Talk:Libertarianism/Archive 11

This is an archive of past discussions about Libertarianism, for the period January 2008 to December 2008.
Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

→

This is an archive of past discussions about Libertarianism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

←

→

The many shortcomings and problems with this article

To continue with the points made in "The disambiguation page is better than this article", I absolutely agree that this article has fundamental problems, most notably, it takes as basic a definition of "libertarian" that is historically and geographically limited. Basically, the term "libertarian" was a term that started out on the radical left, specifically anarchism, a point that is touched on in this article, but barely mentioned beyond that. Until the late 1970s, "libertarian" pretty much meant the anarchist and near-anarchist currents of the political left; I believe the "libertarian" is still largely used this way in Europe. To my understanding, "libertarian" in this sense is a broad term like "socialism" – it includes everything from revolutionary anarchists to more moderate anti-authoritarian leftists. (Hence, the term was analogous to "socialism", which includes everything from revolutionary communists to social democrats.) Use of the term "libertarian" to describe a radically pro-capitalist position only began in 1955 with Dean Russell's publication of "Who Is A Libertarian?" in The Freeman and didn't become widespread until over a decade after this. Hence, the term "libertarian" has a clear history of use on the political left (long predating its use by free marketers, in fact), and does not represent some kind of new or recent synthesis of libertarianism with socialism.

Second, this article is completely inadequate in its historical coverage. It not only misses the boat on the long history of left libertarianism (eg, the Libertarian League, the Libertarian Book Club, not to mention the numerous non-US uses of the term "libertarian"), it doesn't even cover the historic evolution of right libertarianism very well. Right libertarianism's roots in American individualist anarchism (particularly Benjamin Tucker) and Austrian School economics, and Murray Rothbard's synthesis of these ideas is not covered at all. Nor the Objectivist movement and its relationship with right libertarianism. Nor even the immediate precursors of the US Libertarian Party, such as the Society for Individual Liberty, the Libertarian Caucuses of both Young Americans for Freedom and Students for a Democratic Society, etc. Nor practically anything on right libertarian thought outside of the United States.

It amazes me that this was ever a featured article. Peter G Werner (talk) 07:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It was a featured article when it was a different article. In other words this article does not have the same content it did when it was a featured article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whichmore (talk • contribs) 05:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I've also noticed that this article is unabashedly biased toward right-libertarianism, when in fact the term "libertarianism" was used by left-anarchists like Peter Kropotkin long before it was commandeered by small-government capitalists in the United States. (In fact, the first documented usage of the term was by anarcho-communist Joseph Déjacque in the 19th century.) The article reflects an enormous U.S. bias and needs a dramatic face lift. Anyone up to the task? I would love to help myself, but I sadly have no time for Wikipedia any longer. I'd be glad to give my input as best I can, though. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 04:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Well this is the English language Wikipedia. Dejacque did not use the word "libertarian". I believe also that the English language word "libertarian" was used by the early private property anarchists in the U.S. before it was used by anarchocommunists. Whichmore —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whichmore (talk • contribs)

Just because this is the English language Wikipedia does not mean that it should reflect a U.S. bias. In fact, it shouldn't even reflect an English language bias. To say otherwise is clearly in violation of Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy. At any rate, Déjacque did use the French word for libertarian, "libertaire," which is whence the English word arose, and in other English-speaking countries, such as England and Austrialia, the term is used in both ways. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 05:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Cielmobile. The idea that just because the term first arose in the French language, therefore the English word "libertarian" should be treated as having a separate history is an utterly desperate argument to say the least. The words "libertaire" and "libertarian" have always been understood to be equivalents, and the word "libertarian" in a political sense entered the English language in this way. And do you have any kind of reference whatsoever that "private property anarchists" (to whom are you referring, even? Benjamin Tucker?) were the first to use the term "libertarian" in the English language or that they used the term in such a way to distinguish themselves from left anarchists? You're really reaching here, Whichmore. Peter G Werner (talk) 06:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and I'll also note that the earliest use of the word "libertarian" in the English language wasn't even to describe a political philosophy, but rather a religious one, namely the idea of moral free will, back in the late 18th century. This is something else that should at least be mentioned in the article, though I don't think "libertarian" is still used in modern theology to describe this position. I could be wrong about this last point, though. Peter G Werner (talk) 06:29, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to do some more work on this article, Cielmobile, however, I'd like to get some kind of consensus going first, because I'd rather not contribute a bunch of work only to have it reverted. Also, in my opinion, this should be an article about libertarianism in the most general sense, with sections summarizing the different libertarian philosophies, with links to the longer articles on each. Free market libertarianism should have its own article, though its hard to say what the title should be, since "libertarian" in this sense is almost always used without modifiers. Perhaps "Libertarianism (free market)"? Peter G Werner (talk) 06:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You can rest assured that anything you write into the article will be reverted or deleted eventually. This is Wikipedia. -Whichmore

Yes, we should try to get some consensus first. I agree that this should be an article about libertarianism in the most general sense, an introduction to the different forms of libertarianism. Perhaps the article on capitalist libertarianism should just be called "right-libertarianism." I object to the use of "free market" as a synonym for "capitalist," seeing as there are many left-libertarians (libertarian socialists) who oppose capitalism but embrace free markets. (This is true of mutualists such as Proudhon and Kevin Carson, for example.)

I'd also say to Whichmore that Benjamin Tucker and other individualist anarchists support an entirely different concept of private property than right-libertarians like Rothbard. The former group support property rights based on use, whereas the latter support capitalist notions of property rights. It is dishonest to say that Tucker and other individualists support the capitalist conception of property. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 17:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You're calling me a liar? Wow. And you expect others to work with you for a consensus? Whichmore (talk) 21:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not calling you anything; I am simply stating that Tucker and other individualist anarchists do not agree with the capitalist conception of property rights. They believe in property rights based on use; just look at the Wikipedia article on Tucker. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 22:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It's one thing to say someone is wrong but quite another to say that they're "dishonest." I think some of the early American anarchists supported private property in the normal sense. Read the individualist anarchism article. It appears that Warren, Andrews, Spooner, and Byington did not advocate property rights based on use. It depends on the anarchist. If you read the Tucker article that only applied to land and even then he changed his views over time. Whichmore (talk) 23:12, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, Tucker's views on economics were multifaceted – he referred to himself, variously, as a "socialist" and as a "consistent Manchesterian". Though he was probably the most capitalist-leaning of the 19th Century American individualist anarchists, his overall views on economics was something closer to mutualism than to contemporary Rothbardian laissez-faire capitalism. Overall, the 19th Century American individualists were mutualists in their economic views, and had economic ideas very close to Proudhon, though, if I'm not mistaken, they came up with those ideas entirely independent of Proudhon.

In any event, this is kind of drifting from the subject at hand – namely, your contention, Whicmore, that the term "libertarian" was developed by proto-anarcho-capitalists and so the contemporary US "libertarian" movement therefore has some special claim on the term. So far, you've come up with no even potentially citable facts to back up your claim, but merely assertions of your own opinion. Wikipedia isn't about your opinion or my opinion, its about facts from citable sources. Peter G Werner (talk) 02:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't an assertion at all. I quote myself: "I believe also that the English language word "libertarian" was used by the early private property anarchists in the U.S. before it was used by anarchocommunists." That's not an assertion. It wasn't said with certainty obviously by the fact that I premised it with "I believe." I recall reading this in a book. I don't have the time or inclination to go researching it, so I provided that comment so that anyone who does take Wikipedia seriously can go out and research it. Whichmore (talk) 05:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I have researched it, and I have not encountered any source which seriously claims that the word was first used in a political sense by anyone other than Déjacque. But thank you for suggestion. If you do believe that you are right and wish to find a source, that would always be nice. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 06:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

An anonymous IP has been reverting my edits to Template:Libertarianism sidebar to add Libertarian socialism to the template, so I'm just leaving a note here. If we should change the scope of this article, then it follows that we should change the scope of the template as well. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 03:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This article is ridiculously biased towards "capitalist", "free market" or "American" libertarianism. This use of the term "libertarianism" is more or less exclusive to the US. In the rest of the world libertarianism is more or less a synonym for anarchism, or "libertarian socialism". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.251.240.174 (talk) 23:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Ditto to the comments about the US/Ango-American, capitalist bias and truncated history; it is not antagonistic to simply to point this out, by the way, but it is simply outrageous from an historical, cultural, and philosophical standard to make a recent, limited US political interpretation appear to be a universal viewpoint. The article is not a bad start as "Libertarian capitalism in the US", but frankly could appear chauvinistic or counter-factual to present itself in the present universalist manner. Oisinoc (talk) 23:54, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Would not be such a big deal, or even biased, if it didn't auto-redirect everyone on the planet searching for "libertarinism" in general. Oisinoc (talk) 01:32, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The disambiguation statement

Copied from User talk:Skomorokh:

Libertarianism V Utilitarianism

At the formation of the US constitution, there was a fundamental distinction between republicanism and democracy. In modern times, republicanism means little more than representative government.

In order to return to the principles of protection from government emphasized by the founders of the US constitution, a distinction must be made between libertarianism and utilitarianism. The requirement could be met with the terms liberal democracy and utilitarian democracy, with the contingency that the distinction between libertarianism and utilitarianism be based on the principle of policy method.

Currently the terms libertarianism and utilitarianism allude to liberation of the individual, and, eventhough they are under the title of libertarianism they are more greatly associated with utilitarianism, which is entirely deceptive and corrupting. Libertarianism should be separated entirely from utilitarianism based on policy methods.

Libertarianism should emphasize policy methods whereby individualism prevails over collectivism. Utilitarianism should emphasize policy methods whereby collectivism prevails over individualism.

Libertarianism is based on deontology (ethics of action), on policy methods that are negative rights, first generation rights.

Utilitarianism is based on consequentialism (ethics of outcomes), on policy methods that are either negative or positive rights, either first, second, or third generation rights.

Policy methods that employ positive rights, via social contracts, whereby the majority coerces the individual in order to attempt to "optimize" liberty, should be categorized as utilitarianism, collectivism, government conservativism, or utilitarian democracy.

Utilitarianism is characteristic of the the classic aphorism, "Good intentions pave the way to hell." GeMiJa (talk) 02:10, 10 March 2008 (UTC) GeMiJa (talk) 14:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, but utilitarians can be libertarians too. Libertarianism just means belief in individuals liberty. A libertarian utilitarian believe that good consequences are maximized to the extent that individual liberty is maximized among all individuals in a society. Operation Spooner (talk) 16:50, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

This is really interesting stuff - but from the first line, it's obvious that you are talking about a specific cultural context, and philosophical interpretation - nothing wrong with that, as part of a greater whole; but it does back up people's general criticism that this article is too unilaterally US-Libertarian-Party in focus, content, and outlook. Oisinoc (talk) 14:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Graffiti

There's also this issue of the graffiti "You can love your country without loving your government" (or something like that) which I think does not exclusively represent a libertarian view. That graffiti could as well have been sprayed by a green or socialist who loves his country, but does not like the Bush administration. I removed it, thinking that my argument is quite strong. If you don't agree, I'd like to hear your opinion. Rocator (talk) 03:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Explanation of My Edit On Libertarianism

Although I agree that the disambig cannot be too long, merely labeling it propertarian hardly suffices, since the question for libertarians is not simply whether or not property can be held, but rather how can property be justly acquired.

I have edited it again, but made it shorter than I had made it the first time (albeit longer than your edit). It now reads, "the political philosophy holding that property can be justly acquired by individuals or voluntaryist collectives through homesteading or free trade."

I still feel this is a bit long, but I removed the mention of "little- or no-government."

I fear it's not enough to simply point out that libertarians believe in property, for what is property? Simply taking your watch doesn't make it my property, at least according to libertarianism. It could, however, imply such under other propertarian philosophies, and especially under nihilism, which does have advocate the existence of ethics.

If you can think of a way of cutting this down and making it shorter without removing the core that property must be justly acquired according to libertarianism, and not merely held, be my guest. I don't mean to set this down in stone. :)

Yours truly,
Alex Peak

Yo Alex, thanks for your diligence. I can appreciate most of what you say, but I think it's not exactly on-point. Clearly, the lede sentence of the article should say exactly what it is (i.e. propertarian political philosophy" would be appalingly inadequate); the point of the disambiguation statement is solely to make it clear to confused readers who might be looking for one of the other meanings. For example, if there were two articles roughly associated with the term "libertarian", where one of them was libertarianism", and the other one was a duck, a perfectly good disambiguation statement would be "This page is about the philosophy. For the duck, see Libertarian (duck)".

In this case, libertarianism (disambiguation) lists three articles other than libertarianism: Libertarian socialism, Civil libertarianism and Libertarianism (metaphysics). So all our disambiguation statement has to do is make it clear the libertarianism article is not about the socialist philosophy, the free speech/aclu advocacy or the stance on free will. Saying "political" gets rid of the latter, but how do we concisely differentiate libertarianism from civil and socialist libertarianism? I think a reference to private property will do exactly that. So would you be happy with

? Skomorokh ^confer 20:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Your argument is convincing. Thanks. Allixpeeke (talk) 20:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Cool, thank you for your open-minded attitude. Skomorokh ^confer 20:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Another editor has now lengthened the disambiguation statement in a blatantly improper manner: See policy. Skomorokh ^confer 13:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Libertarian is anarchism throughout the world except in US

This article is manipulating the origin of the term libertarian:

The first known use of a term that has been translated as "libertarian" in a political sense was by anarcho-communist Joseph Déjacque[19], who used the French term libertaire in a letter to Pierre-Joseph Proudhon in 1857.[20] The word stems from the French word libertaire (synonymous to "for liberty"), and was used in order to evade the French ban on liberty publications.[21]
Many republicans and democrats still use the term (e.g., terms translatable as "libertarian" are used as a synonym for liberty in many non-English languages, like French, Italian and so on)

Historically, and it's true throughout the world except in US, "libertarian" is synonymous with "anarchist". This is a regional phenomenon, not the English language, since for the use that he gives in this article is already the term "liberal". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.32.213.96 (talk) 14:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Have a source for the claim that "libertarian" is synonymous with "anarchist" everywhere in the world but the U.S? I see people claim that all that time but haven't seen a source for it. Twiceline (talk) 07:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It's merely a myth, albeit one spread rather well by some of our anarchist friends. See our List of libertarian political parties. Australia, Canada, Costa Rica, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Russia, Sweden, and (as of very recently) the U.K. all have political parties that call themselves "libertarian" (or the local translation) ... in the so-called "U.S.-only" sense of the term. --FOo (talk) 11:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

FOo, you'll never find an anarchist political party, seeing as anarchists reject the state political process in the first place, so of course all "Libertarian" political parties are libertarian in the U.S. sense of the word! I'm reverting the edits that have taken out the dispute of the word.

Honestly, I don't see why U.S. libertarians are so eager to squelch the opinions of libertarian socialists. Whatever happened to free speech? Whatever happened to NPOV? Why is it that every time I stop editing Wikipedia for a split second, some IP removed the part about the anarchist claim to the word? -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 19:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I just editing the lead and gave a source for the claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cielomobile (talk • contribs) 19:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not a myth that "Libertarian" has its origins in European anarcho-communism over a century ago;
It is not a myth that anarchists generally don't form political parties, which would tend to bias current naming-results in favour of minarchist capitalists who have relatively recently adopted the term for themselves;
It is not a myth that a significant section of relatively recent American individualist libertarians - including those associated with minarchist or anarchist capitalism, such as Wendy MacElroy, Murray Rothbard and various writers for "Liberty" Magazine - draw upon the works of libertarian socialists such as Benjamin Tucker, Emma Goldman, and others;
It is not a myth that left-wing organisations and personalities have used the term in reference to their ideas throughout the years:
Current -
- International of Anarchist Federations;
- International Workers Association;
- Freien Arbeiterinnen und Arbeiterunion;
- Confederacion Nacional del Trabajo;
- Unione Sindacale Italiana;
- International Libertarian Solidarity;
- Workers Solidarity Movement;
- "The Pierre J. Proudhon Memorial Computer";
- various International Workers of the World;
- Noam Chomsky;
- 1980's: Sam Dolgoff, "Libertarian Labor Review";
- France (Paris, Nanterre, and Bretagne), Italy, Lebanon & Belgium: "Libertarian Alternative";
- England: "Soliderity: A Journal of Libertarian Socialism";
- George Woodcock, 1962: "Anarchism: A History of Libertarian Ideas and Movements" (9 years before formation of US Libertarian Party);
- Cuba, 1959: an anti-capitalist, anti-state organisation - "Libertarian Association of Cuba";
- 1950's: George Fontenis - "The Manifesto of Libertarian Communism";
- New York City, July 1954: Russell Blackwell, Esther and Sam Dolgoff formed "the Libertarian League", (for a short time Murray Bookchin was member);
- 1949, Gregory P. Maximoff: the Libertarian Book Club;
- Spanish Civil War (1936-1939): coalition group - the United Libertarian Organisations (ULO), spread information about revolutionary anarchist activities in Spain;
- Spain, 1932 Issac Puente: pamphlet "Libertarian Communism";
- 1936 Saragossa conference on the eve of the Spanish Revolution: CNT adopted libertarian communism as its goal;
- France, 1926: Dielo Trouda group of anarchists who had fled Russia - "Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists";
- "Libertarian League" in the 1920's: mutualist libertarian organisation;
- 1895: Sebastien Faure, founded "Le Libertaire";
- 1858: Joseph Dejacque, anarcho-communist;
- Webster's New International Dictionary, 'Libertarian' is: "One who holds to the principle of free will; also, one who upholds the principles of liberty, esp. individual liberty of thought and action."
- Dean Russell, Foundation for Economic Education - "Ideas on Liberty" May, 1955: "Who is a Libertarian?" advocated that the right should "trademark and reserve for our own use the good and honorable word 'libertarian.'"
Whether it is intended or not, the article as it stands is effectively special pleading, does not have a neutral point-of-view, and is a political airbrushing of history. Clearly, "libertarian" has a much broader usage and context than is suggested - Wikipedia is not the Global Patent - or official Trademarking - office; even if it were, it would be questionable whether it could assign "libertarian" as apparently desired by the current article's viewpoint. Oisinoc (talk) 00:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The anarchists are at it again?

I seem to remember a year or two ago going through this very edit war where a bunch of people invade claiming to know the "true" meaning of libertarian, and I thought it was resolved by moderators etc, that the overwhelming modern use of the word is reflected in the article as a free-market and capitalistic political philosophy. If we want to go around and tell the rest of wikipedia to keep talking about old usages of terms we'd have to re-write the articles on Liberalism, Conservativism, etc. The reason modern libertarians use the word is because the word liberal was stolen from them. Language evolves, and we at Wikipedia must keep up with it. —Memotype::T 06:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

However, I wouldn't object to a section which talks about the history of the term. That being said, I believe the people who started using the term in its current definition came up with it independently as a natural conjugation of liberty. —Memotype::T 06:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

The term "libertarian" has a very long history among anarchists and left libertarians, and many still use the term. This usage is especially prevalent outside the US. This is in fact the case in spite of your utterly snotty assertion to the contrary. Peter G Werner (talk) 10:30, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

In Europe, most libertarians are collectivists. In the U.S. most libertarians are individualists. Operation Spooner (talk) 23:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Too simplistic – there are actually a lot of people who are economic co-operativists (or more disparagingly, "collectivists") and personal individualists. Strongly so, in fact. Peter G Werner (talk) 01:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Being a "co-operativist" doesn't make one a collectivist. A collectivist believes in communal ownership of resoures and means of production. An individualist believes in allowing ownership of these things by individuals. Libertarian individualists are co-operativists if their cooperation allows each other to own private property. Another way to say what I said above is that in Europe most libertarians are libertarian socialists, but most American libertarians are libertarian individualists. Operation Spooner (talk) 03:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Everywhere apart from the US this article is completely wrong, and looking into the history of the term in 1960s this page is also completely wrong, the easiest solution is to move this page to libertarianism(us) and put a disambig page here.From a historical context the term was used originaly in france by anarchists to avoid negative conetations of the word anarchy, in the non-us world it still means this, with it mainly being used to discribe libertarian socialism (anarchy). 77.99.171.94 (talk) 23:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It's used as a synonym for the word "anarchism" outside the U.S. or in continental Europe, not only libertarian socialism. Operation Spooner (talk) 00:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to repost it, but my entry directly above in "Libertarian is anarchism throughout the world except in US" also covers this; "Libertarian" has both current usage and long and venerable history of such on the Left (please do see above), and it is simply counter-factual to say otherwise; the article as it stands is not only special pleading, it is effectively engaging in ethnic chauvinism by presuming that one particular strand of political thought in primarily one country is of universal application. And by the way, contemporary American Anarcho-Capitalists and Libertarian Individualists (e.g. Murray Rothbard, Wendy MacElroy, Richard Kostelanetz) have been quite happy to borrow ideas - and acknowledge such! - from left-wing libertarians. Oisinoc (talk) 01:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Can we please stop changing this article to reflect an American bias?

This is beginning to get ridiculous. Most editors on this talk page seem to have expressed opposition toward making this article solely about the U.S. brand of libertarianism, so why do editors keep reverting it to the Amerocentric version? Wikipedia is not "The American Encyclopedia"; it's "The Free Encyclopedia." I cannot fathom how such editors fail to see how greatly their edits reflect an American bias. What they're doing would be tantamount to changing the liberalism article to match the modern liberalism in the United States article. Those editors might want to read the neutral point of view policy a few times over. If this continues, I am going to make a request for comment and get this thing resolved. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 18:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression that this article is supposed to be about private property libertarianism, right libertarian or libertarian individualism, not libertarian socialism. And I don't think it's American bias. This is just what nearly everyone is referring to when they talk of libertarianism in the English language, whether the U.S., the U.K., or Australia. This IS the English language Wikipedia, afterall. Operation Spooner (talk) 19:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I come across as a smart alec - I was under the impression that a) this article is supposed to be about libertarianism; b) This IS the English language Wikipedia, not the US Libertarian Party Wikipedia, nor Oceania's IngSoc Newspeak-ipedia, and that the English language is not the ideological preserve of one ethnic or politically-partisan subgroup; c) Libertarianism, like christianity, is defined and practiced differently within and between many countries - the prevalence of English does not prevent disputes about either; d) Libertarianism is not the private preserve of english-speaking countries or people, much in the same way that e.g. the words of Jesus are not. Oisinoc (talk) 15:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

If the article is about private property libertarianism, then call it that. Don't call it Libertarianism which it isn't. And no, that isn't what nearly everyone is referring to. They are referring to Anarchism. q (talk) 21:14, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Outside of English-speaking countries, "libertarian" is a synonym for anarchism. There is already an anarchism article. You don't want to make this article about anarchism if that article already exists do you? Operation Spooner (talk) 20:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Spooner, there is an article about "right-libertarianism." It's here. Just as the article on "liberalism" reflects both the American usage and European usage of the word, so should this article reflect both the American and European usage of libertarianism. That there's already an article on classical liberalism is no reason to make the general liberalism article focus solely on modern liberalism in the United States. Additionally, as far as I know libertarian is used in both ways in English-speaking countries other than the U.S. Obviously, Libertarian political parties are all going to be "libertarian" in the U.S. sense of the word, because anarchists don't have political parties, but as far as the word is used in general, it seems to be used both ways. Murray Bookchin even asserts that outside of the U.S., it is used almost exclusively to refer to libertarian socialists.

Can you stop the edit war, please, and just agree to compromise? What I'm proposing is a compromise in itself, Spooner. I'm not asking that this article focus primarily on libertarian socialism; I'm just asking that it be a general article about all variations, like the liberalism article. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 04:28, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't care less whether this ariticle is about libertarian individualism, or all libertarianism. But, the header at the top of the article indicates that it's about the individualist version, which is what I assume is meany by the "Unites States" version. So that's been my guide. As long as that's there then the article should correspond to it. If you want to change the article to being about "all variations" it doesn't bother me. Just be sure to change the header. Others will probably change it back. The way I edit the ariticle will be determined by what is indiicated by the header at any given time. Again, I have no preference one way or the other. I would think though that when the great majority of people are looking for information on libertarianism, it's information on the individualist version that they're seeking, rather than socialist or left versions. Operation Spooner (talk) 04:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Your edit that libertarians, by which you've explained that you're referring to left libertarians as well, oppose compulsory collectivism is wrong. Left libertarians often make this mandatory. They are firm that the means of production ought not to be privately owned, and many of them do not wish to allow private ownership. So that's compulsory collectivism, not voluntary. Operation Spooner (talk) 05:09, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Any socialist that supports compulsory collectivization is more authoritarian than libertarian. Don't confuse opposition to private ownership of the means of production with support of forced collectivization. But this is not the appropriate forum to argue about this; this is a talk page for an encyclopedia article. I'm sure that you could head over to Infoshop.org to discuss collectivization, if you wish to do so. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 16:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

If you don't allow a person to own property, then you're not a libertarian but an authoritarian. Operation Spooner (talk) 19:08, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Um,,, no. A society where there is no space for the private ownership of certain categories of things (be those things people, animals, land, large production facilities, mineral resources, air, or airspace) is not authoritarian by virtue of this. In fact, a society can be said to be authoritarian because of the presence of certain kinds of ownership. Both an American style right-libertarian and a libertarian communist would agree that the ownership of people is an authoritarian institution. A Georgian (also called a geolibertarian) and a libertarian communist would agree that the institution of land ownership is authoritarian. As for the American bias, it should easily be cleared up with a single sentence in the introduction or a disambiguation page. If the article is going to actually be about the American understanding of the term, then we ought to at least acknowledge it.24.47.151.201 (talk) 01:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Can We Please Present Reliable Sources for Chnages You Want to Make?? Just asserting over and over something is true does not make it true - or more importantly usable on wikipeidia. (Anf that goes for other unsourced assertions in the article.) Carol Moore 13:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Just so long as we are clear: 'Reliable Sources' in this context does not necessarily mean an academic journal or paper; an organisation or collection of people, or just people, who are using libertarian vocabulary or just the term as part of their principles, are themselves primary sources; remember the context is of non- or anti-state activites, often rebelling against institutional structures - how likely is it in this context that there will be many government or state-sponsored academic studies? Oisinoc (talk) 14:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:RS is defined in wikipedia. It's up to editors how much they will allow other editors to bend the definition. Of course, you haven't bothered to present any sources at all showing that the word (without modifiers like left or socialist) is currently being used by anyone but pro-property libertarians, have you? Therefore your changes just look like WP:OR and at some point maybe challenged as such, especially when the section on pro-property libertarian movements worldwide is beefed up. Carol Moore 17:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

The assumption that "libertarianism" as a solo term has primarily one sub-set of meanings is a stated sectarian agenda (1955 FEE article is not OR!), and thus political propaganda. That it has been somewhat successful in co-opting the term does not make it less sectarian nor less political propaganda in the article's use of auto-redirect; it would be equally unacceptable for the "Communism" article to redirect to the Soviet Union's Comecon interpretation, to the exclusion of all others. This is a highly politicised, sectarian use of language in attempting to restrict user's choice. Simply wikilawyering won't change this. Oisinoc (talk) 12:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, the use of the US Statue of Liberty - a symbol of both America and the US Libertarian Party - hardly dispells the accusation of ethnic-chauvinism and political sectarianism. Oisinoc (talk) 13:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

But just because group B starts in one country, and decides to call themselves "Christianity", that does not give them preemptive right of use of the entry "Christianity" in Wikipedia; this is because in the world of people outside of that group - lets call them A - "Christianity" is recognised as having many different varieties (A-1, A-2 etc.); the fact that other people who recognise this variety choose to nominally qualify this, does not mean that group B has effectively trademarked the single term "Christianity". Now, replace "Christianity" with the descriptive term "Libertarianism"; the fact that someone may genuinely believe this term fits their group best, in no way means that I have to play along with this; it's not their property, they don't own it, and I don't have to abide by rules that they make up based on one political sensibility, in accurately describing the entire set of those various sensibilities. Oisinoc (talk) 00:10, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

And maybe therein lies the crux of the problem: I would have no problem with this article simply titled "Libertarianism" if a) it was linked, not auto-redirected, from the disambiguation page, and; b) if so titling it did not prevent another, more general, article also titled "Libertarianism", also linked from the disambiguation page. I think the real source of consternation and anger manifesting here is due to the sheer ideological presumption, and the preemptive closing off of choice being imposed on absolutely everyone on the planet being redirected to this particular subset of libertarian thought, without our asking. Would it be too much to ask to turn off the auto-redirect and let people interested in libertarianism in general to make up their own minds whether they want to click through to "Libertarianism, libertarian political philosophy worldwide" or "Libertarianism, a philosophy which emphasizes individual liberty"? Libertarianism is generally considered to involve individual choice, right? Oisinoc (talk) 01:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

No one is stopping you from putting WP:RS material in relevant categories. I am trying to re-categorize the article to make that easier. Right now we are having a problem with an anon IP from a tiny American faction inserting his abstruse theories, but that will all be reverted soon. Carol Moore 13:42, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

The issue is - you are enforcing WP:RS guidelines in a manner that objectively favours the stated political agenda of one libertarian faction (with notable ethnic bias also) in its attempt to co-opt a word of the english language - would you consider it acceptable for a christian or communist group to do likewise? The issue is the auto-redirect which enforces this one sectarian view - WP:RS doesn't enter into it. Oisinoc (talk) 14:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposal to rename page "Libertarianism in the United States"

In light of this article's focus on the American concept of libertarianism, which has become a point of contention for several editiors who object to the exclusion of the European definition and that of other cultures, it would seem prudent to rename the article Libertarianism in the United States (it is already redirected from that title, anyway). Another article could be started under the current title which would be an overview of the various worldwide definitions and concepts of libertarianism, ranging from Anarcho-capitalism to Libertarian socialism.

This would be consistent with WP's coverage of other political philosophies which have "overview" articles under the title of an umbrella term (i.e. Conservatism and Liberalism) but also separate articles that distinguish the American concept of the term, such as Conservatism in the United States and Modern liberalism in the United States.

Discussion, anyone?--JayJasper (talk) 17:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The U.S. isn't the only location where "libertarianism" refers to this. Europeans refer to this philosophy as libertaranism too, in their respective languages. For instance, this Italian journal refers to it as "libertarismo" and includes articles by Italian libertarians: [1] Operation Spooner (talk) 18:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Libertarianism didn't always mean this in the United States either. So if you intend on making this Libertarianism in the United States, it should first start with the U.S. Libertarianism roots that mirror Anarchism, and then explain that Far Right Statists took the work in the 50's. There's actually specific evidence on this topic, and why they took the word (to mock the Libertarian movement that was crushed.) q (talk) 21:12, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The word "libertarianism" has both the technical meaning which can be an umbrella for various political definitions, and a common usage among some political partisans primarily in the US (I understand it can be used this way in other countries, but their primary inspiration seem connected with or derivative from partisan US users of that term). I appreciate and respect why they want their own specific page for this specific meaning, which is debateable not only in much of the rest of the world, but also amongst their own countrymen outside their own usage-group. Is the point of contention in the "-ism" part? Certainly "libertarIAN" has broad historical and political usage, but does that make it an "-ism"? Technically it does; I appreciate that members of the Communist Party may wish to restrict usage of the "-ism" to themselves, but don't believe that would be appropriate in Wikipedia either. I'm aware that "Technocracy Inc." may hold a legal right to the name "technocracy", but don't believe the US - or any other - Libertarian Party would be able to get away with the "-ism" exclusivity that way, considering the varied history and prior use of "libertarian". Although monopolisation of "libertarianism" in this way isn't appropriate - and although I appreciate the attachment of partisans to it, I would like to hear what their second-favourite choice would be? Ah go on, indulge us. Oisinoc (talk) 01:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

'Oppose There is lots of info that hasn't been inputted yet about how pro-property libertarianism is promoted around the world. (And I'm just finishing up resorting old files on this topic to add info, plus current internet info.) And there is nothing in this article or that anyone has presented that there is a "libertarianism" currently functioning that is not modified by "left" or "socialist." So this is an unnecessary proposal. Carol Moore 17:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

I am not aware of any Libertarianism Parties or Communism Parties; just libertarian and communist parties, groups or people. Forgive me for the necessary repetition - just because group Y starts in one country, and decides to call themselves "Communism", that does not give them preemptive right of use of the entry "Communism" in Wikipedia; this is because in the world of people outside of that group - lets call them X - "Communism" is recognised as having many different varieties (X-red, X-black etc.); the fact that other people who recognise this variety choose to nominally qualify this, does not mean that group B has effectively trademarked the single term "Communism". Now, replace "Communism" with the equally descriptive term "Libertarianism"; the fact that you or others genuinely believe this term fits you best, in no way means that I have to play along with this little game; it's not your property, you don't own it, and I don't have to abide by rules that you make up based on only one political sensibility, in accurately describing the entire set of those various sensibilities that can reasonably be covered by that term. Oisinoc (talk) 00:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Opposed. The definition of Libertarianism, in order to be self-consistent, needs to be as commodious as possible. Boundaries abound; national boundaries breed intolerance. Wingspeed (talk) 01:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I retract my earlier comment in favour - I think the problem is the auto-redirect and the exclusivity of the title; without the redirect, and allowed to make our own choices from a disambiguation page, I would have no fundamental objection to this page (provided that the title did not prevent another more general and more inclusive page from also having the title "libertarianism"). Oisinoc (talk) 01:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Libertarianism in the United States - and the World!

Having the first section in this article be about American "libertarianism" is like having the first section in the Christianity article be about Mormonism. --Jammoe (talk) 18:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed ad nauseam per the above. Evidently people have not presented Present Reliable Sources WP:RSfor Changes they want to make. Carol Moore 20:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC){[User:Carolmooredc|Carolmooredc]] {talk}

"...in a nutshell: Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" and tempered with "common sense" and "the occasional exception". OK then, let's have at it. Oisinoc (talk) 01:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

First, common sense suggests that if an organisation says it's "libertarian", then we don't need a quote from an academic journal to prove it, moreover, if organisations are cross-referencing one another in such a manner, such common use within a milieu is also important, even if all organisations do not have the term in their title or manifestos; second, it simply isn't tenable in this day and age to suggest that only organisations or persons speaking english count! This would exclude whole continents of knowledge from Wikipedia (did Jesus speak English?); this might be a factor where there were very different meanings attached to a similar sounding word or phrase (e.g. "Notary Public"/"Notario Publico" in US/Mexico), or if similar meanings attached to different words; but "libertario" e.g. is used in the same context and manner in Spanish as it's etymological counterpart "libertarian" is in English; thirdly, it is not actually up to the rest of the world, or to critics of the current bias, that they should have to seek permission to use "libertarianism" - the burden of proof actually lies on the excluders to justify their effective trademarking of this term; it is a dictionary term, not a trademark, not a patented idea. Neither the descendants of Karl Marx, nor the current Communist Party of Great Britain presume to have the final - or first - veto on what goes into the "Communism" entry, for example.

OK, references of current international organisations and people using "libertarian" vocab in a manner that conflicts with the aggressively unilateral and chauvinistic definition championed by the current article: (I'm just putting this here so we can all view it with our own eyes, and without messing around with the article - text is from the websites themselves, with exception of that in square brackets. I promise I will clean this up too.)

http://www.afed.org.uk/aims.html "The Anarchist Federation is an organisation of class struggle anarchists (based in Britain and Ireland, but with many contacts overseas) which aims to abolish Capitalism and all oppression to create a free and equal society. This is Anarchist Communism." "The Anarchist Federation is an organisation of revolutionary class struggle anarchists. We aim for the abolition of all hierarchy, and work for the creation of a world-wide classless society: anarchist communism... We seek to build an anarchist international to work with other libertarian revolutionaries throughout the world. " "http://www.afed.org.uk/links.html#UKIreland Aufheben - lots of in-depth articles in this libertarian communist journal. "The journal Aufheben was first produced in the UK in Autumn 1992. " Class against Class - libertarian, autonomist and council communist texts. Colchester Solidarity Group - network of Colchester-based Libertarian Socialists.

http://eventsandissues.bravehost.com/LAF.html "The LAF is an informal non-sectarian left libertarian discussion group which meets usually once a month "

WOMBLES - White Overalls Movement Building Libertarian Effective Struggles. UK based activists. http://www.wombles.org.uk/ "This site - www.wombles.org.uk - collects news and information about anti-capitalist / anarchist direct action, protests and events. The areas we try to focus on include articles on solidarity campaigns for radical prisoners, border / migration struggles, autonomous work place organising, social centres, squatted or free spaces."

http://www.wsm.ie/about_us Workers Soldarity Movement "As anarchists we see ourselves as part of a long tradition that has fought against all forms of authoritarianism and exploitation, a tradition that strongly influenced one of the most successful and far reaching revolutions in this century - in Spain in 1936 - 37. The value of this tradition cannot be underestimated today. With the fall of the Soviet Union there is renewed interest in our ideas and in the tradition of libertarian socialism generally. We hope to encourage this interest with Red & Black Revolution. We believe that anarchists and libertarian socialists should debate and discuss their ideas, that they should popularise their history and struggle, and help point to a new way forward." "In terms of helping to build a broad libertarian movement in Ireland we have continued to work in the Grassroots Gathering. We also initiated campaigns against both Nice referenda, in the second over 50,000 libertarian leaflets were distributed." "Freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice. Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality" [James Connolly - executed leader and socialist patriot of 1916 Easter Rising; also a US member of International Workers of the World]

http://www.wsm.ie/public_newswire_1?topic=anarchistmovement "International Anarchist statement for International Workers Day 2008 Towards a new international movement of the exploited, Against neo-liberalism, against war, against hunger and poverty, For peace, food and housing for all, for safe and secure jobs, Towards the libertarian alternative!" http://www.wsm.ie/rbr Issues of irish anarchist magazine Red and Black Revolution

http://www.libcom.org/notes/about "The libcom group is a small collective of libertarian communists based in and around London, we maintain libcom.org, and as individuals are involved with a number of other groups and activity. Our name, libcom, is an abbreviation of "libertarian communism" - and its goals of liberty and community - the political current we identify with. However our primary focus is always on how best to act in the here and now to better our circumstances and protect the planet.

Libertarian communism is the political expression of the ever-present strands of co-operation and solidarity in human societies. These currents of mutual aid can be found throughout society." "Both through human co-operation in everyday life and in the large scale directly democratic ways of organising society developed by working people we see the seeds of a new kind of society. A society based not on exploitation, domination and drudgery but on free, voluntary co-operation, freedom and creativity – a libertarian communist society.

Libertarian communism is a social system where production is based on the concept "from each according to ability, to each according to need" and humanity is emancipated from all systems of economic and political authority. Where humans organise themselves from the bottom-up through the principles of face-to-face direct democracy, mandated delegation and federalism. To this end, where all society's decisions are made at the base, we focus on grassroots working class organisation and self-education today.

We identify primarily with the trends of workers' solidarity, co-operation and struggle throughout history, such as those mentioned above, whether they were self-consciously Bold textlibertarian communist (such as in Spain) or not. We are also influenced by certain specific theoretical and practical traditions, such as anarchist-communism, social ecology, anarcho-syndicalism, the Situationists, libertarian Marxism, council communism, as well as writers including Karl Marx, Peter Kropotkin, Harry Cleaver, Murray Bookchin and Anton Pannekoek."

RED LIBERTARIA. Grupo Libertario de Buenos Aires http://www.inventati.org/rlba/ "What is Red Libertaria (Libertarian Network)?"

"...we, comrades that shared their libertarian ideas, started to find each other in the struggles, all of us looking for the way to overcome the lack of libertarian spaces. And so, the last days of December 2002, the first formal meetings of Red Libertaria took place. " "Red Libertaria´s goal is anarchism´s resurgence; in the streets, in the factories and workshops, in the schools and universities, in the neighbourhoods and shambles; so that anarchism can be a revolutionary force again, a force that combats and destroys capitalism everywhere, wielding the weapons of direct action, horizontality, federalism, solidarity, self-management, freedom and equality. " "We militate in different spaces (cooperatives, unions and syndic groups, students centres and students groups, neighbourhood work groups, social and cultural centres, etc.) to strengthen popular organizations and struggles, propelling libertarian ideas and trying to make people assimilate them and, over all, practice them as their own. "

"Anarchism as a philosophic and political practice has developed a multitude of variants or tendencies throughout its century and a half of history. All of them criticize the present state of things, share rejection to the authority and have a common goal: a society of free and equal human beings. Several anarchist tendencies coexist nowadays and come together in the libertarian movement. Mainly, their differences rest up on the methods that they propose. "

"...we think that libertarians must be organized in order to be able to influence society. Isolated we would be unable to carry out any truly great action. The organization that we propose differences itself from the traditional political institutions inasmuch as hierarchies do not exist inwards: there is not a person or group who decides and another that executes. "

"Anarchists' organization must be a truly democratic organization, in which the decisions are made through assemblies. Since there's a physical limit of persons that can conform an assembly, libertarians' organization would be a federation: the unit of the multiple and relatively small nuclei, each one carrying on a particular activity, but related to the whole through periodic general meetings. Each group would relative autonomy within the framework of these basic agreements. "

"...anarchists, Red Libertaria, and the libertarian movement in general are places where we come together and discuss, plan and organize propaganda and participation in the struggles. Parallel to the libertarian movement, the popular movement develops, sometimes spontaneously, but almost always through union organizations, student groups or neighbourhood work groups in which we must participate."

"...we think that the regrouping of the libertarians is urgent; in the libertarian movement, and according to the tendency of each one, taking ahead an energetic and coordinated militant action towards the social change."

"Federación Libertaria Argentina (FLA)", Argentina Miembro de la Internacional de Federaciónes Anarquistas (Member of International of Anarchist Federations) http://www.libertario.org.ar/

Brasil 1551, Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, Argentina (1154) Publications: "Acción Libertaria" 1933-1971; "El Libertario" since 1985 - http://www.libertario.org.ar/libertario.html Biblioteca Archivo de Estudios Libertarios http://www.libertario.org.ar/bael.html

La Hidra de mil cabezas. Grupo de Menoza (Argentina), con importante material y trabajo de reflexión sobre las ideas libertarias http://www.lahidrademilcabezas.com.ar/Nombre.htm

" los principios sobre los cuales se asienta nuestra organización: libertad, horizontalidad y autogestión" http://www.lahidrademilcabezas.com.ar/menu.htm "...una federación de comunas agrarias basadas en un régimen comunista libertario." ""Todos los hombres están a favor de la libertad..." "La libertad es el hombre que trastornará al mundo..." "La verdadera libertad se funda en la comunidad de espíritu y en la comunidad de bienes terrenales". "...una confraternidad universal de mujeres y hombres en libertad e igualdad..." "...el clamor de quienes se rebelan contra él es uno solo: "¡Libertad!" "

Anarres Libros / Colección Utopía Libertaria http://www.quijotelibros.com.ar/anarres.htm

Av. Corrientes 4790, Ciudad de Buenos Aires Utopía Libertaria es el nombre de una colección de libros que tanto rescata a las obras fundantes del pensamiento anarquista como actualiza esas ideas para los tiempos que nos han tocado en suerte. La colección es compartida transversalmente por varios grupos que se reclaman libertarios, y cada uno de ellos posee su propio sello editorial.

Ateneo Libertario Virtual

"...Acceso a una gran cantidad de material que servirá para profundizar en nuestros conocimientos de historia, economía y teoría del anarquismo así como nuestros conocimientos de las grandes figuras del movimiento a través de algunas de sus obras y otros escritos". Puesto que el anarquismo no es una escuela ni un cuerpo doctrinal cerrado, no cabe esperar que los textos que señalamos defiendan las mismas ideas o expongan enfoques similares. Tienen en común nada más -y nada menos- que su orientación libertaria http://www.alasbarricadas.org/ateneovirtual/index.php/Portada

FAL Fundación de Estudios Libertarios Anselmo Lorenzo (CNT) "...el comunismo libertario..." http://www.cnt.es/fal/home.php

Talleres de Educación Libertaria en Mendoza http://hernun.com.ar/blogs/enta/2007/09/talleres_de_educacion_libertar.html

Insumiseria (San Juan) "Espacio insumiso de difusión y comunicación de ideas libertarias". http://www.insumiseria.blogspot.com/

RLAM Red Libertaria Apoyo Mutuo http://www.red-libertaria.net

"Crítica Libertaria de la Actual Coyuntura" El Grupo de Trabajo Solidaridad Libertaria de la CGT de Burgos, en su actividad solidaria y de trabajo en común con las organizaciones del anarquismo organizado e insertado socialmente de América Latina, FAU Uruguay, FAG Porto Alegre, FAO Brasil, los compañeros argentinos, etc. http://debatelibertario.blogspot.com/

Colectiva Libertaria D- Género Proyectil Fetal. Grupo Anarcofeminista Queer de Buenos Aires con varias actividades y reflexiones sobre el tema. http://www.proyectilfetal.blogspot.com/

Comisión de Relaciones Anarquistas de Venezuela. Edita el periódico El Libertario y realiza múltiples actividades que irradia a toda latinoamérica. http://www.nodo50.org/ellibertario/

El Libertario es realizado desde 1995 por un colectivo editorial libertario, difundiendo las actividades ácratas y sociales autónomas del continente Libertario- Periodico de los movimientos sociales atonomos http://www.nodo50.org/ellibertario/english.htmlds

LIBERTAD. Grupo anarquista de Buenos Aires "Pagina electronica del grupo anarquista libertad" Por la revolucion social y el comunismo anarquico http://www.geocities.com/grupo_libertad/

KOLECTIVO UTOPIA ACRATA LIBERTARIO (Jujuy) http://kual.com.ar/ PROYECCION DE PELICULAS : “ LIBERTARIAS“ “VIVIR LA UTOPIA“ VENTA DE MATERIAL LIBERTARIO

OSL. Organización Socialista Libertaria (Buenos Aires, Argentina): http://www.osl.org.ar 15 de Noviembre 1164, Buenos Aires, Ar.

FICEDL. FEDERACION INTERNACIONAL DE ARCHIVOS Y BIBLIOTECAS LIBERTARIAS http://ficedl.info/

International Libertarian Solidarity - ILS-SIL - federation of mainly platformist groups of which WSM is the Irish section. [2] Solidarietà Internazionale Libertaria

The ILS/SIL Network The International Libertarian Solidarity network was founded in April 2001 on the initiative of the CGT. Its main purpose is international solidarity and the provision of concrete assistance. The network has over twenty members - libertarian organizations, unions and self-managed communities - who are spread throughout Europe (Spain, France, Greece, Italy, Ireland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Sweden, Switzerland), North America (Canada, USA, Mexico), South America (Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay), Asia (Lebanon) and Africa (South Africa).

It is linked to an even greater number of libertarian organizations who cooperate regularly, for example during international summits against capitalist globalization. The first series of SIL projects concern South America." http://www.fdca.it/fdcaen/ILS/ils_members.htm

ILS/SIL Member Organizations

ALTERNATIVA LIBERTARIA (AL - SPAIN)

AL was founded in 1999 by militants of the anarcho-syndicalist union CGT. It operates mainly in Catalunya.

ALTERNATIVE LIBERTAIRE (AL - FRANCE) www.alternativelibertaire.org/

Alternative Libertaire was founded in 1991. It is part of the international libertarian workers' movement which provides it with its strong ideas, though it does not reject positive contributions from other areas. It works within the workers' movement, with young people and inside social movements. Its action is founded on two distinct levels of organization and expression:

   *the organization and development of a new libertarian current based on class struggle;
   *the emergence of a vast anti-capitalist and self-managed movement in which the libertarian current can be an equal player.

AL publishes the monthly journal Alternative Libertaire and the magazine Debattre.

CONFEDERACION GENERAL del TRABAJO (CGT - SPAIN) www.cgt.es/

This anarcho-syndicalist organization grew out of the 1979 Congress of the Spanish CNT. It was obliged to take the name CGT in 1988 after losing its claim to keep its name and heritage to the "historical" wing of the CNT. It has 50,000 members and is the third-largest union in Spain The CGT publishes the monthly Rojo y Negro and the magazine Libre Pensamiento .

CONSEJO INDIGENO POPULAR de OAXACA - RICARDO FLORES MAGON (CIPO-RFM - MEXICO) www.nodo50.org/cipo/

The CIPO-RFM is a native american libertarian organization which follows the examples set by Ricardo Flores Magon, the best-known Mexican anarchist militant who, together with Emiliano Zapata was one of the leaders of the Mexican Revolution. The CIPO-RFM has close ties to the EZLN and joined the latter on its national march in February 2001 which reached Mexico City.

FEDERAÇAO ANARQUISTA GAUCHA (FAG - BRAZIL) www.fag.rg3.net/

The FAG was founded in 1996. It operates principally in the southern state of Rio Grande do Sul whose capital is Porto Alegre. This was the site, in 2001, of the Anarchist Days which were held to coincide with, and criticise, the World Social Forum. The FAG is a member of the Concentraçao Anarquista Brasileira together with other organizations and groups from other Brazilian states. The FAG is also a member of the Coordinacion Anarquista de America Latina (CALA) together with the OSL (Argentina), the FAU (Uruguay) and the CUAC (Chile).

FEDERACION ANARQUISTA URUGUAYA (FAU) - URUGUAY) www.nodo50.org/fau/

The FAU was founded in 1965 during a revolutionary period. It is the oldest and most experienced South American anarchist organization. It was the mover behind the creation of the single central trade union (CNT) which at present has a mainly reformist direction. During the military dictatorship from 1976 to 1984, the FAU took part in the armed struggle and fought alongside the Tupamaros. Many of its militants were subjected to imprisonment, torture and exile and others were assassinated. In 1984, about 30 comrades decided to rebuild the FAU, taking advantage of the support and solidarity of the Spanish CNT and the Swiss OSL. At present, the FAU has over one hundred militants and produces several publications including the journal Lucha Libertaria.

It is a member of the CALA together with the FAG (Brazil), the OSL (Argentina) and the CUAC (Chile). LA MARMITA (GREECE)

This is a libertarian group formed around the magazine of the same name. Its members are mainly young militants who are active in schools and in solidarity with and the struggle for political prisoners. They are presently working towards the formation of an organized anarchist current in Greece.

ORGANISACION SOCIALISTA LIBERTARIA (OSL - ARGENTINA) http://www.geocities.com/jmheredia.geo/index.htm

The OSL is the most recent organized anarchist group in Argentina. It publishes the monthly journal En la Calle and has groups in Buenos Aires, Rosario and La Plata. It is involved in the widescale mass struggle which is currently taking place in Argentina and its militants are frequently targeted for State repression. It too is a member of the CALA together with the FAU (Uruguay), the FAG (Brazil) and the CUAC (Chile).

ORGANISATION SOCIALISTE LIBERTAIRE (OSL - SWITZERLAND) www.rebellion.ch/

Founded in 1985, the OSL is deeply involved in social, labour, feminist and anti-racist struggles. Its militants were among the founders of the SUD-Public Services union which now has 8,000 members. The OSL publishes the journal Rebellion.

Organizace revolucních anarchistu - Solidarita (ORA- S - CZECH REPUBLIC/SLOVAKIA) www.fdca.it/fdcaen/international/oras.htm

The ORA-S was founded in 1999. Initially is was an anarcho-syndicalist organization, but took on a libertarian communist orientation and now works towards the autonomous organization of workers within the factories. Much of its activity is dedicated towards the struggle against capitalist globalization and in fact it was at the organizational heart of the anarchist and ecologist sectors of the demonstrations against the IMF and World Bank summits in Prague in September 2000. The ORA-S publishes the monthly Solidarita.

SVERIGES ARBETARES CENTRALORGANIZACION (SAC - SWEDEN)

The SAC is an anarcho-syndicalist confederation and revolutionary syndicalist organization founded at the start of the 20th century. It has 9,000 members and is the most important revolutionary organization in Sweden. It was in the frontline of the protests against the EU summit in Goteborg in 2001. It publishes the weekly paper Arbetares.

RESEAU NO PASARAN (FRANCIA) nopasaran.samizdat.net/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=65

No Pasaran is a network of anti-fascist collectives in France.

CONFEDERAZIONE ITALIANA di BASE - UNICOBAS (CIB-UNICOBAS - ITALY) www.cib-unicobas.it/

FEDERAZIONE DEI COMUNISTI ANARCHICI (FdCA - ITALY) www.fdca.it/

AL-BADIL AL-CHOOUI AL-TAHAROURI (LEBANON) flag.blackened.net/revolt/inter/albadil.html

RED LIBERTARIA APOYO MUTUO (RLAM - SPAIN) www.red-libertaria.net/noticias/index.php

AUCA - SOCIALISMO REVOLUCIONARIO (ARGENTINA) BIKISHA MEDIA COLLECTIVE (SOUTH AFRICA) struggle.ws/inter/groups/bikisha/main.htm

LUTA LIBERTARIA (BRAZIL) http://www.ainfos.ca/05/aug/ainfos00102.html

NORTHEASTERN FEDERATION OF ANARCHO-COMMUNISTS (NEFAC - CANADA/USA) nefac.net/

ORGANISATION COMMUNISTE LIBERTAIRE (OCL - FRANCE) oclibertaire.free.fr/

WORKERS SOLIDARITY MOVEMENT (WSM - IRELAND) www.wsm.ie

ZABALAZA BOOKS (SOUTH AFRICA) www.zabalaza.net/zababooks/

http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/index.html "The Anarchist Library. Liberty - Mother, not Daughter of Order"

http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/mlc/index.html "The Manifesto of Libertarian Communism by Georges Fontenis, Platformist Anarchism. Transcribed from an Anarchist Communist Edition distributed by the Anarchist Communist Federation."

http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/guerin1.html Daniel Guerin's essay on the origins of the words Anarchism and Libertarianism. Anarchism: A Matter of Words (Where the words "Anarchism" and "Libertarian" come from) From Chapter 1, part 1 of the book "Anarchism", by Daniel Guerin

"Today the terms "anarchist" and "libertarian" have become interchangeable." "Some contemporary anarchists have tried to clear up ... misunderstanding by adopting a more explicit term: they align themselves with libertarian socialism or communism. " "During a street meeting on May 4, 1885, in Haymarket Square, a bomb thrown at the legs of the police in an unexplained manner provided the necessary pretext. Eight leaders of the revolutionary and libertarian socialist movement were arrested, seven of them sentenced to death, and four subsequently hanged (a fifth committed suicide in his cell the day before the execution). Since then the Chicago martyrs-- Parsons, Fischer, Engel, Spies, and Lingg-- have belonged to the international proletariat, and the universal celebration of May Day (May 1) still commemorates the atrocious crime committed in the United States. "

http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/lastlib.html A Letter to the Editor of The Match Taken from Issue #86, Summer 1991 P.O. Box 3488 Tucson, Arizona 85722 Dear Fred: I'm a 1967-style Libertarian, and that seems to have little in common with the "Libertarians" we've picked up since 1980. You have no idea of the corruption that entered the "Party of Principle." Reason Magazine sold out. The great anarchistic "Mr. Libertarian", Murray Rothbard, joined with an arch-fascist; most state-level positions have been lost to the conservatarians. Why? Because the right-wingers had so much more money than the left-wingers. They were able to flit about the country and create a controlling clique that people without money couldn't keep up with... Personally, I think the whole Capitalism vs. Socialism argument is a red herring. We're still in medievalism. You tell me what class your daddy was and I'll tell you which one you're in - just like the twelfth century. First, we get out of medievalism, then with everyone starting off equally, we'll see about the Capitalism vs. Socialism bit. However, you would be doing the real Libertarians a favor if you called these pseudo-Libertarians by their true name: Conservatarians. " "Walk Karwicki II Box 2372 York, PA 17405 "

http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/puente.html Isaac Puente's essay on Libertarian Communism.

"LIBERTARIAN COMMUNISM by Isaac Puente First published by the CNT in Spanish as a widely distributed pamphlet in 1932, with many subsequent editions. - The first english translation appeared in 'The Cienfuegos Press Anarchist Review' #6 Orkney 1982. This Edition published 1985 by MONTY MILLER PRESS P.O. Box 92 Broadway, Sydney 2007, Australia. "

http://flag.blackened.net/daver/anarchism/mcelroy1.html Individualist Anarchism vs. "Libertarianism" and Anarchocommunism by Wendy McElroy This article appeared in issue #12 of the New Libertarian, October, 1984.

"the two movements which seem to be natural homes of individualist anarchism -- libertarianism (for which it used to be a synonym) and the anarchist tradition (of which it is a subset) -- are now uncomfortable places. This wasn't always true...

Rothbard is also often credited with modern libertarianism, which I consider to be a movement separate from individualist anarchism: that is, I believe they have distinct and often antagonistic goals and strategies. When Tucker referred to himself as a libertarian, it meant individualist anarchist, but words have lives of their own and meanings change...

The word liberal once referred to an individualist who defended the free market; now, it means almost the opposite and libertarians need to use the term "classical liberal" if they want to be clear. Similarly, the word "libertarian" has changed due to the fairly successful efforts of the Libertarian Party to associate libertarianism with political goals and the political means, both of which are anathema to individualist anarchist theory...

More and more, libertarianism has become identified with the Libertarian' Party. More and more, the goal of libertarianism has changed from dismantling the State to joining the State and replacing the face behind the desk of power as though it were the particular face and not the desk -- the position of unjust power itself -- that was the enemy.

As libertarianism becomes increasingly political, it will become increasingly hostile to individualist anarchism, because anarchism poses as great a threat to the political ambitions of the LP as it does to the conventional defenders of government...

The anarchists will then learn from political libertarians the same lesson that the Russian anarchists learned from the Bolsheviks -- we are fellow travelers no more."

Oisinoc (talk) 06:05, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

PS Ms Mac Elroy's paper is directed at, and reflects an American LP and/or Individualist audience; the US LP is not the global emperor of Libertarian thought - a fact which should be recognised in the tone and content of this article. Oisinoc (talk) 06:18, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I finally go around to this section, which is not formatted for easy comprehension. Anyway, I do congratulate you for coming up with some refs from around the world - though a quick look suggests most of them either use libertarian as one of several describers of their philosophy or as a modifier for "communism" or whatever, so that most would actually belong under "left libertarian." Or even libertarian communist. (Which also could have its own section.) Murray Bookchin talked of "libertarian municipalism" something I was going to add when got a chance.

Second this article IS poorly organized but that doesn't mean that everything in it is "libertarian party." There is no doubt that the libertarian party has become more statist since 9/11 when all the macho males went wacko having to prove their manhood through violence (black blocs in suits and ties). Just like lots of anarchists used to make fun of violence until it became the big fad after they got all that publicity in Seattle in 1999. (I remember all the liberal lefties who told me "we have to let the anarchists be violent cause that's the only way we can get publicity for our (liberal statist) goals."

In conclusion, if the article is properly organized it can have a good balance of the different uses of libertarian. However, in the end if WP:RS sources indicate that 1 billion people think it means pro-property and 100 million think it means kill the landlord, I think we know which view is most encyclopedic. Carol Moore 17:59, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

I appreciate that the term "Libertarianism" has been quite successfully co-opted by propertarian/capitalist theorists and activists in the US. I am not suggesting that this should not be acknowledged or even highlighted at the start - and I think that any article on the general subject would need a good chunk about this strand of thought in it. I think there is a fundamental issue here, though, about whether the term is primarily a general, descriptive term and as such a set containing many varieties within its descriptive boundaries; or whether it is the name of one particular variety within that set. At the moment, the auto-redirect lands everyone in the world - literally - who is searching on only this one variety, regardless of whether they were looking for the general term, and as can be seen from the reaction on this talk page, I think that's a problem. Oisinoc (talk) 00:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

This is an article on Anarcho Capitalism, not Libertarianism

What actions does it take to get this fixed? This is a mockery of information, and all those that continue to give false information like this abuse the concept of wikipedia. What can we do to make this article about Libertarianism, and not Anarcho Capitalism? q (talk) 21:11, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can certainly tell you that the wrong way to go about it by making wholesale changes to the article unilaterally. That was definitely a poor choice on your part. As was the highly POV nature of your changes. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 21:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I am making changes to correct the article that many, many users have complained about. I am making many changes, and you are wholesale deleting all of them without consideration for the individual changes. It is you who are vandalizing me, and I've put a message on your talk page as well. If you have a problem with a particular change, please discuss it here with me. q (talk) 22:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

It is you who is vandalizing, sir. You do not have consensus for these changes, and my reversions have been appropriate. You have never made a single comment on this talk page prior to today, so do not act as if you have been discussing this issue for a long time and waiting patiently for changes to be made. You have made a unilateral decision to change the article to your liking, and that approach, as I said above, is inappropriate. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 22:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

What of my changes do you find inappropriate? Do you feel that I am making the issue less clear by following most every other article and talking about the topic that everyone has an issue with? I am framing the issue as multiple movements and how they are different. Quote me your problem with my edits. Thanks. q (talk) 22:17, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to mention that all data that I am removing is only because of where it is at in the article, and that it makes no sense to include the information anywhere in that section. I will look to readd the information I am removing into a section. I have no problem with the information but it makes a presupposition at the stage of the article I removing it. Please help to readd it to a proper section. q (talk) 22:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

With respect: I don't see that there is any current consensus on how the article is right now, so how can that be a criteria for changing it in any way, or even leaving it as it is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oisinoc (talk • contribs) 01:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

A good start

I have started to rework this article. The article was entirely POV when I started. From start to finish, and that follows basic Right wing Libertarianism which believes that no one can have the word Libertarianism but themselves, even though they aren't even the first. So from there, I have started to build a real article on Libertarianism. One that doesn't push Right or Left Libertarianism, but begins to explain it.

Certainly some people will want to remove all of my changes. I urge you to keep them, and rewrite my sections to be improved. These sections are vital towards a basic understanding of what Libertarianism means, and regardless of your political views, if you believe in the idea that one group should not control history then you should assist in improving this article to not be POV.

Thank you for your assistance, and I hope you help. q (talk) 23:30, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

See my note on reverting all the changes. You present hardly any WP:RS for major changes throughout the document. Note that "libertarianism" is a word not a name. Please outline the changes you want to make here with your WP:RS. Also, consider copying the whole article to a wordpad file and editing it there first. But not till you have decent references. NotCaptain Janeway Carol Moore 23:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Please indicate what references you'd like additionally. I'll start with the first section,

"The name Libertarianism has been adopted by two very different political movements. Property rights advocates have popularized the association of the term with their ideology, first using the term in May 1955 [1]. Before that, and in most of the rest of the world today, the term has been associated almost exclusively with leftists groups advocating egalitarian property rights or even the abolition of private property, such as anarchist socialists who began using the term nearly a century earlier, in 1858 [2]."

What else would you like referenced? What issues do you have with this section? Do you agree this is better than the factually incorrect version before it? Thanks q (talk) 23:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, both references I gave were the source material of the work, and are referenced in other articles on wikipedia as well. If the source material where the actual first usage occurred isn't good enough for this article, and is good enough for other articles, please explain exactly what you feel will increase the reference quality. Thanks. q (talk) 23:56, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Carol, you revert all of my changes back to what it was. I then revert back, and add the information back to the article in a different section. The old article, you reverted back to. Then you reverted that and called it unsourced.

To repeat. You were removing the original article information. if you want to remove it because it's unsourced, use that as your justification, but that was the original article information I started with. Basically, you're reverting yourself at this point, and aren't following the changes enough to realize it. q (talk) 00:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

You are vandalizing the article with dozens of poorly sourced POV changes to make it difficult for people to keep up with them. I'm just going to complain to the proper authorities. Carol Moore 00:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

You haven't even followed what I've done. You stated

"the first paragraph had only one WP:OR reference and few others for these changes; please discuss WP:RS changes you want to make first on talk and explain"

The first paragraph has 2 WP:OR references, and every other change I've made has had a reference aside from deletions or moves. You have not followed each edit I've made, and are making assumptions based on your unwillingness to follow what I've done.

I know I didn't make that easy. I didn't expect to sit here and do this much work on the article. But I have, and if you actually compare the content from now, to when I started, you will see roughly 3-4 removals and 3-4 adds. Not really a huge change. Mostly moving things around, and writing an intro that replaces the factually incorrect previous intro. q (talk) 00:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is the relevant link, please notice while reading it the moves of data. Some data deleted was moved to other sections, or reincorporated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libertarianism&diff=214312317&oldid=214274802

I was about to move another section. Since you're the second person reverting me, I will wait until the proper authorities arrive. q (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

GOOD IDEA. You have to prove your new edits to long existing material that is the consensus of many editors is worthy or your stuff will be reverted by all the other editors who haven't gotten around to looking at it yet. If people say your material is not WP:RS you go and find a few better sources for that lead, not ask others to. All those changes look like mental confusion, at best. Frankly, you haven't convinced anyone you have a case. Throw in 7-8 good WP:RS quotes/info with sources and you'll be taken more seriously. Carol Moore 00:19, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

I have added the original source to the works I've done. The unsourced add you looked at was me adding the OLD article back into the edits I made. That was unsourced. If you want additional sources for the work I've added, that's fine but the stuff I added is sourced in the same exact way on other wikipedia articles, and has significantly more sources than the work that exists already. I haven't convinced anyone I have a case? Two people have looked at it, one which has left and I'd like to hear more from, and you who continues to state I'm not sourcing when I've linked the original source. The original source, which I can show you is linked on other wikipedia articles in the same way. I'm not asking you to do the work, I'm asking you to tell me specifically where your issue is so that I can improve it. Quote me a section I added that you'd like additional sources from. That's all I ask, because I am sourcing the same way as other articles. If you'd like, i can show you other pages which source the same material, specifically, "Libertarian Socialism" wikipedia page. Thanks. q (talk) 00:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Just because something is not challenged at one article doesn't mean it won't be challenged elsewhere. (Also it could be challenged in the future.) You obviously have not read WP:Original research and I advise you do so. Have You Read this Whole TaLk Page and any archives?? This Topic of adding anti-capitalist libertarianism has been discussed ad nauseum. I don't have a problem with a reference in the body to that type of libertarianism, but you are challenging a long time consensus. Other editors surely will be popping up about this. Meanwhile I'm doing a little rewriting myself. Considering the LP is having its convention this weekend, it's a good time to keep the article accurate according to consensus and not vandalized by pov pushing. Carol Moore 00:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Looking at this article more carefully it is a MESS which is one reason I stayed away from it. Far too long, disorganized, redundant, with lots of unverified claims which should have been deleted a long time ago. Some of your changes -- which not already redundant - can be integrated. If you come up with some sources. But your scattershot method of editing makes it difficult to figure out what your edits are. I re-edit in a separate document and copy over section at a time. Carol Moore 01:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

You're correct that it's mostly unsourced information, but I was initially dealing with the fact the information is factually wrong, and is out of the world on history. I have never seen a more factually incorrect article on wikipedia in any topic. You may call that NPOV, but I see an entire article that is NPOV because it ignores all of the history of the word, and focuses on 1950-2008 while ignoring 1858-2008. It doesn't get any more NPOV than to deny anyone else the use of a word that they've used for a longer history. q (talk) 17:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

This is an amazingly biased article as it stands - it is breathtaking in its presumption that a) all lef-wing libertarians seem to disappear off the face of the earth after the 1930's, b) all libertarianism worldwide is defined by what happens not only in the US, but only among one group of political partisans there. "Libertarianism" is not a trademark of the US LP, regardless of how much Wikilawyering one engages in to deny reality. Oisinoc (talk) 14:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

To qualify that - it appears amazingly biased to me, because I searched "libertarianism" as a general term, and instead was presented the single option of a very specific and limited set of interpretations as to what that means; the bias lies in the presumed exclusivity of title and auto-redirect; users of Wikipedia should not have the choice of definition made for them. Oisinoc (talk) 01:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Creating an article that is not 75% unsourced personal opinions

This article is 75% unsourced personal opinion AKA WP:original research and much of it should be deleted as such unless it is properly sourced. That includes the long unsourced first paragraph. Which is why I put this on top:

Remember according to wikipedia rules which we all agree to by signing on as editors, all unreferenced material -- as well as redundant, POV, WP:UNDUE and other inappropriate, unencyclopedic material -- can be deleted. I know there have been a lot of tags to that effect throughout the life of this article. I have put some time into restructuring the article per the below and have a DRAFT of a new article [at my personal sandbox]. In the future I'll reference things (WP:RS) I think need to be kept. (NOTE: Other wikipedia articles are NOT references, just navigation devices.)

Principles
Early History
Recent History
Issues
- Rights Theory vs. Consequentialism
- Minarchism versus anarcho-capitalism
- Left-libertarianism
- Objectivism
- Rejection of Left-Right Spectrum
The libertarian movement
Libertarianism in the United States

Carol Moore 03:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

I will discuss your edit which is already an improvement. please let me know if you're prefer opinions edited to your sandbox (if that's possible) or here.

Intro = 100% fine and factually accurate, although very light on information.

Principles = Factually incorrect. I made an edit to make it factually correct in my previous revision which has been reverted. The first factually incorrect part is,

"The central tenet of libertarianism is the principle of liberty, namely individual liberty. The generally accepted definition is that individual human being are sovereign over their bodies, extending to life, liberty and property."

Property is incorrect. The original, and longer existing Libertarianism did not believe a sovereign right over property.

To correct that issue with offending the least amount of people, I removed the word property, and left the rest. That change has been reverted.

There is also an issue of "individual liberty", but I feel that it isn't factually incorrect, as much as not relevant. It's U.S. Libertarian standard propaganda, but it isn't exactly "wrong" either. It's entirely dependent on what your usage of the terms is.

So at this point Carol, do you agree with the single edit I believe needs to be made to have this article conclude with the facts. Libertarianism over it's history has always been against Private property. In the 1950's another group took on the name. So that's fine, no problem with that, but we need to state initially where agreement is, and not instead say only what the 1950's US group believes.

Thanks q (talk) 17:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

First, now that I've decided to start helping clean up this article, I'll try to make one or two changes only a day, starting with most obvious problems that few if any editors would disagree with. I'm going to keep playing with my alternative, so here you let's just talk about your specific changes and any ones I make. Specifically re: your suggestions:

I think the first sentence of article should be more general like the one I put up; current one is too POV, as was yours. I'll keep arguing for that.

I have no issue with your intro, and feel that it is an improvement.

Libertarian socialism and left libertariansm (except Sam Konkin variety) are more focused on hierarchies or resources as means to liberty. Discussions of property relevant within discussion of them. A quote proving they are concerned with liberty would help.

They are not "more focused" on anything as a means to liberty. To be honest, I don't understand what you're saying here. Libertarianism has a long history on a variety of topics including property. Discussions of property are relevant, but the point I'm making here is that Property is considered sovereign under 1950's Libertarianism and as theft under 1 branch of 1850's libertarianism, and still not sovereign under the other branch. My take is that we should focus on agreement. Both Libertarians agree with "Liberty" and have different definitions of what that means. You asked me for a quote proving they are concerned with liberty. Here is one Libertarian's quote, I can provide many more.

"The liberty of man consists solely in this: that he obeys natural laws because he has himself recognized them as such, and not because they have been externally imposed upon him by any extrinsic will whatever, divine or human, collective or individual."

- Mikhail Bakunin, God and the State

"Being free for man means being acknowledged, considered and treated as such by another man, and by all the men around him. Liberty is therefore a feature not of isolation but of interaction, not of exclusion but rather of connection...I myself am human and free only to the extent that I acknowledge the humanity and liberty of all my fellows... I am properly free when all the men and women about me are equally free. Far from being a limitation or a denial of my liberty, the liberty of another is its necessary condition and confirmation."

- Mikhail Bakunin

http://www.spunk.org/texts/writers/goldman/sp000064.html PATRIOTISM, A MENACE TO LIBERTY by Emma Goldman, 1911

"I am a fanatic lover of liberty, considering it as the unique condition under which intelligence, dignity and human happiness can develop and grow; not the purely formal liberty conceded, measured out and regulated by the State, an eternal lie which in reality represents nothing more than the privilege of some founded on the slavery of the rest; not the individualistic, egoistic, shabby, and fictitious liberty extolled by the School of J.-J. Rousseau and other schools of bourgeois liberalism, which considers the would-be rights of all men, represented by the State which limits the rights of each---an idea that leads inevitably to the reduction of the rights of each to zero. No, I mean the only kind of liberty that is worthy of the name, liberty that consists in the full development of all the material, intellectual and moral powers that are latent in each person; liberty that recognizes no restrictions other than those determined by the laws of our own individual nature, which cannot properly be regarded as restrictions since these laws are not imposed by any outside legislator beside or above us, but are immanent and inherent, forming the very basis of our material, intellectual and moral being---they do not limit us but are the real and immediate conditions of our freedom."

- Michael Bakunin, "La Commune de Paris et la notion de l'état," reprinted in Guérin, Ni Dieu, ni Maítre. Bakunin's final remark on the laws of individual nature as the condition of freedom can be compared to the creative thought developed in the rationalist and romantic traditions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notque (talk • contribs) 17:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I can provide you many more, as it's a central topic to Libertarianism. The meaning of Liberty is different between the two however.

A brief reference to Libertarian socialism could be added to the left-libertarian section and to more current history.

I disagree strongly with this. Libertarianism needs to be a history on Libertarianism, and not one type of it. Not any particular type, but a history starting from it's origin, and moving to the history of today. It should neither bet left (statist or anti statist) or right (statist or anti statist) but instead, talking about each with equal time through history.

If there is more relevant history, add it. But once the meaning of words are changed and widely accepted, that's life. Today libertarianism is accepted as being liberty and property oriented. And you have not come up with any mainstream sources that say otherwise, anywhere in the world. One or two ideologues just claiming it is not enough.

This is an encyclopedia. It should focus on the entire history of Libertarianism, and I do not find your argument compelling to omit the entire history because it's "accepted." Even if you want to focus on just U.S. Libertarianism, there's a long U.S. history of Libertarianism absent in this article starting with the Lowell Mill Girls

I am working on gathering you a comprehensive list of mainstream sources that talk about Libertarianism. I am reading the policies now, and will develop a list for you. q (talk) 18:05, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI I am a libertarian decentralist (and will add that category when get various refs together) which means I don't care how socialist people are in their own communities/regions. However as a wiki editor, I do care about unsourced and poorly sourced info being used to support points. Which is problem with much of this article, not just your entries. see wp:rs Carol Moore 17:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

I am concerned with the entire history of libertarianism being in the article for Libertarianism. I am not concerned with any arguments between the groups, but equal time devoted to the history of the word. That's encyclopedic. Avoiding it because it doesn't match the political view of the majority of editors is not.

Thank you. q (talk) 17:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The danger of annihilating all (academically) unreferenced material, is that we risk sliding into pure wikilawyering, insisting on following strict rules despite apparently formally valid content that flatly contradicts reality; it should be obvious at this stage that the article as it stands carries a huge ethnic and partisan bias; I don't see that so long as current organisations and people are referenced in a good faith manner, that this harms the article. Oisinoc (talk) 14:39, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

To qualify again - the ethnic and partisan bias lies in the presumption of using the auto-redirect to forclose the choice for us. Oisinoc (talk) 01:20, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

List of references for Libertarianism before 1950

To start, every reference to Libertarianism before 1950 involves the first libertarianism. How do sources for the New York Times work for wikipedia? They have many articles talking about Libertarians before 1950, but it looks like they are pay for. Can I use those? I will get many more for you, but "mainstream sources" i am trying to follow, and that is an initial mainstream source that extends. Thanks q (talk) 18:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's an article from the Harvard Crimson from 1978 which talks about the Libertarian Party which included all Libertarians at that time. And discusses Libertarianism as it existed. Great read for this topic.

http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=146716

"The largest organized group of libertarians in the Boston area is the MLP. MLP, affiliated with the National Libertarian Party which was founded in 1972, has about 100 members. Nason, the editor of MLP's newsletter, estimates that about 100 more people are involved in the party without being official members. "A lot of people don't believe in political parties," Nason explained.

"There are all kinds of people in MLP: anarcho-capitalists, anarcho-socialists, minimal statists. We're not a standard political party," Nason said. The party sponsors libertarian candidates in elections throughout the country, and serves as a mechanism for libertarians to meet other people interested in working on specific political issues, like tax reform and local civil liberties issues."

Libertarians discussed as one group, not just Anarcho-capitalists as in the article here.

Tons and Tons of paid for articles from all different time frames referencing only Libertarians as they were before 1950. Not Anarcho-Capitalists. Can I used paid for articles, I have passed over 100 in just a few minutes. Non-paid for mainstream sources are very difficult. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notque (talk • contribs) 18:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9C00E6DB103AE633A25751C1A9639C946396D6CF Free New York times article from May 12, 1912 explaining the movement, quotes some of the magazines they used, one is called "The Libertarian" q (talk) 19:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,770659,00.html Monday, Jul. 05, 1937 "Rightist propaganda announced: "In Santander 15,000 rioters have seized Government buildings and proclaimed a Communist Libertarian Republic.""

From Spanish Civil War fighters who were Libertarians against Hitler, Franco, and Mussolini. q (talk) 19:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It's also a bit difficult to separate articles because many publications connect all Anarchist information with Libertarians, because they were! So even if it doesn't specifically say Libertarian (anarchism is a subset of libertarianism), they connect them all anyway for searches. Very difficult! Still working though, I've passed maybe 500 articles on Libertarians/Anarchists I can't use. Still going for mainstream sources. q (talk) 19:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9A07E6D6123AE433A25752C3A9639C946696D6CF Anarchist/Libertarians calling conscription anti-libertarian. May 31, 1917 q (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Congrats for coming up with a list, which is relevant to history. But remember in general, people aren't too interested in lengthy dissertations on OLD definitions of words, so keeping it short and proportionate in the history section is necessary. What does MPL stand for, by the way?

At this point concentrate on adding WP:RS in proportionate manner. Then can start deleting all this nonsourced opinion stuff which may distort article in a number of ways. That's what I'll be doing :-) Carol Moore 19:23, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

It isn't an old definition of a word. It means the same thing in the rest of the world, the U.S. has just adopted a different version of the word, and mostly ignores the other definition. It still exists in the rest of the world, and in our history, and must be discussed. It makes it doubly important because no one is aware of it. it's part of the history, and an important history at that.

The main consideration is that this article needs a rewrite. My rewrite attempted to deal with that, and leave all content that was there, still there. That has been reverted. This article needs to clearly articulate the agreements, work through the history of what it has meant, and still means today in most of the world, then focus on the ideas and meanings of the different groups. That is my take. q (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9F06E4DD1638E333A25757C0A9649D946196D6CF Libertarian Japanese Socialist from December 4, 1910

"We are accustomed to think of the Japanese as naturally progressive, the "Yankees of the East," but I learn that Denjiro Kotoku is an "intellectual" who has devoted his abilities and energies to the spreading of libertarian ideas in Japan. As editor of the Tokio daily paper, Yorozu Cho-ho, (Thousand Morning News.) Kotoku enjoyed great popularity and appreciation." q (talk) 19:33, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Would it help if I start quoting from now? Uses of Libertarianism now that conform to this idea from all over the world? This is not an old usage that is gone, this is a vibrant usage in the rest of the world. The U.S. is completely out of touch with the usage of the word based on it's political leanings, and the jailing and attacking of Libertarians. There was a wish Libertarianism would be destroy in the U.S., and it succeeded in many respects. That needs to be discussed. The history of it, not just an entire article on what Libertarianism that started in the 1950's believes. q (talk) 19:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

And when I say all over the world, I am talking English speaking countries as well. This isn't a minor difference, the rest of the world uses the old pre U.S. 1950 version of Libertarianism. That is not some small difference relegated to a history section somewhere else. There are many articles that discuss what the 1950's version of Libertarianism means, from the Libertarian Party page, to the Anarcho Capitalism page, and I'm not against another Libertarianism article on Right Wing Libertarianism which includes all of this information. But it shouldn't exist like this on the Libertarianism page. You wouldn't have a slavery page that just focused on our slavery for the word slavery, would you? This seems like common sense. q (talk) 19:50, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Just glanced over the Slavery page, that seems like an excellent way to handle this article. I'm sure about any topic is handled better than this article, which again is one area of a topic, and 99% contains that one area of the topic ignoring everything else. q (talk) 19:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=9D02EEDA1030E333A25750C1A9679D94699ED7CF Article on london meeting of libertarians from November 13, 1898 addressing the Libertarian Lecture Society of London q (talk) 19:59, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt//spain/ruta.html A history of Spanish libertarian youth paper 'Ruta' 1936

I can really go on forever. The sheer amount of New York Times articles on Libertarians in the U.S. is massive. q (talk) 20:04, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Another really useful part of this is the 1950's Libertarian attempt to take the word. The whole "left libertarian" was created by them to take the word. So that nothing was Libertarian except what they deemed it such. You can see this in Reason a lot. If we were a real non-biased encyclopedia we would deal with this fact, but I'm content just trying to get the most basic of standard non-bias article in here. q (talk) 20:12, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

So my first goal is only to remove all incorrect information. I will work on that, removing anything outright incorrect without adding anything. That seems reasonable. If the statement says "Libertarianism believes" and it's factually incorrect because it's only focused on 1950's us libertarianism, then I will remove it. q (talk) 20:25, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, that WAS my first goal before. That's why there were so many changes, and moving content. It's so factually incorrect, I have to start wholesale moving things around. Guh. What to do... q (talk) 20:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Previous verison I was working on

The previous version I had that was reverted was significantly more factually correct, and contained most of the data from the previous article. Can I get a consensus on moving to that version of the article to continue forward? All that work needs to be redone, and it can be edited to fit any issues from that step. I looked at the differences again, and they are stunning. Thanks q (talk) 20:44, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's just start from where we are because it's getting too confusing. Carol Moore 00:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Archiving

Hearing no good objections I'm going to do so tomorrow with first section being "Can we please stop changing this article to reflect an American bias?" Getting too long for comfortable reading. Carol Moore 00:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

No Objections, I agree. q (talk) 05:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Less POV lead, followed by principles/cooperative editing

I had put up: Libertarianism applies to philosophies which uphold the principles of individual liberty and minimize the role of the state.(REF:FreeDictionary.com; Merriam-Webster.Com) The label is used by a broad spectrum of political philosophies.

It was reverted back to the old and now current lead which is too POV and without adequate refs either in the lead or in the text.

Now that the first two out of place sections on Rights/Consequentialism and Lib in US have been moved, principles are right on top and we can start writing a section that more accurately reflects the most common views using mainstream sources to settle the controversial issues. To me the big issue is whether to put all the differnet issues under this section or under separate issues section, i.e.: Rights Theory vs. Consequentialism; Minarchism versus anarcho-capitalism; Left-libertarianism; Objectivism; Rejection of Left-Right Spectrum - other? Hopefully some of those who edit but may not participate in talk will do so to keep this cooperative and not contentious and messy. ;-) Carol Moore 01:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

I agree with your lead in, and disagree with the factually incorrect previous lead in. This is going to be a contentious issue. That is unavoidable. 1950's U.S. Libertarian propaganda holds that there is no Libertarian but ours, and puts out many articles that say all other Libertarians don't count, because we say so. So many U.S. Libertarians are not going to allow it based on this propaganda. It's an uphill battle, but it's a battle that I feel is worthy of being fought as this is the most factually incorrect article I've ever seen on wikipedia, and it's a travesty that it cannot be delt with in the way that so many other articles are delt with. q (talk) 05:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

On your question of topics, and separation. I believe there should be a new article built called "right-libertarianism" and have most of this moved there while "Libertarianism" focuses on the broader spectrums and agreements. There's too much in this article that isn't "libertarianism", and deserves to be displayed somewhere properly cited. It just doesn't all belong here unless we want a large article. All that data that is there? Left Libertarianism easily has double. (it existed longer), and I find no compulsion to add it all for either group. I think the origins are important (the enlightenment) and should perhaps be discussed. I'm open to discussion. The origins of Libertarianism if done with a deft hand can actually fit

both Libertarians. q (talk) 17:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I disagree and I'm sure most editors would. Once again, what matters is how libertarianism is defined today. All you havew{{WP:RS]]'d so far is how it was described before 1950. That's like saying the meaning of computer before 1970 should have equal weight to the meaning of computer today. Carol Moore 21:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Libertarianism as defined today is the contained sum of all parts of all Libertarianism. Not just the 1950's version. I can quote specific information if you'd like. In English speaking countries it is common to intro a Libertarian article with "For those of you who are from the U.S., we are not talking about your newer Libertarianism." It's still relevant, alive, and used frequently. I have much more editing to do, and will add much more information on Libertarianism today. There are many libertarian journals and groups around the world, and each country has it's own distinct Libertarian history which extends to today. It takes time to source and research everything, and if you'd like to lend a hand we can certainly get this done much faster. It has nothing to do with the word not being in use today. It is, and vibrantly. q (talk) 21:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a very long and detailed history of libertarianism. It's going to take time to construct it all in encyclopedic form with references. You could do an entire page per country that adopted it, and that actually seems like an excellent idea. q (talk) 21:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, I did add a quote which discusses this definition problem in context of today. I will add more, but that quote sums up the entire thing. It's not "old", it's vibrant as today, but ignored intentionally by a large sector of the 1950's Libertarian movement. q (talk) 22:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Featured article

I reverted back to the featured article version:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Libertarianism&oldid=37475814

Somewhere along the line the article lost featured article status. This is the date where it was awarded with featured article. Whichmore (talk) 02:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

While the structure looks pretty good, the problem with that is there are even fewer refs in that article than this one. Making it mostly WP:original research which is against policy. In Jan 2006 Wiki's standards were a lot looser. So again it's a matter of deleting the most questionable, pov unsourced material and looking for sources for least controversial/probably true stuff. Plus adding some of the good sourced stuff from the newer version. What do others think? (I assume someone will jsut revert it, frankly.) Carol Moore 02:30, 24 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

I'm kind of wondering what the point is of doing any editing at all on Wikipedia. Anything we put in is going to eventually be gone, over time. So what's the point. Can anyone tell me? Whichmore (talk) 03:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

This is more true on contentious articles, of course. But it is much more difficult to remove WP:RS material than opinions. Assuming anyone is watching. So it's not a perfect system. Carol Moore 21:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

The point is that hopefully (!) we reach some sort of equilibrium, where we stop trying to annihilate each other's ideas, and include our opponents viewpoints in return for them accepting our own; it's not necessary to reach unanimity - but if I make a good faith effort to be both honest and inclusive, and respect your input, then you can reciprocate; we can all be protecting each other's work among the greater whole - we won't need to be jealously guarding our own little empires 24/7. Or something. Knowledge is provisional. 212.187.194.74 (talk) 14:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Problems with new edits

Wikipedia:Lead#Citations says material likely to be challenged should have a citation, which is why i had one; one sentence on brood spectrum not too controversial. Obviously the further text describing it is. So until someone comes up with something cited should keep short.

I agree with your intro change, and believe it should be made. Please make it. q (talk) 22:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

The word libertarian is the combination of the word "liberty" and the suffix "-ian" which literally means "of or about freedom." It is an antonym of "authoritarian." This should be in lead but with a citation; put it in when you get one. We have to stop putting in uncited material!

I will cite the material. q (talk) 22:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Questions of definition section is clumbsy and inappropriate and material belongs under left-libertarian/libertarian socialism. Chomsky statement on tradition not current status of movement from an objective source; need current WP:RS that that movement as big and widespread as the one acceptring right to property.

I disagree that it's inappropriate. I do not disagree that it is clumsy. It does not belong under left-libertarian as the word didn't even exist at that time. It's Libertarian thought, and history and deserves to be under Libertarianism. I will add current WP:RS on the Libertarian movement. It's one of those things that, it's so large that it's hard finding a particular citation that even bothers to talk about it. Whole movements exist in countries all over the world. I will work on that.

Also, I think you misread the quote. He's not talking about just tradition but now. I can cite him talking about this topic at least 10 times. This is one of the topics he covers often as he's a Classical Libertarian. Obviously, I can cite many others as well, and will do so. q (talk) 22:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Property rights advocates have popularized the term with their ideology in the United States and to a lesser extent in England. No citation from WP:RS.

I will add a citation immediately.

See my new edits when done. Carol Moore 22:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Will do, please do not remove anything I am working on citing. q (talk) 22:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Order of headings

The history of Libertarianism should be first, as most wikipedia articles are laid out. I have not heard a sufficient justification to change that. Why should the history spanning the words lifetime not be before the principals of one group of Libertarians from 1950's? Thanks. q (talk) 22:53, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with history going first and integrating all that material into it. Solves a lot of problems :-) Carol Moore 22:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Excellent. Would you mind taking the data I've written in that section, and renaming it history. Removing the Chomsky quote, and placing it in Left-Libertarianism for the moment, and I can at least focus on getting the history completed before moving onto other topics (with citations.) If you do mind, I will rewrite it into a history heading. q (talk) 23:03, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's agree on outline first- especially for history section. And don't forget the great mass of the article will remain about what great mass of citations and work and mainstream articles - and wiki editors want it to be about: pro-property libertarianism. Eventually a CITED statement of an over view of the principles could be put in the lead.

History
- Early History
- 2-4 Modern History subsections mostly about pro-property libertarianism
Current Issues
- Left-libertarianism
- Rejection of Left-Right Spectrum
- Rights Theory vs. Consequentialism
- Minarchism versus anarcho-capitalism
- Objectivism
- other
The libertarian movement ( with subsectionas by country, inlcuding US)
Criticism of libertarianism a good section that was removed; short left and right criticisms appropriate

'

Carol Moore 23:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

To respond more directly, however, we're talking about moving the existing history section up. Why don't you just see what I do with it tomorrow. I don't want to waste a lot of time on stuff that will be reverted after the weekend, though I'm getting more assertive about reverting back. Plus give others a chance to comment. Carol Moore 23:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC))Carolmooredc {talk}

I don't understand the assumptions about reverting back. This is clearly and unambiguously historical content that is important within this article. Currently the rest of the world has a different definition than the U.S. (classical), and you can see the many, many complaints about it on the talk page. I don't quite see the problem. Perhaps some more people should edit the article that aren't 1950's Libertarians as the bias is evident and massive. q (talk) 00:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Your POV to turn this into a socialist article will keep getting reverted by a variety of editors. Please give me a chance to make it a balanced article. Also most WP:RS history of what libs socialists actually have done in modern time helpful. Carol Moore 15:11, 25 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

I think we should move to mediation. Do you agree? q (talk) 15:21, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Not at this point. I'll let others revert your under latest deletion of accurate material that I'm working on sourcing. I'm just going to continue fixing this up to an NPOV WP:RS article at my web page. I'm sure the 30 people coming here after watching CSPAN won't get too confused and think the great majority of pro-property libertarians are a smaller minority of anti-property ones. In a few days things should become more clear. Carol Moore 15:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Please add it back when you have sources and citations. All cited and sourced material is welcome. Thanks! q (talk) 15:26, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

"And don't forget the great mass of the article will remain about what great mass of citations and work and mainstream articles - and wiki editors want it to be about: pro-property libertarianism." Absolutely not! How on earth can this be considered NPOV? I've detailed above many current libertarian trends among the left, worldwide, and it is not up to me or anyone else to "prove" that we need permission to change this article from the purely chauvinist and partisan POV it now attempts to present in such an arrogant manner. This is not a party-political broadcast for the US Libertarian Party. Oisinoc (talk) 14:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

And talk about loaded questions; the entire list of headings is so designed to present essentially one parochial view of libertarianism; I'm not against including this information as a subsection - but this simply contradicts reality to present it in universalist, teleological terms (where did all the leftwingers, and the rest of the world, dissapear to after the 1930's? They all joined the US Libertarian Party or became fellow travellers? It is simply extraordinary to ignore everything and everyone worldwide who desn't fit into this partisan analysis; it's not up to everyone else to prove such a bad faith presentation as wrong) Oisinoc (talk) 15:23, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

All of my criticisms would be significantly neutralised, if the auto-redirect were removed; people should have the choice whether they want to click a "Libertarianism" article on the subject matter presented, or on a more inclusive and general overview; it should not be presumed that this choice must be made for them. Oisinoc (talk) 01:25, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Libertarian Politics

This section mainly covers the United States and does not offer a fully worldwide perspective. It should either be given a subheading "in the United States" or be updated to include other examples from around the world; I've tagged the section because of these concerns.Wikischolar1983 (talk) 03:29, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Libertarian movement has a lot of that kind of info and info needs to be better organized between the two, plus more WP:RS info added. Carol Moore 03:35, 25 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

I agree entirely with you. I am trying to fix it, and people continue to undo my well sourced and documented changes to make this article in line with any other article on any other topic. I need your help, and hopefully you understand the process better than I do so that we can make changes that improve this article. It's factually incorrect, and people with political agendas are less concerned with the encyclopedia as they are with furthering their own agendas. It's a depressing fact that has to be delt with, and the options are ignore it and allow them to control what words mean, or work to change it even if it takes an incredible amount of effort for very little progress. I haven't decided what to do yet. 72.208.191.232 (talk) 06:03, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

If 72.208.191.232 is User:Notque, please sign in so it doesn't look like WP:sockpuppet. THANKS. Carol Moore 19:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Eytmology section?

So does any one else think one is a good idea or integrate into history? Carol Moore 15:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

I think that the initial Eytmology in the introduction is good, and the rest should be listed in the history. We are trying to describe a word that had 1 meaning from 1800s till now, and then another group took the meaning to a radically different direction in 1955. I think it makes sense to explain that history in the history section, and then go into what the two groups believed with everything cited and referenced as it's a controversial topic. q (talk) 16:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please. Oisinoc (talk) 02:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Broad spectrum?

Hi, Whichmore: " . . . a few . . . " may be equally self-evident from the article itself. Point taken.

It is a quite different point, however. It is also, if true, an insufficiently significant observation, unlike " . . . a broad spectrum . . .", to be in the first sentence of the article. It now reads as merely facetious.

Please elaborate on why you find broad spectrum so unacceptable. It refers to the fact that people who call themselves libertarians are to be found right across the political spectrum - from so-called far Right to so-called far Left. And points in between. Indeed (and I didn't write it) the final section of the article, complete with 'Nolan chart,' suggests that libertarianism resides across an even wider 'gamut' of political thought.

I am puzzled by your problem. As the great Lord Buckley would have requested: Hip me!

Regards, Wingspeed (talk) 20:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Well one problem is that It's pretty unusual for people on the left to call themselves "libertarians" in the English language. Those on the left, nearly invariably, call themselves "left libertarians." But let's say for sake of argument that they are referred to as "libertarians" too. Ok, then that's one philosophy. Now what are the others ones? Can you come up with enough to constitute a "broad spectrum"? Whichmore (talk) 21:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. Far from it being pretty unusual for people on the left to call themselves libertarians in the English language, the label has frequently been adopted by far-leftists down the years, as you will see delineated if you consult the histories of the anarchist tradition written by George Woodcock, James Joll or, more recently, by Peter Marshall. Indeed, what is usually considered to have been the foremost anarchist journal in the English language, Anarchy (a monthly published in the UK during the sixties & seventies), at its inception narrowly decided against calling itself The Libertarian. In its pages alone, a whole spectrum of political & philosophical positions were expressed, all sharing a libertarian perspective: federalist, communist, egoist, syndicalist, individualist, collectivist, mutualist, pacifist & non-violent, revolutionary & aggressive, Christian & Buddhist, primitivist & technophile . . . Need I go on? Chomsky from time to time describes himself as a libertarian socialist. He represents a whole philosophical position in himself. The title of the foremost anarchist journal in French translates as Libertarian World. All that's before we even consider the category of council communist thinkers such as Pannekoek & Gorter. Check the Wikipedia entry Anarchist schools of thought & you will see, at a rough count, in excess of 20 different positions outlined. I speak myself, if pressed, as a libertarian buddhist - though, as a self-respecting libertarian, I would prefer the term non-buddhist. (There are so many "non-buddhists" in the southern part of the English county of Devon that it's become a bit of a in-joke & has even been the subject of at least one magazine article.) I am less well acquainted with the variety of philosophical positions on, for want of a better term, the libertarian Right, but the article identifies well in to double figures. Have you read the Libertarianism article right the way through? No need: the side bar at the top labeled Schools of Thought currently lists 21. You ask, 'Can you come up with enough to constitute a "broad spectrum?"' Please! Wingspeed (talk) 00:06, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

If it is true that there are a broad spectrum, or many, as opposed to a one, or a two, or, a few, philophies called "libertarianism," then there ought to be a source somewhere stating that. Otherwise its original research. Whichmore (talk) 00:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The unavoidable source is just one or two inches to the right of your own words, "a few." The article's sidebar itself stands in glaring and embarrassing contradiction of those words; yet such a solecism seems to trouble you not. I repeat: it lists no fewer than 21 different libertarian schools of thought. Do you wish to deny the evidence of your eyes? 1)You say that it's "pretty unusual for people on the left to call themselves "libertarians" in the English language." I have provided you above with abundant evidence to the contrary. 2)You say: "that's one philosophy. Now what are the other ones?" I have provided you with literally scores, as, indeed, does the article itself. 3)You say: "If it is true that there are [my italics] a broad spectrum" . . . A spectrum is by definition singular not plural but it contains a multiplicity. Libertarianism is not the name of one particular philosophy or "a few," as you will possibly allow, but a label for many different political positions which have this one characteristic in common: agreement on the need to prioritize indivdual liberty & minimize state power. That's the whole point. This is not "original research." I feel like I may I have inadvertently stepped into Trollville. Perhaps your problem is with the meaning & metaphorical use in the context of the word spectrum, though it's very well & long established in social scientific discourse. I can also give you a source for that. I commend to you the Wikipedia entry on this use of the term spectrum & have linked the introductory definition to it accordingly. Regards Wingspeed (talk) 11:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Have justed added a link to the Libertarianism entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy which, again, details numerous different brands of "libertarianism." So we now have not just one but two references - one internal & one external. I hope this will suffice. Wingspeed (talk) 11:51, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

This looks like pure Wikilawyering, insisting that unless we present presumably an academic paper stating that there is a broad spectrum, it is "original research"; this is where the "common sense" part comes in! Oisinoc (talk) 14:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The fact that there are many schools of libertarian thought is a perfectly valid reason for the qualifiers not just among the left, but worldwide; it is facetious to suggest that e.g. one parochial school of thought that ignores others, is somehow more "authentic" precisely because it ignores others and tries to co-opt the term for itself! Would we accept that argument for an article on a specific religion? The claim that "libertarianism" is somehow the preserve of not just primarily one ethnic group in the world (look at the US focus in the article!), but of one set of recent political partisans - despite historical and current usage worldwide - is an extraordinary claim, which would require extraordinary evidence; the onus is not on everyone else to disprove this extraordinary claim. Oisinoc (talk) 15:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Bias and lack of world perspective

This article never seems to follow the rules of Wikipedia. Despite the fact that we have an article for Modern liberalism in the United States because US politics do not reflect the world's politics, we still make this article reflect the US usage of the word libertarianism. Worldwide, libertarianism still is a synonym for anarchism; only Americans and some Britons use it the way the article describes it. Shouldn't we move this article to one with a name such as Modern libertarianism in the United States for the sake of reducing bias? -- LGagnon 15:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC) Update: I have added a warning about this to the article. -- LGagnon 15:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

If it's a synonym for anarchism then just make a disambiguation article. Send people to anarchism if that's what they're looking for. Whichmore (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a disambiguation article; my point is that this article misleads people to think that right-wing American libertarianism is the dominant concept that the word refers to, when in fact it's in the vast minority. We don't do this for anything else on Wikipedia (at least as far as I know), so I don't see why we should allow one tiny niche to dominate a term that most of the world would not recognize as being the standard usage of it. Like I said, this article needs to be moved, as even the title is biased. -- LGagnon 01:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

How do you know the usage is in the "vast minority?" Do you have a source? Whichmore (talk) 02:32, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Pretty much every language that has a word for libertarian uses it to mean anarchist. Even in the US that was the case until conservatives co-opted it. This is one of those common sense things that Wikipedia only asks for sources for because of the flaws of its editing system (that is, people who are undereducated or non-experts are allowed to edit, thus they must always be appeased despite the lack of a need to do so). The case isn't any different when we have to deal with people who haven't studied international politics claiming that the American perspective is what's right and if you can't prove it isn't then we default to their perspective. That said, there are definitely sources available - there's an interview with Noam Chomsky on YouTube where he mentions this, though Wikipedia seems to think even when an expert is on YouTube you can't cite that video. -- LGagnon 17:21, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Common sense to me is that "libertarianism," does not usually refer to anarchism in the English language, and this IS an English language encyclopedia. If there are definitely sources available on the matter, then let's see them. Whichmore (talk) 18:22, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Depends on what you mean by usually. In American English, "libertarianism" has only meant fiscal conservativism since the 1970s (not all English in the world uses that definition); before that, it was the same definition as in the rest of the world, and it is still often used that way by many anarchists today. And this is an English encyclopedia, not an American encyclopedia; thus, we should represent the word's meaning in all English speaking parts of the world. -- LGagnon 18:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I think "libertarianism" usually refers to the same thing here as it usually does in Australia. But apparently you don't get my drift. I'm saying our personal opinions don't matter. Sources are what matters. Whichmore (talk) 18:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with LGagnon. q (talk) 15:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I can appreciate what all the fuss is about, but I feel we need to be careful here. Slapping big warning signs over the top of an article rather than calmly tapping the keys to rectify any perceived imbalance can represent more strident an expression of POV than the imbalance itself. And frighten away newcomers to the article & its important subject matter. I personally have no brief for the Libertarian right or electoral politics: since the age of 14 (I'm 61 now, for god's sake) I've regarded myself as an anarchist; I also use the label libertarian - my exchange above with Whichmore gives a pretty good indication of my political position. The article's opening section with its long quotes from Kropotkin over-prioritize, if anything, the expressly anarchist strain within what can broadly be termed "libertarianism". The fact is that in the US the anti-state tradition, and a vigorous one at that, long predates the time when shysters like Reagan & Thatcher started calling themselves libertarian: it stretches right back into the Revolution itself and the enthusiasms of people like Jefferson who, whatever his other faults, famously said, "That which governs best is that which governs least." Then there are people like Thoreau & Benjamin Tucker & Emerson and, more recently, people like Edward Abbey. Goldwater's speechwriter, Karl Hess, turned anarchist in the early 70s as did, I seem to recall (though it seems even more hard to credit now) the Young Republicans en-masse. We need to allow that political positions & categories are more complex than we may prefer. When a Libertarian is running for President, presumably bringing a lot more people to this entry, we need to reflect that. An obvious solution is to subsume as much as is appropriate under a clear sub-heading "Libertarianism in the US" - its length & breadth being a consequence of who contributes what & how much. Ditto for coverage of the libertarian tradition worldwide. Seems to me terribly un-libertarian for one particular group to try and expropriate the label. That, were it possible, would benefit nobody.Wingspeed (talk) 19:46, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

As usual people continue to assert libertarianism all over the world is left wing, yet they fail to provide any reliable sources proving that point. When someone finally came up with some, they were all 100 years old!!

I have gotten hung up with some personal issues, but am going to put WP:RS refs on current assertions of how it is used by pro-property people world wide and add more, plus other changes to restructure. In my wide experience with left and right libertarians in US and Britain, most do use left lib or lib socialist. Again just provide reliable sources - or even left groups that call themselves first and foremost libertarian only - and you will be wiki-correct. Carol Moore 14:31, 16 June 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

That isn't true at all. I cited recent things, as well as things over 100 years old. The point was, I was researching the founding of the word. So I cited references for that. You don't listen to what I say, and then repeat it. In this very talk page are quotes from the 1970s. Hardly 100 years old. I can do today as well, however I am working from one level (the history) and moving towards now, so by the time I finish the article will have as many sources as you would like. And then you can tell me, as you have, that it's not important enough to have that many sources, and that you'll remove some of them. q (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

There was the Libertarian League in the u.s. in 1954 to 67. Apologies for linking to wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_League q (talk) 19:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Murray Bookchin noted, the "term 'libertarian' itself, to be sure, raises a problem, notably, the specious identification of an anti-authoritarian ideology with a straggling movement for 'pure capitalism' and 'free trade.' This movement never created the word: it appropriated it from the anarchist movement of the [nineteenth] century. And it should be recovered by those anti-authoritarians ... who try to speak for dominated people as a whole, not for personal egotists who identify freedom with entrepreneurship and profit." Thus anarchists in America should "restore in practice a tradition that has been denatured by" the free-market right. [The Modern Crisis, pp. 154-5] http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=owIO8KOnY3YC&dq=the+modern+crisis&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=p7GZREqhQh&sig=SS2gqYE8eQHDu1rLX9rCHDujNOU&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result

published in 1987 q (talk) 19:25, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

From 1994 http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/libhe/libhe012.htm Guy Aldred (1886-1963) The Socialist as Libertarian q (talk) 19:28, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

http://illvox.org/2008/06/16/anarchism-and-libertarian-currents-in-the-oaxaca-insurrectionary-movement/ Libertarianism in the Oaxaca movement today. q (talk) 19:32, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

http://www.takver.com/history/sydney/baker1.htm Sydney Libertarianism by A.J. Baker 1960 q (talk) 19:35, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

http://anarchism.www7.50megs.com/2.html 'Libertarians' - What's in a Word? "This article originally appeared in "ANARCHY! Northeast Libertarian Broadsheet" Issue 3, Jan. '95. '" q (talk) 19:37, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Albert Meltzer's Anarchism : Arguments for and Against published in 2000 "Nowadays conservatives like to appropriate the name 'libertarianism' to describe themselves as if they were more receptive to freedom than socialists. But their libertarianism is confined to keeping the State out of interfering in their business affairs, i.e. exploitation. Once anarchism makes it plain that it is possible to have both social justice and to dispense with the State they are shown in their true colours. Their arguments against State socialism and Communism may sound 'libertarian,' but their arguments against Anarchism reveal that they are essentially authoritarian. That is why they prefer to rely upon innuendo, slanders and false reporting, which is part and parcel of the Establishment anti-anarchism, faithfully supported by the media." [pp. 47-48]" q (talk) 19:40, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

http://www.social-ecology.org/harbinger/vol2no1/education.html Current journal discussing "classical" libertarianism q (talk) 19:44, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

http://www.akpress.org/2005/items/anarchismadocumentaryhistoryoflibertarianideas Anarchism: A Documentary History Of Libertarian Ideas released 2005, US q (talk) 19:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism_in_France Another wiki link, apologies. q (talk) 20:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course, it would also due to mention that Mike Gravel ran as a Left Libertarian for the Libertarian Party nomination. q (talk) 20:21, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/libertarianism/ Discussion of Left and Right libertarianism, and differences. q (talk) 20:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

As you can see clearly, Left Libertarianism developed as "Libertarianism." Libertarianism was another word for Anarchism. Both being the same school of what you would now call "Left" Libertarianism. This extended until 1970. Then a different group with different goals started using the word Libertarianism. That version of Libertarianism extends the power of the rich, while the other version limits it. So in Capitalist societies, publications which are owned by the rich will discuss "Right" Libertarianism but not "Left" Libertarianism. Other countries have rich and vast traditions of "Left" libertarianism. There are more Left Libertarians in the world than Right ones. There are more Right Libertarians in the U.S. than left ones. What does this all mean? They should receive equal time in this article, and they currently do not. q (talk) 20:43, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

No one is stopping people from putting sourced, accurate, NPOV material in here. Except for q ref'd info, including recent links, there has been little such material, just a lot of whining.

However, the info q includes must refer to Libertarianism without modifiers like Left or Socialist or else the info belongs in the relevant Left libertarian or libertarian socialist articles.

I don't understand this. So you're saying that because a group in the 1970's said that there can be no Libertarianism except theirs, that information that has always been Libertarianism doesn't count if it's socialist?! Libertarianism IS socialism in the context of the first version of it. There's no difference. I have added much information on this. Would you like me to add this explanation with references into the article? I'm fine with this since the topic seems unknown. q (talk) 19:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Also I think you are betraying your POV by trashing all free market libertarians as promoting the worst aspects of capitalism, a word created to describe a negative and exploitive culture which sometimes was, but often merely pretended to be, free market while really being statist and mercantilist.

I am not trashing anyone. I am quoting other people trashing it. Please separate my own thoughts from quotes concerning the topic.q (talk) 19:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Finally if the pro-property/free market definition is now the predominant one world wide according to a far larger number of WP:RS, then so be it.

It is not predominant, and if you can find sources to back up that statement I'd love to look at them. q (talk) 19:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm still getting house back in order after full electrical overhaul but hope next week to really clean up this messy article. Carol Moore 23:53, 19 June 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

I think after so many misunderstandings it might make sense for us to clear up some of these issues before either of us edit the article any further, aside from stopping vandalism or simple edits. I am fine with mediation of some kind. This is a clear cut case that I've written many words on to help clarify these issues, and I do not feel like I'm making very much ground in relation to the amount of work I'm doing. Are you reading the citations? I'd also prefer it if you do not make accusations of betraying POV by quoting others who discuss this issue. There are a couple sections where I have made my feelings on the gulf known, and they are certainly not betraying POV, but instead helping to clarify the academic discussion. It is very unfair for you to ask me for citation after citation, after citation, and then tell me by citing them I am betraying something. This seems totally off the wall to me. q (talk) 19:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

There are a number of people editing the article as well as a number complaining about bias, but not enough specific issues by specific people for mediation. I've directed my comments on cites for material to all of those alleging there is this big "libertarian" movement that is leftist but does not call itself either left libertarian or libertarian socialist. I still am to busy to start serious editing but keeping my eyes open. Carol Moore 00:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

"info... must refer to Libertarianism without modifiers like Left or Socialist or else the info belongs in the relevant Left libertarian or libertarian socialist articles." No, actually, it must not! It is a particular recent partisan political opinion, of (primarily) a particular country that is seeking to present itself here as the definition of this term; the fact that its proponents choose to ignore the diversity of schools of thought worldwide associated with the term, cannot be presented as some sort of universal proof that this belief is justified! This is a circular argument; The burden of proof does not lie on the rest of us to prove to you that this parochial definition is not of universal validity - rather the reverse. Oisinoc (talk) 15:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

what we're bumping into here, is a fundamental difference in the use of the term - libertarianism as a descriptive term of a set of diverse ideas (me and most of the other critics, I think), and libertarianism as co-opted by Boaz etc. as a deliberate, intentional political and marketing policy from 1955. That marketing plan does not preclude the general use of the term though; we're not ever going to get over this until we have two "libertarianism" articles, I think.

Article not NPOV: Where is criticism?

This article desperately needs a "criticisms of" section. Every other political/economic theory on Wiki has one. Why have you libertarians chosen to exclude one? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.211.133.118 (talk) 00:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

There was a totally unsourced section and a tag was put up to source it or it would be deleted and no one did so it was deleted. Go back a few months, find it, source it, put it back. Carol Moore 02:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Taking Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy to Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard

I gave the page a quick look. While I like some of the things they say, I don't like use of their views in the intro. Since I am ambivalent, I'm going to get outside opinions Libertarianism, by Matt Zwolinski, Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Carol Moore 01:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

It's self published, right? So it's not useable. Operation Spooner (talk) 03:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Results of discussion on this topic here: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Internet_Encyclopedia_of_Philosophy. Couple people felt it was imperfect but fairly reliable since by professors on a university web site. Said about same thing about the also referenced source here The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Carol Moore 17:42, 13 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

I would draw the attention of fellow-editors concerned over the credentials of the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (e.g. 'It's self=published, right? So it's not usable." - see above) to this page. The criteria applied when screening possible contributions & contributors seem more than averagely rigorous and, indeed, comparable to those applied by any reputable publisher of reference works of this kind. Having compared the two, though it's just my opinion of course, the IEP article on Libertarianism (certainly the opening passages) seems surprisingly better than the the Stanford Encyclopedia's article, which I find feeble by comparison. Wingspeed (talk) 22:47, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Libertarianism as Right-wing Anarchism

Despite the ticky-box internet quizzes, I find that people describing themselves as Libertarians tend to be mostly right-wing, whereas the left-wing equivalents tend to call themselves anarchists. Some basic googling suggests this to be the case also, but it's not really outlined in the article anywhere, even under 'left libertarian' etc, especially given that Anarchism is being described as a 'school' of Libertarianism, additionally confusing to readers given Anarchism was the older, and more established school of thought, and Libertarianism is relatively new to the public eye. It could be an accidental geek-bias at play, by which I mean, there's more libertarians among geeks than amongst the usual population. - 222.154.238.36 (talk) 07:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Only American right-wingers call themselves Libertarians; outside the US it still means anarchist. Your googling may have just picked up US websites; it's a common problem, as Googling does not always represent a worldly view. And "Libertarianism" as a right-wing ideology has been around as egoism in the past; it's just that egoists decided a few decades ago to steal a name from anarchism to make themselves look more friendly. And yes, bias is exactly what's at play here: egoist Wikipedians are trying to change the past Big Brother style, just like their offline brethren, simply to promote their ideology. -- LGagnon 03:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

With respect: it is not simply egoists - or individualists - implementing this bias; noted Individualist feminist/anarchist/libertarian Wendy MacElroy wrote an essay on this subject contrasting the then emerging -and statist - grasp of the US Libertarian Party on the term, compared with the long individualist anarchist meaning it had (see: "Libertarianism in the United States" above). The article reads like an introduction for the LP, and yes, there is an almost Stalinist airbrushing of history (all the left-wingers dropped off the face of the earth after the 1930's, apparently). Oisinoc (talk) 06:58, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

United Kingdom Independence Party

UKIP was wrongly mentioned in the section about libertarian movements, as the "largest libertarian party in the United Kingdom". This is completely false as the United Kingdom Independence Party, though supporting low taxation has an explicitly conservative, eurosceptic and protectionist ideology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.239.105.238 (talk) 00:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC) In fairness, though, "Eurosceptic" is not necessarily anti-libertarian :-) Oisinoc (talk) 07:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

UKIP promote themselves as libertarian. Euroskepticism does not seem inconsistent with libertarian thought. They seem more like normal tories to me though, with slightly heavier anti-EU beliefs.

Lostsocks (talk) 18:19, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Really Good Dictionary Definition

I found this in the 1983 Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (before conservatives tried to co-opt the word) and it's the best I've seen. Comments before I put it in there?

Libertarian: 1) an advocate of the doctrine of free will; 2) one who upholds the principle of absolute and unrestricted liberty, especially of thought and action (also libertarianism) Carol Moore 00:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

The newer the dictionary, the more appropriate. Operation Spooner (talk) 01:47, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

It isn't more appropriate. First it was one thing, which older dictionaries show. Then another group took the name. Then another group took the name. Why side with the second group on a definition? All should be explained within the context. q (talk) 21:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Given the various definitions, an etymology page with real content remains a good idea. Then it can follow any real evolution from radicalism to conservatism in the use of the word. Of course that means going to the library, where those hard copy volumes reside. What a concept!! Carol Moore 22:42, 17 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

In the history of American politics, the two parties have drifted ideologically, back and forth, left and right, Liberally Conservative into Conservative Liberalism...and back again. What was then a Republican is now considered a Democrat...and then, vice-a-versa. I was a voting Libertarian in the '70's and 80's. I drifted into what was known as a "small el libertarian" and still hold the principles of free will and individual liberty dear. To me, any of the collectivist, socialist philosophies were and are the antithesis of Libertarianism. Makes me think of Orwell's Animal Farm.--Buster7 (talk) 02:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to reflect reality using WP:reliable sources. The reality is that from mid-1700s to late 1800s there were many movements for liberty that many now identify as being libertarian. However the actual word was first used by collectivists. Pro-property libertarians adopted in the early 1960s and lefties started calling themselves left libs or lib socialists. (If any of them are still call themselves just libertarians, no one has proved that point with WP:RS information.) Property libertarianism became very radical and anti-state. Until the early 1990s when conservatives and neocons decided it was getting too pro-liberty and had to be diluted and undermined. Now Bob Barr is the LP candidate. BLEAH! But there are still lots of hard core libertarians around. Of course, the bottom line is what you can put in an article with a good reference. A lot of this article could be deleted right now because it is not referenced at all. And it's poorly organized and missing important info. But I still haven't had time to do all the work to help create an article that would more accurately reflect reality with WP:RS. Carol Moore 00:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

That isn't true, Libertarianism means Anarchism. There's a reason for that, from it's creation. Secondly, Libertarianism exists today as Anarchism. You say the movement ended in the late 1800s? The Spanish Civil War was a war for the first Libertarian Government, which was 1930s. You keep repeating complete falsehoods that have been proven incorrect numerous times on just this talk page. Today, Libertarian movements exist all over the world for Anarchism. Libertarian means Anarchism, by definition, and by action in the rest of the world. A small group of Americans took the word, and their movement expanded to what it exists today. It didn't "end", and you should really stop repeating that. q (talk) 18:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote: (If any of them are still call themselves just libertarians, no one has proved that point with WP:RS information.) I didn't say that such information did not exist. Carol Moore 00:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

I have proved that they still call themselves Libertarians. Have you read my many citations on the topic? Books have come out this year on Libertarianism in the United States as being Classical Libertarianism. Mike Gravel was in the Libertarian primary as a Classical Libertarian. Where is the issue? q (talk) 22:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

If it's something new inserte din the article itself, I must have missed it. I'm not talking about the talk page. Carol Moore 23:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

If some are qualifying their libertarianism, it is reasonable to assume it's because a) the wide variety of historical and actually existing schools of thought on the subject, worldwide, and b) of the emergence of loudly proclaiming right-leaning libertarians in recent times, especially in the more financially solvent US. That proves absolutely nothing about libertarianism being anyone's term, and is irrelevant; a bizzare idea akin to someone claiming "christianity" as their pet term on Wikipedia. Shouting it louder doesn't make it so. There is a heap of contemporary references to left-wing libertarian thought in "Libertarianism in the United States" which I put there not to bore anyone, but to bury once and for all this surreal nonsense that "libertarianism" is some kind of trademark of American affiliates or sympathisers of the US Libertarian Party (by definition, a statist organisation BTW). Oisinoc (talk) 07:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

All of this gets back to the presumed right of making a choice for absolutely everyone; we are not allowed to choose between a general or a very specific "libertarianism"; removing the autoredirect would be a big start. Oisinoc (talk) 01:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism to this article's page when previewing

Trying to preview a change I came up with all sorts of crazy black bloc type vandalism (black screen, insulting words and various slogans, graphics in graffiti style) which of course is a grave affront to Wiki policies. I'm not going to bother to try to track it down or figure it out this time but hopefully it will not happen again. Carol Moore 18:26, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Making article acommodate all who use libertarianism as prime identifier

That is my goal. This article is still a mess, including changes I made that still need work, but I only can do so much at once when I'm still in the middle of researching. Meanwhile, there is lots of room to integrate the current views of anti-left groups in history or viewpoints or movement (which can be worldwide movement). Principles is still a mess and really needs to be called something like "Principles and Issues" to reflect more variety of views. Or else be much shorter. Last two US sections should just be one section and needs integrating. Fixing messed up ref right now.Carol Moore 19:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Once I revert all that sectarian "right-libertarian" business put in by a new anonymous user today, I am going to change the intro to Libertarian viewspoints to a variation on someone else's change: Libertarian views differ regarding the degree of liberty and the means to achieve liberty.

Last night I realized that this is the essential difference both within pro and anti-property libertarian movements and between them. Some people think only by having certain changes (getting rid of capitalism; going all capitalist; destroying patriarchy; keeping enough of a military to kill all those alleged terrorists; whatever) will one have liberty. Others think that liberty per se is the route to liberty (like peace is the only route to peace) and they may not really care what other economic and social views people may want to implement, as long as it is voluntary. So I think that simple sentence at least alludes to the differences until a good WP:RS is found. Carol Moore 16:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

While respecting and appreciating your work, the issue isn't only about the term as an exclusive self-identifier, but as a descriptive and general term for many varieties of thought. The primary issue, I think, is about people being able to make this choice of meaning for themselves. Oisinoc (talk) 02:29, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

"The politics of cyberculture revolves around issues of grossly uneven regional distribution of the Internet and a bias toward anglo-american language and culture that is based on the competitive individual."

AU: Tim Jordan TI: Language and libertarianism: the politics of cyberculture and the culture of cyberpolitics SO: The Sociological Review, VL: 49, NO: 1, PG: 1-17, YR: 2001 (Just sayin' Oisinoc (talk) 02:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC))

Sectarian "right-libertarian" usage

While left libertarian seems to be used frequently by pro and anti-property libertarians, I would have to see WP:RS sources saying Right-libertarian is all that accepted outside certain small American circles. Also, minarchism and anarchism per se are not necessarily either left nor right, but can be either, so it is sectarian to try to categorize them. So this has to be seen as a highly sectarian change that must be reverted. Carol Moore 16:20, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Of course, considering that libertarians like to think they are beyond left and right, those using the phrase right and left are just drawing us into the same old sinkhole of vaguely defined ever changing terminology, much of which is too poorly sourced for wikipedia. Carol Moore 16:52, 16 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

A potential solution - 1. No auto-redirect, 2. One general, and one specific Libertarianism article

I think much of the trouble with this article stems from the apparently sectarian presumption of exclusivity to the term, and especially how the auto-redirect is used to enforce this presumption on absolutely everyone in the world.

There are effectively two "libertarianisms" being talked about here -

A - a very general, inclusive term, which is a big set of various subsets (including the specific subject matter presented here);

B - a more specific, more exclusive term (a subset of the term in the meaning of above) which is being deliberately co-opted for political purposes by one particular group.

The problem is that B is nakedly political, and redirecting people to this definition is akin to redirecting them to one specific branch of Christian interpretation upon doing a search for "Christianity". I don't see this as being resolvable unless both "libertarianisms" get their own page, linked from the disambiguation page. Allow people to make the choice for themselves, as to what meaning they are looking for at any one time - don't seek to make the choice for them, or impose only one set of meanings upon them without asking.

Oisinoc (talk) 02:02, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The problem with repeating the same complaint ad nauseum is people can loose your point. I don't even know what autodirect you are talking about. However, you did make me aware their are articles on libertarianism in all sorts of languages which I might check out using google translate someday. Carol Moore 13:50, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

when one types in "libertarianism", one is automatically redirected to the "libertarianism" article you are pushing. Despite there (now) being a disambiguation page. Ditto your first line about what you are saying repeatedly. Oisinoc (talk) 14:22, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

You have not actually addressed what I said. Repeatedly. Oisinoc (talk) 14:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

It's been like that since 2005. The disambiguation page is mentioned on top. The article (as it develops once current rediculous sectarian organization is reverted) mentions all the different varieties. I don't see a reason to change it. I addressed a point you make repeatedly first time. Not going to reply every one of the 10 times you made it this am. I'm sure when we get back to weekdays others will chime in. Carol Moore 14:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

Just wanted to make sure you got the point, since some of us - that would be me - have difficulty keeping track of where we put what. Oisinoc (talk) 16:10, 18 August 2008 (UTC) neek, forgot to log in at 16:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Libertarian is anarchism throughout the world except in US

Whole section moved to Talk Archive 11, however, list of references in that section duplicated here

It is not a myth that "Libertarian" has its origins in European anarcho-communism over a century ago;
It is not a myth that anarchists generally don't form political parties, which would tend to bias current naming-results in favour of minarchist capitalists who have relatively recently adopted the term for themselves;
It is not a myth that a significant section of relatively recent American individualist libertarians - including those associated with minarchist or anarchist capitalism, such as Wendy MacElroy, Murray Rothbard and various writers for "Liberty" Magazine - draw upon the works of libertarian socialists such as Benjamin Tucker, Emma Goldman, and others;
It is not a myth that left-wing organisations and personalities have used the term in reference to their ideas throughout the years:
Current -
- International of Anarchist Federations;
- International Workers Association;
- Freien Arbeiterinnen und Arbeiterunion;
- Confederacion Nacional del Trabajo;
- Unione Sindacale Italiana;
- International Libertarian Solidarity;
- Workers Solidarity Movement;
- "The Pierre J. Proudhon Memorial Computer";
- various International Workers of the World;
- Noam Chomsky;
- 1980's: Sam Dolgoff, "Libertarian Labor Review";
- France (Paris, Nanterre, and Bretagne), Italy, Lebanon & Belgium: "Libertarian Alternative";
- England: "Soliderity: A Journal of Libertarian Socialism";
- George Woodcock, 1962: "Anarchism: A History of Libertarian Ideas and Movements" (9 years before formation of US Libertarian Party);
- Cuba, 1959: an anti-capitalist, anti-state organisation - "Libertarian Association of Cuba";
- 1950's: George Fontenis - "The Manifesto of Libertarian Communism";
- New York City, July 1954: Russell Blackwell, Esther and Sam Dolgoff formed "the Libertarian League", (for a short time Murray Bookchin was member);
- 1949, Gregory P. Maximoff: the Libertarian Book Club;
- Spanish Civil War (1936-1939): coalition group - the United Libertarian Organisations (ULO), spread information about revolutionary anarchist activities in Spain;
- Spain, 1932 Issac Puente: pamphlet "Libertarian Communism";
- 1936 Saragossa conference on the eve of the Spanish Revolution: CNT adopted libertarian communism as its goal;
- France, 1926: Dielo Trouda group of anarchists who had fled Russia - "Organisational Platform of the Libertarian Communists";
- "Libertarian League" in the 1920's: mutualist libertarian organisation;
- 1895: Sebastien Faure, founded "Le Libertaire";
- 1858: Joseph Dejacque, anarcho-communist;
- Webster's New International Dictionary, 'Libertarian' is: "One who holds to the principle of free will; also, one who upholds the principles of liberty, esp. individual liberty of thought and action."
- Dean Russell, Foundation for Economic Education - "Ideas on Liberty" May, 1955: "Who is a Libertarian?" advocated that the right should "trademark and reserve for our own use the good and honorable word 'libertarian.'"
Whether it is intended or not, the article as it stands is effectively special pleading, does not have a neutral point-of-view, and is a political airbrushing of history. Clearly, "libertarian" has a much broader usage and context than is suggested - Wikipedia is not the Global Patent - or official Trademarking - office; even if it were, it would be questionable whether it could assign "libertarian" as apparently desired by the current article's viewpoint. Oisinoc (talk) 00:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually hardcore Libertarianism is anarchy in the US as well and the ideas easily date back to leaders like Patrick Henry at the time of the US Revolutionary war of 1776. (citation are easily searched; take your pick) The weakness of the original Articles of Confederation and federal government owe much to the early "Libertarians", though they did not carry that name. Note there were unsuccessful efforts at weakening state governments and the small New England state governments started out weak. However the current US political party is actually a coalition of a number of very small political groups including Socialists and some Communists which share some partial overlap of ideals and embarassingly small membership numbers. Thus the "moderate" Libertarian party leaders and public platform reflects an adulterated political platform similar to what happens in most European coalitions. Modern Libertarians basically gamble on the idea of gaining critical high offices via voter disgust with the big parties and then dismantling government from within... as opposed to the ridiculous idea of successful violent overthrow. The coalition partners then gambling on being a possible replacement system of government.

Properly speaking European anarchy is usually paired with socialism rather than Communism, despite the popular slang. Socialism being ideal for rich societies which can easily support community and charitable funds without dramatically cutting into personal income or otherwise interfering with the individual. It should be noted that even idealistic Communism is radically different than anarchy since although the choice to submit the rule of the cooperative is voluntary, deviation from that total economic rule is normally automatic expulsion. On the other hand the Western Communist parties often have little to say organized political thought outside of pressing for aggregate economic rule and community services.69.23.124.142 (talk) 07:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)