Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lockean One (talk | contribs) at 08:29, 20 March 2014 (→Possible solution for lead: new section). 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.

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)

Which is another way of saying that some sources do call it that. — goethean 18:14, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, biased sources that should not be used to trump legitimate reliable sources, which define libertarianism in a way that logically excludes socialists. Lockean One (talk) 20:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Clarifying what Ayn Rand opposed

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

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

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

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

To this day, the Ayn Rand Institue keeps the faith with Rand's libertarian-bashing, carrying on its Web site a page of excerpts from Rand's lectures in which she bad-mouthed libertarians. ... There's also a passage from 1973, in which she called the Libertarian Party a 'cheap attempt at publicity' that would not succeed, and said that libertarians were her 'enemies' and were 'plagiarizing my ideas.'

— Weiss, Gary (2012). Ayn Rand Nation: The Hidden Struggle for America's Soul

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

I think a simple noting that it was about the libertarianism of the time, which infers / reminds the readers of that limitation, is simplest and best. It does not introduce any additional assertions. North8000 (talk) 04:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Yes, it very obviously does introduce unnecessary assertions. It insinuates that she would have approved of contemporary new-right/neoliberalism under the libertarian banner, which there is absolutely no basis for insinuating. It's like noting that McCarthy disliked the communism "of that period" - a totally ridiculous statement. She denounced libertarians and libertarianism with impressive disgust and said repeatedly that she wants nothing to do with them. If she added "of this time" at the end of one of her tirades, please provide a source. Finx (talk) 10:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I think that your first four sentence are good arguments. Not so with the last sentence which is pretty bogus. But your first 4 sentences convinced me to drop the idea. North8000 (talk) 12:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

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

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

And of course, she must have considered the LP's "big tent" inclusion of anarcho-capitalists and anarcho-communists objectionable (as did I). But there is no reason to believe she objected to classical, generic "libertarianism". We should go back and check the Ayn Rand Institute page cited for this sentence, to see if it gives any specific quotes of what she said that would support the word "libertarianism". Otherwise, I think we should replace my original update which substitutes the LP, which clearly defines specifically what she objected to. JustinTime55 (talk) 15:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree. North8000 (talk) 12:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Suggested alternative to perceived equivocation and faulty grammar in lead.

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

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

How about replacing it with something like:

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

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

It is not equivocation to say that libertarians may have different views. They are not homonyms as you imply. You could say though the term is more commonly used in the U.S. to refer to free market libertarians only. TFD (talk) 04:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree that it is not equivocation merely to say that libertarians may have different views. But the statement above does far more than that. The specific (detailed) meanings of "libertarianism" used by classical liberals and socialists are in fact homonyms, since the meanings are mutually exclusive, not merely subsets of a single meaning. Lockean One (talk) 04:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

But they are. It is the same thing with other ideologies as well. In France for example liberal normally means neoclassical economics while in the U.S. means Keynesianism, but both are types of liberalism. TFD (talk) 04:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense, the two meanings of the term "liberal" you refer to are widely recognized as effectively homonyms, and often disambiguated for that very reason. But I'm not going to go around in circles with nonsense. If you have no interest in legitimately discussing the proposed change, you should just say so. Lockean One (talk) 05:03, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

More disruption by user:Lockean One, who is unwilling to acknowledge that Libertarian Socialism is a substantial form of Libertarianism. There needs to come a point when he is no longer welcome to do this. --Somedifferentstuff (talk) 09:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Obviously, you didn't bother to read my suggested replacement for that statement. It would be helpful if you actually read what I wrote before misrepresenting my statements. I'll assume this is honest confusion on your part instead of deliberate lies. Regardless, your comments about me personally, instead of my proposed article edit, are as irrelevant as they are false. If you would like to delete your uncivil and nonconstructive post above, you can delete this one as well. Lockean One (talk) 10:10, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Lockean One, I don't think that libertarian socialism, as described in this article (the italics are there because I do not have expertise in it) is in direct conflict with libertarianism. I'm thinking that you are comparing to the common meaning of socialism, i.e. in actual socialist countries and the common meaning in the US, both of which entail or refer to an extremely large and powerful government. North8000 (talk) 12:15, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

No, of course I'm not referring to actual socialist countries (Leninism, Maoism, etc), I'm referring to Libertarian Socialism, as described in this article, which is also (obviously to a lesser extent) in direct conflict with libertarianism, as the term is used by classical liberals (specifically freedom to privately produce and exchange goods and services). The fact that Libertarian Socialism and Leninism have something in common doesn't mean that I have them confused with each other or consider them equivalent (I don't). And it's not necessarily wrong to use the term "libertarianism" differently than classical liberals do, but it is wrong not to clarify that it's being used differently, especially within the same article that discusses classical liberalism. I see no good reason for this article to obscure rather than clarify that difference.

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

There's a lot to discuss there. It probably would take me a while to make a cohesive response, but if you will forgive some miscellaneous thoughts/ ramblings, here goes:

• Since no major form of libertarianism has capitalism as a tenet (they merely accept it), I'm happy to see that aspect reduced, but the problem there is in the body of the article, not in the lead.
• The item that you are calling faulty grammar (the means of production) I see as usefully vague. Your change to "all means of production" made it more specific, but by doing so added an assertion ("all"); I wonder if that's universally true.
• To me the old way was usefully general (others oppose), your change was to saying the Libertarian Socialists do that. A logician would say just that you narrowed the statement to a special case (only Libertarian Socialist, and a statement of rejecting all of those things) But by it's position and inferred wording, as it would be generally read, it reads like (new) statement that the only "libertarians" that reject those things are libertarian socialists.
• I like your idea "term libertarianism is also used by some to refer to Libertarian Socialism" which acknowledges that such is arguable/argued. But possibly the lead isn't the place for that.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 16:52, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

• I agree that the lead is an awkward place for this, but there seems to be much opposition to removing that from the lead entirely. Hence my suggestion to modify it instead.
• Even if the assertion ("all" means of production) is not universally true, it is true of the relevant groups (LibSocs) discussed in this article, according to the sources cited.
• While it's true that I narrowed the statement to "only LibSocs", it's also true that that's the only general group discussed in this article that opposes those things, I think, since "LibSoc" itself is a general term referring to a range of groups. But the specific wording could be changed if others disagree.
• I would say that the "used by some to refer to" is more to indicate a different use than an arguable use, since technically, there is nothing wrong with using any term to mean anything as long as the meaning is clarified.

Thanks for your thoughts, and please let me know what changes in wording you would suggest as an improvement or to address any of the above. Lockean One (talk) 00:15, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The dominant meaning of the world "libertarian" everywhere in the world all through history has been someone who wants to abolish capitalism. Currently, in the US that is not the case. It would make more sense to note the exception, i.e. "the term libertarianism is also used by some to refer to neoliberal capitalism" Finx (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

The "dominant meaning" statement pretty much conflicts with every source. Even amongst strands that want to abolish capitalism. North8000 (talk) 23:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk about sidetracking! North8000 was referring to U.S. libertarians, not 65/70% of the US population. Obviously the 60 million (or whatever it is) referred to are part of the 30/35% (or whatever it is) opposed to national healthcare. And we're referring to how the term "libertarianism" is most often used now, not who used it longer. Who used it longer is only relevant for discussing the history of the word use, which isn't the topic of this talk page section. Lockean One (talk) 17:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Finx, you have so many mistakes and false assertions in you post that it would take too long to go through. And you completely misread what I was talking about with the 60,000,000, even though it was stated. So why don't you just quit with the bungled insults? North8000 (talk) 21:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

If I insulted you, I apologize. I was questioning your competence, not your intentions or your character. Finx (talk) 22:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! The 60 million and the def are from the Boaz source....his "20%" and related definition. Just rough for talk page conversation. The definition is roughly the lib corner of the Nolan chart. The main point here is that it is a common meaning, and very short....roughly matching the short list of common tenets of all strands,......not a longer list like the USLP platform, nor does it contain counterpoints to the longer lists of left lib philosophies or platforms. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

(The following is bordering on soap-boxing, but I'd like to explain why I think reputable academic sources are needed, whenever possible.) IMHO, it matches all the common strands because, like the Nolan Chart, it's so crude, unscientific, vague and (intentionally or not) misleadingly worded as to be basically completely meaningless. To my knowledge at least, Nolan's chart is not an academic work and no one uses it in that capacity. I think it's obvious why at a glance. It was political creation, it was written by a politician and it has no academic pretenses. Nolan-the-politician, is not Nolan-working-on-his-MS-in-political-science-and-writing-a-groundbreaking-thesis. Just like an aspiring astrophysicist can write science fiction, people with a four-year degree in pol-sci can write political science fiction. This is as perfect an example as any. At best, if you have no prior knowledge of how Nolan's language is deployed and zero assumptions, you don't know what it says: does total economic liberty mean unfettered capitalist authority or civil-war-Catalonia-style anarcho-syndicalism? Who knows. They're polar opposites. The same applies to expressions like small government - on who's terms? At worst, the chart has two giant arrows pointing at its creator's desired conclusion. "Say, friend, do you like freedom?" It's about like surveying people with a questionnaire the tune of - "Do you agree with me or do you smell like farts? Please circle one." Recall that even the Third Reich and the USSR (through the worst years of Stalin's terrors) both adamantly proclaimed themselves to be free and even democratic. Nobody is going voluntarily say they hate freedom. In short, let's not reference garbage or extrapolate conclusions from garbage and project them on other garbage to achieve a garbage synthesis. If Nolan or his chart are included here, it should be for their influence and historic significance, if any. Finx (talk) 04:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

My thoughts on common threads match that of the sourced article, including the first paragraph. On the "freedom" quandary, the answer is simple and in the lead.....essentially that libertarians aren't just in favor of the common thread items, they priortize them. And I'm not promoting the Nolan chart as being an academic work....it's just a few words in a square. In this case I was using it as a communication device to shorten a post. It has resonated and become immensely prominent & notable and then guided much because it briefly explains the common form / meaning of libertarianism in the US in the context of the other common US political philosophy terms. And a part of it's accuracy is it's brevity. They agree with prioritizing freedom and reducing the power and scope of government. NOT the big long list of tenets or large complete philosophy that others have or imagine US libertarians have (e.g. prioritizing non-interventionism as the USLP does, or having capitalism as a tenet as the left libertarians imagine they do) North8000 (talk) 09:14, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Lockean One, while you have phrased the question of how to modify your proposal to be the replacement, there is also the open question of whether or not it is to be the replacement. Ii think that there are 3 main possibly-contested assertions/changes that are explicitly or implicitly within your proposal:

1. Significant libertarian strand(s) that reject "capitalism, wage labor, and private production of goods and services," generally all fall under "Libertarian Socialism".
2. Dropping of the statement that some strands of libertarianism "accept laissez-faire capitalism and private property rights, such as in land and natural resources" from the lead.
3. Changing "the means of production" to "all means of production".

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

I support #1 (just as an observation, not an opinion) and #2. I sort of oppose #3, as I think it changes it from a usefully-vague common term to more explcit and farther reaching term which is probably not universally accurate. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:23, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

The problem with "the means of production" is that the word "the" is a definite article which cannot correctly be used to refer to something indefinite (vague). It must refer to something specific. The answer to "which particular one(s) are being referred to" must be specific and known. Socialists oppose the private ownership of any means of production, and the term "the" (definite) cannot be used to mean "any" (indefinite). And it also can't be used to mean "some" (also indefinite), so it's faulty grammar in either case. Lockean One (talk) 14:37, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I was just giving my opinion on those items in case it is useful. Grammatically, I think that it is OK if it is treating "means of production" as an item, even if the "an item" is wrong. Either way is OK with me. North8000 (talk) 17:38, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I understand, and it would probably be more correct to say "certain" or "most" means of production, and/or a qualifier like "large scale", since there are at least some exceptions, depending on the source. But that's all the more reason not to use the definite article "the". The words "certain" or "most", unlike "the", are terms for vagueness. I'll try to come up with a better proposal for that statement over the next day or two when I have time. Lockean One (talk) 19:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Oops, I just realized you were referring to my proposed statement, not the current statement. You're right, the ownership advocated by socialists is monolithic, or as a single unit, in which case the word "the" is OK. Lockean One (talk) 10:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

"The means of production" is a widely-used phrase. We will not be changing its usage in the article to appease our local self-appointed expert. If you feel so strongly about it, go jawbone at Talk:Means of production. — goethean 22:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's a widely-used piece of sub-standard semi-literate English, presumably the result of the repetition of propaganda from imperfect translations. Is it the policy of Misplaced Pages to mimic semi-literate phrases or to use standard English? And your irrelevant claim of ownership of this article is noted. Lockean One (talk) 04:19, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

See above, my objection to using the definite article "the" does not apply to the monolithic (as a unit) ownership advocated by socialists. It's only faulty grammar to use "the" to refer to private (not as a unit) ownership as in the current article. Lockean One (talk) 10:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages follows reliable sources, not the moronic, incessant trolling of someone who knows nothing of political theory, who adamantly refuses to cite a source, and claims that tens of thousands of scholarly papers use bad grammar. This conversation is absolute idiocy. — goethean 13:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Writers from Marx to Mises to Friedman used the term "means of production." While it may be sloppiness on their part, it is not our function to correct terminology that is universally accepted. TFD (talk) 05:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I was referring to the "sloppy" use of the definite article "the", not the phrase "means of production", but I'm sure you knew that. Lockean One (talk) 10:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

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

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

You should make that argument on the Article (grammar) talk page: "A definite article indicates that its noun is a particular one (or ones) identifiable to the listener. It may be something that the speaker has already mentioned, or it may be something uniquely specified. The definite article in English, for both singular and plural nouns, is the." Lockean One (talk) 10:35, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Lockean One, you may be right on this, (the "means of production" item) but with 1 for it (you) 1 neutral/slightly against (me) and everybody else against, I don't think it's going to go anywhere. North8000 (talk) 12:52, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Like I pointed out above, that's not really an issue with my proposed statement, and I struck through my previous comments. You were right that collectively owned means of production could be considered a single unit. And "the" could refer only to those particular ones owned collectively, not any that could or might be privately built otherwise. So "the" is grammatically fine for that case, even if vague. I wish I had read your comments about that more carefully to begin with. Lockean One (talk) 18:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

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

How about "Libertarianism includes Libertarian Socialism, which opposes capitalism, wage labor, and private ownership of the means of production, instead advocating common or cooperative ownership."

That would falsely imply that they share an ideology instead of just the term. Lockean One (talk) 08:26, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

They share libertarian ideology and in fact many writers are common to both traditions. TFD (talk) 13:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

LOL, being a classical liberal and a socialist simultaneously is logically impossible. A single writer might write about both, but he can't simultaneously be both. It is the label, not actual ideology, that they share. How difficult can it be to comprehend the difference between "same name" and "same thing"? Lockean One (talk) 21:06, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Lockean One, I'm assuming that you mean the common meaning of Socialism in the US, and in it's actual implementation countries, both of which mean/involve a large and powerful state. However, there can be a strand (e.g. libertarian socialism) which posits a situation where that socialist ideals can exist without that, and which is consistent with the short list of common tenets of libertarianism. North8000 (talk) 00:13, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

No, I was referring Libertarian Socialism. I would not use the general term "socialist" to refer to only some socialists but not others. Libertarian Socialism is not consistent with classical liberalism, and one can not logically be both simultaneously. Lockean One (talk) 10:25, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

On your first sentence, thanks for the clarification; I was taking a guess on what you meant. On your second sentence, I agree 100%, but that is simply saying the those conflict on certain things. The can still have some common tenets. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:07, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but those "certain things" that they conflict on are their major defining tenets. It's not like the reason someone can't simultaneously be both is due to the style of clothing each wears. Anyway, the relevant factor here is what the term "libertarianism" is used to mean by each, and that is not something they have in common. Lockean One (talk) 03:04, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Lead revert

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Did you miss the term "hence" in that source? It says exactly what we've been trying to tell you, that capitalism is a consequence, not a tenet, of Rothbardian libertarianism. The "right to unrestricted private property and free exchange" is the tenet, "a system of 'laissez faire capitalism" is the (accepted) consequence of respecting those rights. Lockean One (talk)

Do I need to explain what the term "verbatim" means, too? Lockean One (talk) 15:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back and forth on advocating vs. accepting capitalism

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

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

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

— Murray Rothbard, For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto (published by the Ludwig von Mises Institute)

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

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

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

Himmelstein, Jerome L. (1992). To the right : the transformation of american conservatism. : Univ Of California Press. p. 47. ISBN 0520080424. In the libertarian view, freedom and capitalism are two sides of the same coin. The defense of one implies the defense of the other. Libertarianism is above all a defense of what is best called pristine capitalism

Boaz, David. The Libertarian Reader: Classic and Contemporary Writings. p. 175. ISBN 1439118337. Rand's theory of rights is what informs her defense of capitalism. Indeed, for Rand, the essence of capitalism is represented by a moral rather than an economic doctrine. If individual rights are respected in a society, then that society is capitalistic.

Miller, Wilbur R. (2012). The social history of crime and punishment in America. An encyclopedia. 5 vols. London: Sage Publications. p. 1006. ISBN 1412988764. Right-libertarians see strong private property rights as the basis of freedom and thus are—to quote the title of Brian Doherty's text on libertarianism in the United States—'radicals for capitalism.'

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

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

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

This is religious obscurantism, plain and simple. Finx (talk) 19:23, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

You've been blowing AGF by two levels, not only failing to do that, but by inventing bad faith. Your supplying of those quotes was nice work on a substantive conversation, but then you broke bad by completely ignoring the arguments made and instead going to name calling. My only goal is to have it accurate. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:44, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

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

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

If you want that change retained in there, please provide a source showing that advocating capitalism is a tenet of at least some strand of libertarianism. Not a consequence of, derivation from, result of a tenet, but an actual tenet. North8000 (talk) 20:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Five reference provided above and obscurantist/contrarian "argument" (as you call it) debunked in the comment section made for you above, which you apparently elected not to read, like a lot of other things. Finx (talk) 20:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

See previous comment, which you ignored. If want that assertion in there, provide a source that directly supports the assertion, not something that takes creative reinterpretation to arrive at the assertion. North8000 (talk) 21:19, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I ignored it because it was asinine and contradicted by every secondary and primary source available - all of which say the new right libertarians are proponents of neoliberal capitalism. The fanciful interpretations and magical leaps of mental gymnastics are your own. This article is not your religious shrine. If you can't check the cultist dogma of personal politics at the door, you should find another article which you can approach objectively. Nobody cares, in the slightest if the capitalist advocacy of "anarcho-capitalist" libertarians is a matter of "tenets" or (according to neoliberal dogma) the logical consequence of tenets when all sources explicitly say they advocate capitalism. They advocate unimpeded private property and capitalism. The end. Finx (talk) 21:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Quit the crap with the personal attacks, insults, and bogus accusations (e.g. that I consider the article to be my "religious shrine", "cultist dogma"). If you can't act in a civilized fashion, you should leave. And my comment was that if you want that assertion in there, you must provide source that directly supports it. Which part of that was "asinine"? North8000 (talk) 01:54, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I have never once insulted you personally. I don't know you and your character is not the issue here. I have been consistently patient and considerate toward you; I've extended every courtesy and always given you the benefit of the doubt. We are supposed assume good faith until there is enough evidence to the contrary. So, this is a direct indictment of your ability to contribute to this article, which you have decided to perch yourself atop of several years ago only for the purpose of hammering the party line. All of your efforts are focused on distortion and apologia, whether foot-stomping to demand the removal of socialist history, ban the use of "right libertarian" or insisting anarcho-capitalists are not proponents of capitalism, when every source in the universe says they are. Whether out of blinding religious conviction, malice or spectacular incompetence, your participation here has been detrimental to progress on this page and if you have no regard for the most basic level of intellectual integrity you should leave and let the editors here get on with their work - which, by every indication so far, you have no intention of contributing to. Finx (talk) 02:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Goethean, your claim of OR in the edit summary was false. The content was well sourced, unlike your OR:synthesis version. Lockean One (talk) 01:10, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I haven't taken part in the edit warring here, but I've followed events. I think Lockean One's edits have been awful and have also been made in a disruptive way; Goethean and other editors have obviously been right to revert him. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

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

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

In 1955, Dean Russell wrote a short essay entitled "Who is a Libertarian" (published in "The Freeman"), in which he proposed the term "libertarian" to describe a specific set of views (see excerpt, below). Some time thereafter, the publisher (FEE) issued a small pamphlet with that title and the text of the essay. Here is a URL for the article:

Link: Who is a Libertarian

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

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

Opening paragraph of the 1955 essay:

Those of us who favor individual freedom with personal responsibility have been unable to agree upon a generally acceptable name for ourselves and our philosophy of liberty. This would be relatively unimportant except for the fact that the opposition will call us by some name, even though we might not desire to be identified by any name at all. Since this is so, we might better select a name with some logic instead of permitting the opposition to saddle us with an epithet.

Text from back of FEE pamphlet:

The beliefs which identify a libertarian - as defined by Dean Russell - are not in vogue today. And in their absence grow and thrive the opposite beliefs - label them interventionism, socialism, communism, Fabianism, nazism, fascism, the planned economy, the Welfare State, or whatever. ...

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

We would need some coverage of the incident by a secondary source, indicating the incident's importance. — goethean 16:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

That's a pretty interesting bit of history, though. Page is protected for a week, but could you make your edits in a sandbox? I'll try to find some secondary sources on this. Also, your first link above is seems to be broken. Finx (talk) 16:59, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

The funny thing is that Russell proposed using the (already existing and accurate) term "libertarian" instead of "liberal" because the word "liberal" was corruptly being used by leftists to "identify themselves and their program of more government ownership of property and more controls over persons", and continuing to use the term "liberal" was at best "awkward and subject to misunderstanding." Sound familiar? Lockean One (talk) 17:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

Possible solution for lead

While it is certainly true that some libertarians do "advocate capitalism", it is the context that makes the statement as a whole misleading by implying that advocating capitalism defines classical liberal ideology in the same way that opposing capitalism defines socialist ideology. The structure of that sentence "While some X, others Y" is problematic for several reasons: it presents a false dichotomy (that X and Y are the relevant alternatives), it falsely implies that capitalism itself is a political philosophy or system of government, and other reasons discussed previously. If it's that important to reflect some sources that say "some X" and other sources that say "others Y", at the very least the article should avoid synthesizing those sources to create a misleading combined statement (OR:synthesis).

So my suggestion is to eliminate the "While some X, others Y" structure, without necessarily eliminating content. A separate sentence somewhere that says "BTW, some libertarians advocate capitalism" wouldn't be misleading even if it is superfluous. Lockean One (talk) 08:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

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

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