and his works are classics for libertarian socialists. Are you saying that he was not really a socialist, or not really a libertarian? TFD (talk) 03:56, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Cohen specifically rejected the Lockean concept of self-ownership, which is the way the term is used in this section. Lockean One (talk) 04:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree with Finx on this one (again, dammit!). This section not only misrepresents socialists, it also grossly misrepresents non-socialist left-libertarians. It's full of statements that appear to describe some strange hybrid of radically different philosophies while grossly misrepresenting each one of them. Lockean One (talk) 03:59, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, whether or not socialism requires a rejection of Lockean self-ownership (or something very much like it), it's clear that (for one reason or another) most socialists did and presently still do reject it. So, at the very least, we can't jump lump the majority in with the minority and say they all support it. Finx (talk) 04:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not most socialists reject self-ownership, the point is that libertarian socialists do not. While in your view that may disqualify them as socialists, that is pure synthesis. (I think it likely that as part of libertarian jargon it is ignored by non-libertarians.) TFD (talk) 04:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, they practically universally do. Sweet mother of... I offered you references like 30 posts ago. Do you want them or not? It's practically a tenet. I hesitate to say it's 100%, but certainly 99.9%. Finx (talk) 04:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Could you point to the posting - just provide the date. You mentioned that the Democratic Party platform is not libertarian. I agree, but it is not called libertarian in the article. TFD (talk) 04:58, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Libertarian socialists most certainly do (implicitly) reject Lockean self-ownership, as Lockean self-ownership means that individuals own their own labor exclusively, and may therefore trade or sell it as they see fit. Claiming collective ownership of the product of an individual's labor is anti-self-ownership in that sense, and obviously so. Lockean One (talk) 09:25, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the material about not abolishing capitalism should be removed. Self-ownership is trickier. Please provide the source/s and a quote of the material they are supporting so we can make a determination. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

It's more nuanced than that, but they generally reject it very explicitly as a carriage-before-horse reversal that puts social law concepts (property) before moral concepts (e.g. autonomy, self-determination, mutual aid) through what they see as a tortured form of ("me-and-myself") dualism. Depending on who's criticizing it, it can be denounced on the very grounds you describe: stable ownership of MOP being a right of exclusion, labor becomes a product rather than a process and thus people are actually deprived of the direct fruits of their labor (which is obvious, because they sell labor itself - whether or not that's just, moral, derived from rights, etc). Another common criticism is that rights are conferred, not natural and that they are inalienable in the sense that they cannot be transferred, bought or sold like a commodity, pointing to the history that the very idea of natural rights has been used for deeply reactionary purposes, like justifying chattel slavery. David Graeber's "Two notions of liberty revisited - or how to disentangle Liberty and Slavery" (referenced here and here) goes over this in some detail:

Historically, there is a simple—if somewhat disturbing—answer to this. Those who have argued that we are the natural owners of our rights and liberties have been mainly interested in asserting that we should be free to give them away, or even to sell them.

— David Graeber

Whole article is very much worth reading to get a grasp on what anarchists generally think of self-ownership (i.e. they don't). That said, it's not inconceivable to be a socialist dualist who thinks people own themselves. I'll come back when I have something for libertarian Marxism, but I expect it'll be just as explicit. Finx (talk) 10:09, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I just read it. To address only what you quote above, the classical liberals he references have not in fact asserted that we should be free to give away or sell our natural rights. A basic understanding of the concept of natural rights would preclude even thinking such a thing was even logically possible. That author is either purposely misrepresenting the views of classical liberals, or he is honestly so confused about them as to think that the term "natural rights" refers to contractual (conferred) rights to material goods or services (very common misconception). Either way, that article is complete bunk. Lockean One (talk) 17:32, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

My intention was not to get you to agree with him. Whether it's 'bunk' or 'not bunk', we are trying to assess anarchist views, and those are the views of an anarchist. Finx (talk) 19:07, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

My intention was not to point out that I disagree with him, but to point out that it's unfair and inaccurate to portray all anarchists to be as ignorant as Graeber. Intelligent and knowledgeable anarchists, unlike Graeber, understand the classical liberal concept of natural rights, even if they disagree with it. Lockean One (talk) 19:38, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Okay, well, thanks for that completely irrelevant assessment, I guess. Finx (talk) 20:17, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

See Chomsky's 2010 interview. "Self-ownership and self-management by workers and communities is a core commitment of libertarian socialism, especially its anarchosyndicalist wing, as of left Marxism and other left positions.... The idea of owning oneself in this interpretation simply a justification for robbing the public and concentrating on one’s own material gain. It’s unfair to Locke to attribute this to him." So both left and right libertarians support self-ownership but disagree in what it means. It would be tendentious to say that one side is wrong in its interpretation, that they do not actually support self-ownership and therefore are not libertarians. That is synthesis, and something to be discussed on blogs. TFD (talk) 18:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

You conveniently left out the part where he says "I’m not sure what you mean by 'self-ownership'", goes on to use it colloquially (i.e. like planes fly and submarines swim, people belong to themselves), and then corrects himself with "I wasn’t sure how you meant the phrase," says he now understands, and then goes on to denounce it. He defends classical liberals and pre-capitalists from appropriation by contemporary capitalists. He is not a pious disciple of John Locke; he believes he's misrepresented, same as Adam Smith and others. I disagree that what you're presenting is synthesis, though. I think this is more like willful distortion when you take quotes out of context and try to misrepresent what someone said. Do you want to read his writings on dualism? Finx (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's like referencing a source that refers to G. Gordon Liddy as a "plumber" to justify an article stating that he and Thomas Crapper did the same thing for a living. Such juvenile word play is good for a pun, but turns Misplaced Pages articles into massive clusterfucks. Lockean One (talk) 19:28, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The issue is that they do not hold the same view of self-ownership that you do. Chomsky for example would not agree that rights are alienable, and that to you means he cannot be serious about people owning themselves. If one cannot trade one's life or one's freedom, how can one be said to own oneself? After all slave owners who owned slaves were allowed to sell them or kill them. But it is not up to us to make the call that Chomsky cannot be a libertarian because he does not believe what we do. TFD (talk) 19:45, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

The issue is that you don't read and keep trying to wedge your opinions into a clear factual inconsistency in this article. You don't read. This makes communication difficult. Nothing -- and I mean nothing -- presently in the article deals with 'self-ownership' as the ability to act or mere self-determination, where you obviously would find support among any group of people, political or not, because it's incontestable. Anarchists talk about that, albeit under different titles like "individual autonomy". This Misplaced Pages article, however, deals with "self-ownership" exclusively as a property rights claim. So, even if through all this convoluted mess, you could find a single anarchist writer who uttered the words "self-ownership" -- not mockingly -- without having one's arm twisted or misunderstanding the question, it would not matter. It would not matter because most -- and once again, I can provide as many sources as you wish -- rail against self-ownership as it is described here. Therefore, even if Chomsky said he completely, 100% agreed with Rothbard's vision of self-ownership, the ridiculous statements above, about libertarian socialists all affirming, believing and being committed to self-ownership would be still clearly false. See above: just because "B is blue" and "B is an A" does not mean "all A are blue." So, you would be wasting everyone's time. Should you want to expand this article, to explain that there are completely different concepts one could mean by this problem expression, which just happen to sound alike -- please, go ahead and do the work. Otherwise, factual errors need to be removed, if you're done bloviating about how pointing out gross errors and discrepancies in a Misplaced Pages article belongs on a blog somewhere. Finx (talk) 20:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

All we have is your opinion that libertarian socialists do not support self-ownership and therefore are not libertarians. That's the sort of discussion you should have with like-minded people on blogs. But it does not help us here, because content is based on sources not the opinions of editors. TFD (talk) 20:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, thanks to your lenient approach to reading your own references, we're off to a good start on those sources, considering you just provided two of them. Here's a few more:

This concept of liberty is usually termed “self-ownership.” But, to state the obvious, I do not “own” myself, as if were an object somehow separable from my subjectivity — I am myself (see section B.4.2). However, the concept of “self-ownership” is handy for justifying various forms of domination and oppression — for by agreeing (usually under the force of circumstances, we must note) to certain contracts, an individual can “sell” (or rent out) themselves to others (for example, when workers sell their labour power to capitalists on the “free market”). In effect, “self-ownership” becomes the means of justifying treating people as objects — ironically, the very thing the concept was created to stop! As anarchist L. Susan Brown notes, “t the moment an individual ‘sells’ labour power to another, he/she loses self-determination and instead is treated as a subjectless instrument for the fulfilment of another’s will.”

— An Anarchist FAQ - link

So the logic is simple, you cannot really own something unless you can sell it. Self-ownership is one of the cornerstones of laissez-faire capitalist ideology. Therefore, since you own yourself you can sell yourself.

— An Anarchist FAQ - link

I conclude that socialists must reject self-ownership

— Gerald Cohen

Cohen, G.A. (1995). Self-ownership, freedom, and equality (1. publ. ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 94. ISBN 9780521477512.

The indicated conclusion is that, for real freedom, or autonomy, to prevail, there have to be restrictions on self-ownership. That is ironical, since it is autonomy that attracts us to self-ownership, through a disastrous misidentification. The very thing that makes the self-ownership thesis attractive should actually make us reject self-ownership. The natural next step is to ask what kind and degree of control over external things a person must have to enjoy autonomy and then to ask whether such control is compatible with socialist equality.

— Gerald Cohen

Goodin, Robert E. (2007). Contemporary political philosophy : an anthology (2. ed., 3. . ed.). Malden, MA : Blackwell. p. 423. ISBN 9781405130646. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

So, with that finally put to rest, unless you want more, how do you plan to fix the erroneous statements in the article? Finx (talk) 21:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

And you still seem to be confused about what I'm saying, probably on account of only reading your own posts. My assertion is not that libertarian socialists are not libertarians. My assertion is that socialists are not capitalists -- apparently, a very controversial claim. Finx (talk) 21:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

While it makes your point, I can't help but see the humor in that first quote, where it takes the colloquial expression of someone "selling themselves" so absurdly literally as to imply that what is actually being transferred is ownership of their "self", instead of ownership of the product of their labor. That's some funny stuff there! Lockean One (talk) 22:53, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

And you are sharing your views with us again, why? Finx (talk) 23:39, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

You post funny shit, I comment that it's funny shit. You'll get over it. Something else that's funny and relevant to the reliability of the source is that it has a socialist complaining that a non-socialist ideology is "handy for justifying various forms of domination and oppression". Seriously. Lockean One (talk) 01:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

{outdent}Those quotes out of context and do not tell the full story. Cohen may have said "I conclude that socialists must reject self-ownership", but that was after arguing that Marx had based socialism on self ownership. the Anarchist FAQ does not deny that people own themselves, it merely questions the interpretation of right-libertarians. (Lockean One, Nozick argued that people have the right to sell themselves into slavery.)

TFD (talk) 23:44, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

LOL, did I claim otherwise? The quotes above were referring to people accepting a normal job, not selling themselves to slavery. Is it really that hard to comprehend and keep up? Lockean One (talk) 02:13, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I give up. Forget I said anything. You beautiful people just do your thing. Finx (talk) 10:36, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Finx, I think you may be overstating your case here, but I generally agree that self-ownership is a loaded word for us libertarian socialists. I see Somedifferentstuff has removed this term from the "Left-libertarianism" section (despite it being in the sources)... does this assuage your concerns? Or, as I previously suggested, would individual sovereignty, autonomy or another word fix this issue? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:51, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

MisterDub, it wasn't in the source which is why I removed it. That source is still being used in the article, have a look for yourself. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:56, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

It's not in Chartier's article, but was in other sources: "Over the past few decades, there has been increasing interest in left-libertarianism, which holds (roughly) that agents fully own themselves and that natural resources (land, minerals, air, and the like) belong to everyone in some egalitarian sense." Vallentyne, Peter; Steiner, Hillel; Otsuka, Michael (2005). "Why Left-Libertarianism Is Not Incoherent, Indeterminate, or Irrelevant: A Reply to Fried". Philosophy and Public Affairs (Blackwell Publishing, Inc.) 33 (2). Retrieved 07/23/2013. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 00:07, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

MisterDub, I think we should summarize what the sources say, and the sources say socialists flatly reject the neoliberal interpretation of self-ownership and simply don't focus on or much care about any other kind. Like I tried to explain, most of the confusion stems from conflating the revolutionary/anticapitalist left and the reformist/capitalist "left" which is why you have a section talking about how they aspire to achieve wealth redistribution. Finx (talk) 18:42, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a proposal or suggestion? I understand what you're saying, but it doesn't help unless we have something concrete that you (and presumably Somedifferentstuff) will accept. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:01, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest distinguishing Georgists (and similar) from socialists, if that's what we believe left means according to credible sources. It's a very flimsy term. Go far enough back and someone like Tucker would have been relatively 'right'. Something like "X accept self-ownership and want more equitable distribution or resources under the capitalist system, while Y wants to remove that system and replace it with another". Obviously not phrased like that, but so long as the meaning is clear. I can make and source some small edits, and if they don't stick that's fine. I just wasn't going to bother if no one even sees a problem here. Finx (talk) 22:26, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

I have composed a new lead for the Left-libertarianism article that hopefully resolves the recently expressed issues.

Left-libertarianism (or left-wing libertarianism) names several related but distinct approaches to politics, society, culture, and political and social theory, which stress both individual freedom and social justice. Left-libertarians simultaneously value leftist commitments to improving worklife, promoting environmental well-being, and wealth redistribution; and the libertarian commitments to just possessory claims, free markets, and diminution or elimination of government power. Unlike right-libertarians, they believe that neither claiming nor mixing one's labor with natural resources is enough to generate full private property rights, and maintain that natural resources (land, oil, gold, trees) ought to be held in some egalitarian manner, either unowned or owned collectively.

Left-libertarianism can refer generally to three related and overlapping schools of thought:

• Anti-authoritarian varieties of left-wing politics and, in particular, the socialist movement, usually known as libertarian socialism.
• The Steiner-Vallentyne school, whose proponents affirm the classical liberal belief in self-ownership, but derive from this idea an egalitarian form of ownership of natural resources.
• Left-wing market anarchism, which stresses the socially transformative potential of non-aggression and anticapitalist, freed markets.

Changes include:

• Removed self-ownership from list of left-libertarian commitments (aping the changes made by Somedifferentstuff to the summarized section in this article)
• Changed the wikilink for diminution to point to Minarchism instead of Limited government
• Removed claim that left-libertarians affirm self-ownership, instead relying on the subsequent statement that they argue against full private property rights
• Changed the list item detailing the Steiner-Vallentyne school of left-libertarianism to include self-ownership and the derived egalitarian distribution of resources
• Removed overabundance of citations for the Steiner-Vallentyne school

Please let me know what you think. Thanks! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:21, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Much better already, in my opinion, provided it's fair to non-socialists. Finx (talk) 14:09, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

That statement is obviously not accurate about any one of those three ideologies listed, especially Steiner-Vallentyne left-libs. And especially with "wealth redistribution", which they do not believe in in the normal sense (taking property from one to give to another). It's also not clear in that section that Steiner-Vallentyne left-libertarians do believe in "full private property rights", as long as natural resource appropriation is "paid for" (taxed/society compensated). In other words, they are not socialists. You just can't lump socialists and non-socialists together and try to make those kinds of statements about them and have it be accurate. Like Finx pointed out, they are profoundly different and opposing ideologies. And that section grossly misrepresents them all. Lockean One (talk) 22:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Possibly the term Left Libertarian" has similar problems to the term "Right libertarian" but not as severe. With "right libertarian" the meanings are so numerous and so ad hoc that it is near-useless. It looks like with "Left Libertarian" there may be a few different meanings. If so, IMO coverage should acknowledge that it is a term which revers to differing forms of libertarianism, not a form of libertarianism North8000 (talk) 15:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree, except that the term "libertarianism" itself suffers from the same problem: it refers to two different mutually exclusive general ideologies, which should not be confused with each other, while this article purposely confuses them. Lockean One (talk) 21:37, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that there are some common tenets....do you agree? But either way I think that we can and should inform rather than conflate them. I think that we have been sort of doing that (?) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:58, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure there are common tenets on some (social) issues not discussed in this article (civil libertarianism), but the tenets of socialism and classical liberalism referred to in this article are irreconcilably different. Finx had this 100% correct: classical liberals are not socialists and socialists are not classical liberals. And this section, like much of the article, fundamentally misrepresents them both. Lockean One (talk) 23:54, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

The common tenets that I had in mind are prioritizing personal liberty and freedom from coercion. North8000 (talk) 21:54, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree they share those tenets to a large degree on non-economic issues not discussed in this article, but on economic issues, those phrases are merely used by each side to refer to radically different tenets. On economic issues, it is merely the terms used to describe their tenets, not the tenets themselves substantively, that they have in common.. Lockean One (talk) 04:33, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

How about another somewhat more specific one, (prioritizing) reducing government (including in some stands, reducing to zero)? North8000 (talk) 14:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd say that's in name only, too. Prohibiting private production and wage labor, controlling all means of production, etc are by definition "government" (even if controlled democratically). Those "democratic municipalities", etc, as described by socialists, are (mini) states, just called by another name. With far more "state-like" power over individuals (economically) than any currently existing state. Lockean One (talk) 07:47, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Articles can be about an underlying topic, about a term, or about a set of topics falling under that term and related enough so that at least at first blush / common usage the are about a topic. (even if not technically the same) At this article we have a "big tent" and that is what solved the bonfire 3-4 years ago. But when you get into strands that advocate government prohibition of all of those things, I'm thinking that maybe those are outside of even that big tent. Possibly, if those narrow exceptions are most commonly known by a different term (e.g. "libertarian xxxxxxx") those few might just have a disambig and link at this article? North8000 (talk) 13:34, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree completely. All ideologies should be covered accurately, and that requires such disambiguation. But disambiguation, even within the article, seems to have a lot of opposition here. Equivocation is rampant throughout the article and defended vociferously. Lockean One (talk) 21:59, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I think that "disambiguation" can mean three different things.

1. Clear delineation/separation/coverage within the "Libertarianism" article.
2. Removing or drastically minimizing coverage of some strands in the "Libertarianism" article and sending the readers elsewhere for coverage of them.
3. Changing the whole "Libertarianism" article into a disambig page.

I think that there is strong support for the delineation under #1. I don't think tat there is support or viability for doing #2 in any big way or for #3. But my previous comment was probing the idea of doing #2 for a 1-2 very specific cases. North8000 (talk) 23:18, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Even #1 would be a huge improvement, but it seems to have a lot of opposition, too. And I agree that #2 is appropriate for a couple of cases, those where the term "libertarian" itself is used to mean something completely different from how it is defined at the top of the article. But either way, this problem simply can't be fixed as long as there is a consensus among active editors to insist on ambiguity, equivocation, and obviously misleading statements. Lockean One (talk) 00:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I assume that you're talking about the left libertarian discussions. I don't have the expertise to have helped there, but I haven't seen any resistance to clarity overall here. I've been a slightly tiny bit moderator here since back when it was still in flames 3-4 years, and I think that there are many watchers here who support clarity and accuracy. North8000 (talk) 02:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

As an example of an insistence on equivocation, ambiguity, synthesis, poor sourcing, and even faulty grammar, multiple attempts to remove, change the wording of, and add clarity to the last sentence in the first paragraph of the lead were strongly opposed. The equivocation is obvious with the definition switch, it synthesizes multiple sources to imply a position not stated in any of them, and the faulty grammar was defended on the basis that "that's the way socialists say it". Yes, that's just a single example, but it's representative of much of the article and makes the point that accuracy, clarity, and Misplaced Pages policy are trumped by a consensus to preserve such nonsense. And any attempt to discuss such problems on this talk page is derailed with a passion. "Resistance to clarity" is a massive understatement. Lockean One (talk) 11:42, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Well let's actually deal with / discuss that sentence. I never noticed the debate. But when I look it it, I see (in summary form) noting the views of strands of libertarianism in areas that they are different / conflict. And, dissecting it, I see about 6 explicit and implicit statements in there:

1. Some libertarian strands are supportive of laissez-faire capitalism
2. Some libertarian strands are supportive private property rights in areas where they differ such as in land and natural resources,
3. Some libertarian strands oppose private property rights in areas where they differ such as in land and natural resources,
4. Some libertarians strands oppose capitalism
5. Some libertarians strands oppose private ownership of the means of production and advocate their common or cooperative ownership and management
6. (vague) Some or all of the latter strands are libertarian socialism

What do you see as the problem with the sentence? North8000 (talk) 15:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, I will try to detail the numerous problems with it:

First, the term "libertarian" has a different definition in the second part of the sentence than in the first. The structure, "Some libertarians......, while others....." is a textbook example of fallacious equivocation.

Second, the definite article "the" means "particular ones", not "any" (indefinite). Use of the definite article "the" means that the answer to the question "which means of production" has been clearly specified, and the answer is not "any". Socialists in fact oppose private ownership of any means of production, including any not yet built, not just "certain particular specified ones". The fact that socialist propaganda uses the term "the", either due to ignorance, confusion, or fraudulent purposes, is irrelevant. Misplaced Pages should use correct grammar to accurately state their beliefs (except in quotes), whether they do or not. And while this may seem nit-picky, the improper use of the definite article "the" dramatically changes the meaning of the statement in a way that's misleading, confusing, and/or fraudulent, depending on the motive. Opposing my ownership of a particular shovel, or particular shovels, is very different from opposing my ownership of any shovel at any time.

Third, the sentence falsely implies that classical liberals advocate private ownership/oppose worker ownership of (indefinite) means of production. Classical liberals simply do not advocate determining ownership retroactively. or one way or the other. Determination of ownership of a factory is a prerequisite to it's existence, not a consequence. Non-socialists simply do not treat the product of labor, such as a factory, as if it is a natural resource that exists prior to determination of ownership. This concept is semantically dodged by the use of the term "the" instead of "any" as noted above, falsely implying that we're referring to things that "just exist" instead of things that are built for a purpose.

Fourth, the phrase "such as in land and natural resources" falsely implies that labor-created property is secondary, when in fact it's the primary difference between classical liberals and socialists. It should read "especially labor-created property" instead.

Fifth, the statement falsely implies that laissez-faire capitalism is a tenet of classical liberalism, instead of a consequence of liberty and Locke's labor theory of property. Laissez-faire capitalism, unlike socialism, is not a function of government or the equivalent, it's not a "system" at all in the strict sense of the word ("coordinated scheme") like socialism is. It exists because it is permitted, not because it is chosen politically.

I'm sure I haven't adequately explained all the problems with that sentence, but I can clarify if needed. Lockean One (talk) 00:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

You are good at this and at precise analysis of and use of the written word. I think that I agree with 95% of everything that you just wrote. My one quibble is that strands of libertarianism do vary, it is probably an unuseful overreach to call that variation "different definition" and/or if you do characterize it as that, that IMO what you are pointing out in that area is not a flaw.

I think that with your "tenet of classical liberalism" you are pointing to one recurrent problem here, which is attempting to describe Classical liberalism / US style libertarianism through the lens of "left" libertarianism Specifically, if a tenet of a strand of left libertarian opposes XYZ, and a US strand of libertarianism has no comment on it, those "left" libertarians will tend to mistakenly say that being in favor of XYZ is a tenet of that US libertarianism strand. This is faulty. North8000 (talk) 14:11, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you nailed it with the "lens" except that I would say "lens" of socialism instead of left-libertarianism, since the latter is commonly used by non-socialists to refer to (classical liberal) libertarian strands who do not use such a lens. But I don't think we have that "quibble" you refer to at all, since I agree fully that libertarians do vary significantly. I was not using the phrase "different definition" to refer to such variation. I was using it to refer to its use by socialists as a synonym for "social anarchism" instead of the philosophy of libertarianism as described by mainstream encyclopedic sources. And given that those are not only different but mutually exclusive and virtually polar opposites, "different definition" seems to be an understatement.

Also relevant is the nature of the sources used. The reliable sources, such as Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Britannica, etc., describe libertarianism (including left-libertarianism) clearly in their articles on libertarianism such that it excludes socialists. This is the general case for legitimate encyclopedic sources, including all major widely respected encyclopedias. The sources that use the term libertarian to refer to socialists are obscure biased "questionable sources" (per WP policy), not reliable sources, except as sources for their own beliefs. Certainly when sources directly contradict each other, legitimate encyclopedias should take precedence over obscure biased sources. And note that I'm not referring to statements about the beliefs of socialists supported by those biased sources, such as "some socialists self-identify as libertarians", I'm referring to statements that directly contradict legitimate encyclopedias, such as "some libertarians oppose XYZ" where XYZ is exactly what libertarians universally support, and is in fact what constitutes libertarianism, according to all legitimate encyclopedias. Lockean One (talk) 17:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

More good thoughts. Now to crystallize something out of it for the article. Are you essentially saying that libertarian socialist are not libertarian, even by a "big tent" standard? North8000 (talk) 19:02, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

That's right, as it pertains to this article. They are anti-libertarian according to the main definition used at the beginning of this article and according to any legitimate encyclopedia's article on libertarianism. They are only "libertarian" according to their own contradictory internal definition (using biased socialist sources), which itself consists of restricting the actions of others (private production, wage labor, etc), anti-libertarian by definition.

Also, it seems that many here want to improperly treat the term "libertarian" as if it's a proper noun that should be used by others to refer to anyone who appropriates it, instead of a common noun with a stated definition. This is evidenced by the fact that many seem to consider "self-identification" to be relevant instead of the word's stated definition, predictably resulting in much of the article being logically incoherent. Lockean One (talk) 01:57, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, regarding potential action items, I guess one would be to remove libertarian socialism from the article, or briefly note it with a link. Aside from the types of arguments that you made, there is the simpler one, which is to go by the noun, which is socialism, not libertarianism. What do others think? North8000 (talk) 19:45, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd say everyone else forgot about this section already and aren't reading it, since there haven't been any comments lately except ours. That would also explain why our recent discussion wasn't derailed. Lockean One (talk) 02:37, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm only going to be about 1/4 on Misplaced Pages for the next 6 days. Although there are lots of people complexities and differing thoughts, I don't think that the situation is as bad here as you think. I'll put it in the edit summary to see if we can get more input. North8000 (talk) 19:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Occupy Movement

I would like the communities thoughts regarding removing the "Occupy Movement" from the Libertarianism page. The Occupy Movement does not represent Libertarian ideology and should not be considered a sub-group. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.170.223.88 (talk) 04:14, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Unless I'm missing something, I don't think that they even self-identify as that. North8000 (talk) 13:00, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

From Occupy Wall Street: "David Graeber has argued that the Occupy movement, in its anti-hierarchical and anti-authoritarian consensus-based politics, its refusal to accept the legitimacy of the existing legal and political order, and its embrace of prefigurative politics, has roots in an anarchist political tradition. Sociologist Dana Williams has likewise argued that 'the most immediate inspiration for Occupy is anarchism,' and the LA Times has identified the 'controversial, anarchist-inspired organizational style' as one of the hallmarks of OWS." -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

So they don't self identify themselves or their objectives as libertarian. They don't even self identify themselves or their objectives as anarchist. We just have a few authors saying it has some things in common with anarchism, and one saying that it has "roots" in anarchism, whatever that means. Maybe it would be good to keep it in, I dunno. But the case for inclusion looks a little weak and is certainly not so strong that you can call those feeling otherwise "ignorance" per your edit summary. North8000 (talk) 16:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

No one said they self-identified as libertarians or anarchists. Occupy Wall Street is merely a contemporary movement that has significant correlations with libertarianism/anarchism, owing to a substantial libertarian/anarchist population, which have been noted by many. The Tea Party movement is similar, though with respect to neoliberals. If you're not aware of these facts, you're ignorant. There's just no other word for it. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:18, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

MisterDub, you are the most variable editor I've ever seen, ranging from friendly and collaborative to out-of-line insults and nastiness towards other editors. I'll just ascribe the above out of line "ignorance" comments (and your just saying that you "left Misplaced Pages because its editors are idiots") to the latter and just ask if we can have the other Misterdub back?  :-) North8000 (talk) 14:57, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

This isn't the anarchism page. Just because libertarian anarchism is covered doesn't mean anarchism is general should be. Having Occupy here is a joke. Scott Illini (talk) 05:37, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

"Objectivism" section of this page

The "Objectivism" section of this page has two requests for citations. I do not know how to enter these. The first citation is covered by David Kelley's book The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand and the second citation was originally covered in Leonard Peikoff's lecture series The Philosophy of Objectivism and later by his book Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. If a Wikipedian would be helpful and create those citations for this unskilled reader, the requested citations will have been supplied.174.65.105.116 (talk) 12:25, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Remove Libertarian Socialism subsection?

Please see discussion above and requests for input above and in edit summaries over the last few weeks. Goethean, if you have a rationale (besides your usual behavior towards me) that you haven't elucidated, plus do so. Also we continue to request input on this; none was received for weeks despite explicit inquiries, and the page has 937 watchers. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

It is extremely unfortunate that you continue to comment on contributors rather than on content, despite having been threatened with a block for doing the exact same thing at the exact same article. Please honor WP:AGF.

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

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

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

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

Why don't you stick to the topic. And comments were requested multiple times after a consensus was reached in the discussion and you didn't respond for weeks and then then reverted when I made the edit. North8000 (talk) 00:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

Also "Related to" libertarianism is not really the standard for inclusion of substantial coverage; "Is libertarianism" is. And going by Goethean's analogy, the noun in "compact car" is still "car"; the noun in "libertarian socialism" is "socialism". North8000 (talk) 12:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

It should be kept. It is the original form of libertarianism that Rothbard, Nolan and Hess adapted. Bascially they accepted the libertarian view of individual freedom, but argued that could only be achieved if private property existed. Their writings are full of references to these writers, and they even use their anti-statist rhetoric. Compare with socialism. We do not airbrush Marx out because member parties of the Socialist International accept private property.

Jeff Riggenbach of the Ludwig von Mises Institute explains the connection. "Kropotkin himself played no small part in bringing about. In the later years of the 19th century, his was one of the most influential of the voices raised in support of the economic absurdity of abolition of private property and the rule of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Nonetheless, Peter Kropotkin is one of the half-dozen cases of famous anarchocommunists that I would say are worth a second look if you're seeking candidates for places in the libertarian tradition. I've previously said as much about Rudolf Rocker and Emma Goldman; I say it now about Peter Kropotkin. Not only did Kropotkin awaken pretty quickly to the folly of his early admiration for violence and force, but he was arguably the first to enunciate and systematically defend what has since become one of the key ideas of modern libertarianism."

TFD (talk) 14:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

User:The Four Deuces, I hate to ask such a simple question in light of that large amount of information, but IMO (in the context of history here) this is what it really boils down to. In your opinion, is Libertarian Socialism a form of libertarianism? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:08, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

It is the original form and in addition should be included because of its influence on modern U.S. libertarianism. TFD (talk) 02:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks. North8000 (talk) 02:21, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I strongly object to the removal of the Libertarian socialism section. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 02:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

If you want to think that the Plymouth and Jamestown colonies were libertarian, that is fine. But it is not what most sources say. Most sources see modern libertarianism as having developed in the 19th century, although it claims precursors including some of Locke/s views. I think you are confusing the term with liberalism. TFD (talk) 06:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I was confusing nothing, libertarianism in the normal sense is a continuation of classical liberalism. Lockean One (talk)

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

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

Lockean One, your arguments may very well be absolutely correct, or absolutely correct within a particular framework. But our standard here has been to lean towards inclusion where there is a substantial argument / sourcing for saying that it is a form of libertarianism. What would you say about the above in the context of that framework? North8000 (talk) 15:02, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

No one has provided any substantial case for it, only sidetracking/personal opinion at best. No legitimate encyclopedia/unbiased source supports it. And it makes the article self-contradictory and logically incoherent, not to mention just plain laughably absurd in places. Lockean One (talk) 15:47, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

You're substituting your confusion for a valid argument. Nevertheless, you don't have consensus to remove the material. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 17:56, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Complete nonsense. No legitimate unbiased source supports calling "libertarian socialism" a form of libertarianism. And you know it. Lockean One (talk) 18:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Remove Libertarian Capitalism subsections?

Looks like a lot of scholars seem to think it's a really bizarre oxymoron. Should we delete all the libertarian capitalist sections, including stuff on Ayn Rand (who despised the new right worse than communists), Hayek, Mises, Ron Paul and all that Austrian heterodox silliness? I'm not sure it meets notability standards. Finx (talk) 03:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

You can't be serious. North8000 (talk) 10:58, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Took the words right out of my mouth. Finx (talk) 15:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem removing all references to capitalism in the article. Capitalism obviously isn't a "form of libertarianism", nor is it a tenet of libertarianism. There is no need to mention a specific type of activity people might engage in if free to do so. The Stanford source, among other legitimate sources, does a great job describing libertarianism without mentioning capitalism. You have my vote. Lockean One (talk) 15:53, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Cite error: There are <ref group=note> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=note}} template (see the help page).

1. Chartier, Gary (11/05/2012). "The Distinctiveness of Left-Libertarianism". Retrieved 07/23/2013. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= and |date= (help); Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
2. Vallentyne, Peter; Steiner, Hillel; Otsuka, Michael (2005). "Why Left-Libertarianism Is Not Incoherent, Indeterminate, or Irrelevant: A Reply to Fried" (PDF). Philosophy and Public Affairs. 33 (2). Blackwell Publishing, Inc. Retrieved 07/23/2013. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
3. ^ Hamowy, Ronald. "Left Libertarianism." The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism. p. 288
4. Bookchin, Murray and Biehl, Janet (1997). The Murray Bookchin Reader. Cassell: p. 170. ISBN 0-304-33873-7
5. Hicks, Steven V. and Shannon, Daniel E. (2003). The American journal of economics and sociology. Blackwell Pub. p. 612.
6. Vallentyne, Peter (September 5, 2002). "Libertarianism". In Edward N. Zalta (ed.). The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2009 ed.). Stanford, CA: Stanford University. Retrieved March 5, 2010. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Check date values in: |year= / |date= mismatch (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
7. Will Kymlicka (2005). "libertarianism, left-". In Ted Honderich (ed.). The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. New York City: Oxford University Press.
8. Chartier, Gary. Johnson, Charles W. (2011). Markets Not Capitalism: Individualist Anarchism Against Bosses, Inequality, Corporate Power, and Structural Poverty. Minor Compositions. pp. 1-11. ISBN 978-1570272424

• 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