Talk:Libertarianism/Archive 36

Archive 30

←

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

→

Archive 40

Sentence tagged with "citation needed"..

I have tagged the following sentence in the intro with "citation needed": "While certain libertarian currents are supportive of laissez-faire capitalism and private property rights, such as in land and natural resources, others reject capitalism and private ownership of the means of production, instead advocating their common or cooperative ownership and management."

Specifically, the last part of the statement is not supported by a reliable source according to WP-V.

And just in case it's not clear, the specific claim needing a reliable source is that those who "reject capitalism and private ownership of the means of production..." are libertarian in the relevant sense according to reliable sources, not merely that some people both "reject capitalism and private ownership of the means of production..." and call themselves libertarians.

And I would note that Roderick Long's (well-stated) definition of libertarianism, stated below that, clearly explains that libertarians, by definition, advocate (do not reject) "voluntary associations of free individuals" including both voluntary forms of capitalism and voluntary forms of socialism (worker co-ops, etc.). Lockean One (talk) 11:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

If a reliable source is not provided, I will remove the sentence, and according to WP-V, the burden of evidence to provide a reliable source, and demonstrate that it is a reliable source that supports the statement, lies with the editor who wants to restore the content, not the one who removed it. Lockean One (talk) 10:35, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

All the four sources provided meet rs. One of them is published by Stanford University. TFD (talk) 10:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Your first statement is simply false according to WP-V. Your second statement is true but irrelevant, since that source does not support the statement in question. Lockean One (talk) 11:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I have been to RSN many times and all these sources are more reliable than many of the ones used in articles. Which source don't ja like? TFD (talk) 12:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Which source I "don't like" is irrelevant. The relevant source that is not reliable according to WP-V is (16). Lockean One (talk) 12:32, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Allow me to rephrase my question. Which relevant source is in your opinion not reliable? TFD (talk) 12:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Already addressed. Lockean One (talk) 13:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

You have not mentioned it in this discussion thread. Therefore I will remove your tag. TFD (talk) 13:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but you should have mentioned the source. Footnote 16, which you just embiggened, as of today refers to two sources, one of which is an article by Carlos P. Otero, "Introduction to Chomsky's social theory", which was originally published in Noam Chomsky: Critical Assessments, edited by Otero, (Routledge, 1994), p. 347.[1] It is an academic source, therefore reliable. TFD (talk) 16:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the source is reliable. I could certainly provide more sources that some libertarians reject capitalism, but the ideal lead has no citations and we really ought to be removing REFs from the lead instead of demanding more. I think I've worked up a more coherent lead in my sandbox, but want to focus on improving one section at a time. I am planning on proposing this change after the discussion on the Etmyology section wraps up. Thanks! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

MisterDub, just to clarify, although it could be a reliable source for info on Chomsky, it's not a reliable source for the statement in question. As far as I can tell, it doesn't even say what that statement says, since just Chomsky himself is the subject. You can keep removing the tag, but that will only serve to hide the fact that sourcing is being challenged from other editors. Lockean One (talk) 00:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

"Citation needed" tag restored on the basis that no reliable source has been demonstrated to support the statement in question. Please remember that the purpose of the tag is an intermediate step to removing content, to alert others to the fact that the content's sourcing has been challenged. Lockean One (talk) 23:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The lead summarizes what is in the article, and typically does not have cites. (they can be demanded, but let's set aside for the moment) But I don't see that statement in the article. So I think that there is the same sourcing question whether it is in the lead or in the article. There is the potential issue that our sources might be creators of strands, not sources/coverers of strands. But if they have followers, then it becomes a "sky is blue" statement. And possibly finding sources regarding the followers might be a good addition. But TFD, and MisterDub (and where's User:Eduen when we need them?) if those sources are covering then-extant strands/beliefs, they we should say so and settle this. Or if not, but they have followers now, then a contemporary source saying so would be a good addition and resolve this. And if the answer to both iis "no" then perhaps it shouldn't be in there. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:59, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand this correctly. You doubt the veracity of the sources, scattered everywhere in dozens throughout the lead and the article itself, and contend that libertarian Marxists, libertarian Communists, etc, may not actually want to abolish the capitalist system? That's the claim you would like more thoroughly sourced?

There is not some dimension of 'libertarianism' in the context of nation state opposition, contrasted with separate economic views. Libertarian to Dejacque, for example, meant abolishing the capitalist mode of production. It's sourced that he used it to distinguish those views from Proudhon's milder (but still anticapitalist) Mutualist ideas. As in, liberation from capitalism? Should this be stated more clearly in the article? People like anarcho-communists want to end capitalism, explicitly. Finx (talk) 09:57, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

No, with respect, you do not understand this situation correctly. The sentence in question has not been demonstrated to be supported by reliable sources since I tagged it with "citation needed" (as an intermediate step prior to removal as "not reliably sourced") IAW WP-V. No one has even attempted to demonstrate that, or provide substitute sourcing. You (and others) simply removed the tag without meeting that burden. That's the situation here. Lockean One (talk) 16:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

It's already cited by 8 (George Woodcock - easily the most serious and reliable academic source the article), 10 (Petr Kropotkin - easily the most well known and respected historical figure in the article, save for Locke and perhaps some Enlightenment thinkers), 11 (an anarchist journal), and 16 (Noam Chomsky - fun experiment: do a web search for "the most important intellectual alive today" and look at the result count) - and that's all just in the lead. Also, leads on Wikipedia do not require any citations at all. They're supposed to be summaries of relevant material contained within the article which, in this case, if you read on starting with 'etymology', is ample. So, with respect, you're going to have to explain why you think citations are needed for 'water sometimes being wet' or 'libertarian socialists being socialists' - since socialism, by definition, means worker ownership of the means of production and their socialism defines their libertarianism. Finx (talk) 22:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

With respect, no, I'm not going to have to do that. WP-V requires in-line citations for all challenged statements, citing reliable sources that clearly support the material as it is presented in the article, and says the burden of proof is on you, not me, to demonstrate (not merely claim) that to be the case.

And since you brought it up, socialism by definition does mean worker ownership of means of production, but that would constitute socialism by definition regardless of whether or not privately owned means of production also exist (at other locations). Socialist propaganda tends to use the word "the" in front of the phrase "means of production" as if they were singular instead of plural, but they are in fact plural, and not limited in extent or number in any relevant sense. So "private ownership of means of production" and "worker ownership of means of production" are not mutually exclusive. Lockean One (talk) 01:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

In the English language the definite article "the" can be either singular or plural. And since no one has suggested using propaganda sources, I have no reason why you brought them up. Can you please get to the point, and stop soapboxing,. TFD (talk) 01:19, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

First, I agree that "the" can be either singular or plural, and never said otherwise. I see no need to explain the obvious any further. Secondly, my point has already been made in this section, I was just responding to another's post. Third, we are talking about propaganda sources, by definition, and obviously so. Finally, your advice and lecturing are irrelevant and not constructive in any way. Lockean One (talk) 02:20, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Can you please explain, using Wikipedia policy, for example "reliable sources", which sources are propaganda. TFD (talk) 02:31, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Sure, if you would like to start a new section for that purpose, I would be glad to. Lockean One (talk) 02:59, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

I've been paying careful attention to your objections, but they are not coherent and this is getting tedious. The lead is sourced out the wazoo with very reliable references and, once again, doesn't even have to be since the statement follows directly from the article's content. Unless you have something specific to say on this matter, please stop wasting everyone's time. Finx (talk) 09:53, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

In that case, demonstrating that a reliable source supports that statement should be easy, instead of so difficult nobody wants to attempt it. How's that for a "fun experiment"? Lockean One (talk) 20:10, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Were you distracted with something else when I just gave you half a dozen above? Practically the most reliable and authoritative sources in the article, in fact. Finx (talk) 20:45, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Lockean, sourcing aside for the moment, and regarding the underlying realities, I'm assuming that one of the following two reflects a core thought of yours on this, and (unless I'm mistaken) I'd like to ask you which it is:

1. There are not people who who reject capitalism who self-identify as libertarians
2. There are people who who reject capitalism who self-identify as libertarians, but such can't be actual libertarianism.

Thanks. North8000 (talk) 11:53, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

That would depend on what exactly is meant by "reject capitalism", whether it means to not engage in it themselves or prohibit it for others, whether it should be abolished from society or they think it would just vanish on its own without a state. and different people here on the talk page give different conflicting answers, each expecting theirs to be accepted. That's why the article itself should be clear and sourced.

To answer more specifically, I think someone who wants to abolish state authority in favor of local "voluntary associations" is a libertarian, if such voluntary associations are free to accept or reject capitalism or socialism as they choose. And someone who wants to prohibit all forms of capitalism (or socialism) for everyone is not a libertarian in the relevant sense, since that logically contradicts the absence of an outside authority. In other words, one can't simultaneously oppose outside authority and get their way with everyone. Lockean One (talk) 20:18, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Lockean One, there are ideological differences between anarchists on how libertarian socialism is to be achieved. Some of the more idealist anarchists believe capitalism simply cannot exist without the state's enforcement, and no force is necessary to "impose" socialism on anyone. Others believe private property is inherently aggressive and violence is therefore justified in its eradication. Still others believe capitalist and socialist economies can peacefully coexist. Our purpose here is not to judge these ideologies by our own concepts of what is or is not libertarian, but to accurately describe the varying philosophies referred to as libertarianism.. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 01:50, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

MisterDub, since I have not stated any disagreement with any of that, I see no reason to respond here. With respect, it's simply not my problem that others assume that I think things that I haven't said, or am unaware of things that I'm fully aware of, etc. Such assumptions have taken up a whole lot of unnecessary space on this talk page, even after I have pointed out that they were were false, so I see no reason to keep doing so. Lockean One (talk) 03:05, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Then perhaps you can be clear on exactly what you are saying because the entire comment to which I replied was your personal evaluation of the libertarianness of libertarian socialism. That might be an interesting conversation on a forum, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that libertarian socialists reject capitalism. Please let us know what claim you are challenging, but as of now, you've included the wrong tag and have brought forth no justification for including this, so I have removed it from the article. Thanks! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

The comment you responded to was my answer to a question asked by North8000, obviously having nothing to do with sourcing. I won't keep responding to irrelevant comments like your above. I have explained what I am challenging and why. Lockean One (talk) 16:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

No, you haven't. Please be clear on what you are challenging and on what grounds. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:32, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

There is no reason for me to keep repeating myself. The reason is in the edit summary. Do you need the word "demonstrate" explained to you? Lockean One (talk) 19:18, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't even know what needs to be demonstrated. I've asked a few times, and you have yet to answer. How about this: if you remove that statement again I will report you to AN/I for edit warring and disruptive editing. Thank you! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:34, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Great! Then you can explain to them why you claim to not know something that has been repeated here several times and is in the edit summary of the very revision you repeatedly undid with your edit warring, for the purpose of violating Wikipedia policy. Have fun with that. Lockean One (talk) 21:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

@Lockean, I have to agree that that statement is ambiguous. Brevity = ambiguity, and the lead is supposed to be a summary of what is in the article. And, I don't recall seeing that anywhere in the article. But then later you seem to be saying that it should be excluded because it is not true libertarianism. To this my answer is the same as MisterDub's "Our purpose here is not to judge these ideologies by our own concepts of what is or is not libertarian, but to accurately describe the varying philosophies referred to as libertarianism." @MisterDub, you have once again proven what I have been telling myself which is that one can learn more on the talk page of this article than in the article. I'm going to put the summary that you just gave into the body of the article and see what happens. I won't say it was from you so that I can get the beating. :-) This might either solve the "not in the article" problem or make a mess or get reverted.  :-) North8000 (talk) 14:08, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

The unsourced material that you just added needs to be sourced or removed. — goethean 15:23, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

No hard feelings if someone removes it. But could it not be considered summarization of what is in the sources? I think that the working definition is "if someone objects, it's wp:synthesis, if nobody objects, it's summarization, which Wikipedia is built on."  :-) North8000 (talk) 16:39, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

North8000, I removed the information you put in the article as I feel it simply does not belong here. It refers to disagreement within anarchist schools of thought, and is better treated in its respective article. The sections on anarchism in this article should be summarized, leaving the fine details to their articles. Thanks, though! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

@North8000: It sounds like you still agree with me that the statement should be removed, even if not for all the same reasons. Which is fitting, since there are a multitude of different reasons why that statement should be removed, each one of them a good and valid reason alone. And I'm not sure what you mean by "should be excluded because it is not true libertarianism", but I haven't said that the word libertarianism can't have more than one definition, only that substantially different (and mutually exclusive) definitions should be clearly disambiguated. Not switched back and forth between in a single article, especially not in a single paragraph (or single sentence). Putting different material in different places isn't "excluding" any of the material, it's just putting it where it belongs. Lockean One (talk) 16:53, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

No, I didn't say it should be removed. IMHO ideally it should stay, with clarification, and ideally have a few sentences added on it in the body of article. I think that the "some" qualifier is an alternate legitimate way to handle making statements that do not apply to all libertarians, even if not as informative as coverage of who the "some" are. North8000 (talk) 17:00, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Oops, my apologies, I should have said "removed or properly sourced (directly or indirectly)". As far as the word "some", of course it can be used for that purpose, but that's not the problem, as has already been discussed extensively. Regardless, this section was about sourcing, and the statement isn't properly sourced. There's no point in even discussing the rest of the issue until it is, since there isn't even a consensus here on what the statement means by "reject capitalism". Proper sourcing would fix that problem, at least, so that the statement could be worded unambiguously. And unambiguous statements are rarely objected to, anyway, since they aren't very useful for misleading people, because they don't obscure obvious falsehoods, logical incoherence, self-contradiction, etc. very well. Lockean One (talk) 18:32, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

My suggestion remains along the lines of what's in my 01:59 December 20th post. Let's get it in the body of the article (sourced).....currently the entire left libertarian section doesn't even mention capitalism. And then have that sentence of the lead summarize it. If someone then challenges the lead for sourcing, the we could use the same sources for cites. And if this is not possible, perhaps it shouldn't be in there. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:36, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

It would seem reasonable to remove that statement in the meantime, since it is currently not properly sourced. Not to mention all the obvious things inherently wrong with it that are causing all the opposition to proper sourcing. Lockean One (talk) 21:17, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I've always thought / accepted that was a sky is blue statement. But you have pointed out that it is vague....but sometimes vague can be good. And now I'm seeing that capitalism isn't even mentioned in the left libertarian section. So my suggestion remains that of one post back. North8000 (talk) 21:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I understand, but the current dispute is whether or not the statement should be there in the meantime. As far as vagueness being good, it's very good for providing cover (plausible deniability) for falsehoods and self-contradictions. Not so good for accurately describing a political philosophy or agenda. Lockean One (talk) 22:00, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Edit war over left-libertarianism

Could we please discuss this? MilesMoney (talk) 19:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

That is the discussion above. North8000 (talk) 20:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I think MilesMoney means "as opposed to making further changes to the article." I, for one, would sure like to know why the material is being challenged and/or removed. I have asked Lockean One for an explanation, but received no reply. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:13, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

My comment is just to say that this is a duplicate section, and also I was thinking that Miles was not aware the there is already a discussion in progress on that. North8000 (talk) 20:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

MilesMoney, I know you're coming in late here, but it's been discussed ad nauseum in multiple sections. My removal of that sentence was followed by a "citation needed" tag (multiple times due to its removal) and multiple requests for someone to demonstrate that the statement is supported by reliable sources, to no avail. WP:V places the burden of proof on whoever adds or restores material, if proper sourcing is disputed. This means that the burden of proof is also now on you, not me, to demonstrate that reliable sources "clearly support the material as presented in the article".

I do have several other objections to that statement, but it's been made clear that discussing them is pointless, especially in the absence of proper sourcing to remove the ambiguity of the statement. It has also been made clear that the content of the article will ultimately be determined by edit warring, regardless of any discussion, anyway. Lockean One (talk) 20:49, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Lockean One, you're not going to get your way by just bloviating all over the talk page. Your objections are just as baseless now as they were then. It's silly and you're wasting everyone's time. Revert one more time without any sensible reason to do so, and I'm taking this to the noticeboards myself. Though it seems you've elected not to read it, I listed the applicable sources above, which happen to be some of the strongest in the article, when you first demanded someone furnish them. They are already in the article, as they had been. I'm seeing about a dozen instances of your spamming removal on the history page. It's against WP policy and my patience has run out.Finx (talk) 20:34, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm asking you not to edit-war, because the only thing edit-warring ultimately determines is who gets blocked. If you have concrete objections, state them. MilesMoney (talk) 20:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

I have stated this particular sourcing objection over and over and over again, including in the post you just responded to. And considering the fact that it takes at least two to edit-war, why not ask those edit warring for the purpose of violating Wikipedia policy to stop doing it, instead of engaging in it yourself? Lockean One (talk) 21:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Lockean One, please let us know what is ambiguous about the statement in question. Do you not think libertarian socialists exist? Do you not think they reject capitalism? What exactly are you challenging? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Already discussed ad nauseum in other sections, and such discussion was rendered futile by the fact that the statement is not properly sourced. But it's irrelevant to the current situation, since I do not need to justify my request for proper sourcing, it's Wikipedia policy, including that the burden of proof is on you, not me, to demonstrate proper sourcing (not merely claim it repeatedly). Lockean One (talk) 21:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Would you mind humoring us by acting civil? I would definitely find a source to support the statement if I knew what part you thought needed substantiation. Your comments on the Talk page imply that you accept that there is a philosophy called libertarian socialism and that adherents are anticapitalist, so I really have no idea what you are challenging. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, I will assume that you are being honest here, and just didn't read the relevant past discussions (and truthfully, how could I blame you as lengthy and convoluted as they got). I have several objections to that statement that have been discussed, but I do not want to elaborate on my other objections as long as this (sourcing) objection is not addressed. It's proven to be prohibitively confusing to others to try to discuss multiple objections simultaneously instead of addressing them one at a time, as well as getting convoluted due to interpretation disagreements caused by insufficient sourcing (the reason for this issue). So for this section, I want to limit my discussion to this one objection, instead of getting sidetracked. For this particular objection, it's the entire statement I removed that I'm challenging. Not just part of it. All of it. Wikipedia policy requires proper sourcing for the entire statement, regardless of which parts I object to or why.

My request is for someone to demonstrate that the statement is supported by reliable sources, not just cite sources and claim they support it. It's very easy to do for legitimately sourced statements, you just cite the sources, page numbers, and supply quotes from them that support the material. It's just one sentence, how hard could it be? Lockean One (talk) 00:47, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

You're going to need to break "all of it" down into specifics. Start with a single thing in the first sentence or two that you believe needs additional sourcing, please. MilesMoney (talk) 00:57, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm only referring to a single sentence (the one I removed), and it has no complete parts that don't need proper sourcing. The sentence just isn't that long, or that complicated, assuming that it's not the result of massively convoluted synthesis of many different conflicting sources. Even if it is, it only has 40 words total. Lockean One (talk) 01:14, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

That sentence has four citations! Which of them do you object to? MilesMoney (talk) 01:26, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Miles, I am kind of neutral in the overall dispute, but not to derailments such as that. Lockean One's structural statement is that nothing in there has been shown to meet wp:ver. Trying to elicit an "objection to" a particular source, and then to inevitably debate that objection is a derailment / reversal of wp:burden. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:40, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

And one I'm not going to fall for again, if I can help it. Thank You! Lockean One (talk) 02:13, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Is that sentence really the result of such massively convoluted synthesis of different sources that it's that much of a burden to sort out? If so, it should be removed on that basis alone. Lockean One (talk) 02:13, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

MisterDub/Finx, all of the other stuff aside, the core of it is that there is nothing in the body of the article that says tha some libertarians reject capitalism, or even any disussion of capitalism under left libertarianism. So we are left to debate a brief (=vague) claim in the lead and whether or not sources given in the lead support that statement. Even having something in the lead that is not in the article violates article structure. Why don't you just put some coverage (with sources) in the body of the article on the "left libertarians and capitalism" topic???? Sincerely, (north8000) 01:47, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I asked Eduen to help. North8000 (talk) 03:37, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

As anyone can see in my interventions in this article i have argued that the schism between US right wing neoliberalism/libertarianism and libertarian socialism is so big that the people of those two political persuations never meet in real political practice and if they do is in opposite sides of a barricade. But as far as the history of the United States itself, the amount of anti-capitalism of libertarian socialism goes as far as having kidnapped capitalists (in the case of the most prominent early 20th century anarchist Emma Goldman) and in 1920 the bombing of the Wall st. building was done by libertarian socialists and clearly not just as a direct attempt at the life of a few capitalists or a particular one but in fact as a symbolic threat and defiance to the whole capitalist system. The issue is very banal and in fact it should tell those who doubt it that the word "libertarian communism" and its translated equivalents such as "comunismo libertario" and "communisme libertaire" is so widespread in the world (any doubts do a search on google). Joseph Dejacque, the early french self described "libertarian" from the mid 19th century was a libertarian communist and so the use of libertarian alongside anti-capitalism goes as far back in time. Many political organizations around the world are using right now the self-description "libertarian communist" and at some point in the very near time they established a worldwide federation of libertarian comunism and right now they maintain the Anarkismo.net worlwide site. One of these organizations exists right now in the USA and it is called Common Struggle-Libertarian Communist Federation. I can understand that user Lockean One might not be familiar with historical and philosophical works that deal with anarchism as a whole but if he does check all the works included in the main bibliography provided at the "anarchism" wikipedia article, he is going to have to become accustomed with hearing there advocacy of communism and of a particular main view within anarchism called anarcho-communism and its synomym used alternatively "libertarian communism". Libertarian communism in Spain in the 1930s was followed by millions and motivated mass expropriation of capitalist factories and farmlands which is clearly as anti-capitalist as one can get. All the reliable sources that support this are the bibliography of the anarchism wikipedia article but if user does not want to check that himself i can very well bring in here tons of quotes that show the anti-capitalist ideas and behaviours of libertarian socialists.--Eduen (talk) 03:16, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Eduen, with respect, if you have anything to say about me here, please at least base it on my posts here instead of the irrelevant misconceptions of others. None of your false assumptions about me, your extensive explanations of things that are not in dispute, or your condescending lecturing above have anything to do with this disagreement, and have only served to further sidetrack and derail this section's discussion. I apologize for being so blunt (or rude), but if you had just read this section you would know that this disagreement isn't about anything you just said above. Lockean One (talk) 04:32, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Eduen, libertarians did not bomb wall st, it was Galleanist, and they are communist. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:15, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Galleani was a libertarian, although he often used the term "anarcho-communist" as a description. TFD (talk) 05:34, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

no he wasnt according to rs. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:44, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes he was according to rs and American "anarcho-capitalists" (notice how it is deliberately similar in structure to "anarcho-communist") chose the term libertarian because of their admiration of people like him particularly because of their anti-statism, anti-elitism, individualism and extreme dedication. Which makes one ask - is U.S. libertarianism really a form of socialism? Maybe even closer to real socialism than is Marxism. TFD (talk) 00:27, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

nope, he was Galleanist and if you can find a rs suggesting he was libertarian why not update his article? Darkstar1st (talk) 01:10, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Galleani was a Galleanist? I suppose he was, but they are a type of libertarian. In fact they indirectly inspired the U.S. libertarian movement of Rothbard, Nolan and Hess through figures such as Emma Goldman. TFD (talk) 01:46, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

you apparently have a source describing him as a libertarian socialist, thank you for the clarification. i look forward to your update to his article so i may read the same material as you have. Darkstar1st (talk) 02:17, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

This page is for discussing updates to this article, not Galleani's. It is not my role to educate you on libertarian history, but it would be helpful if you were conversant in the subject before commenting on it. TFD (talk) 02:48, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

good point, i should have phrased the above as your update to this article as Galleani is not yet mentioned here either. (he inst even on the libertarian socialist article yet you are certain he was libertarian in some way, so if you are able to recover the source that lead you to believe such, i am sure he will be welcomed to the people section alongside Emma and Ayn.) Darkstar1st (talk) 03:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

This is the first source currently listed in support of the claim (bold added):

[Left libertarians] agree with other libertarians in holding that individuals should be free. They regard each of us as full self-owners. However, they differ from what we generally understand by the term libertarian in denying the right to private property. We own ourselves, but we do not own nature, at least not as individuals. Left libertarians embrace the view that all natural resources, land, oil, gold, trees, and so on should be held collectively.

— Ronald Hamowy. "Left Libertarianism." The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism. p. 288

Thanks! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:17, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the relevant response, that directly addresses my request to a significant extent. I will have to look at it further after Christmas, as I have other obligations, but I would point out for now that the collective ownership of natural resources does not itself preclude capitalism, nor preclude the private use of natural resources. That quote just doesn't support the statement in question as it is worded. And although not mentioned in this article, the "left-libertarianism" article does at least include discussion of (non-socialist) left-libertarianism.

In addition, the source as listed references pp 480-482, not p 288. And this article does not clarify that "they differ from what we generally understand by the term 'libertarian'". But thanks for the quote, and I'll get back to it after Christmas. Merry Christmas! Lockean One (talk) 05:48, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Lockean One, we don't require your personal evaluation of the sources. You asked for a reference for the claim, and I provided it. End of discussion, yes? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:35, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

No, the end of this discussion would be if you provided references that fully support the statement in question. Your quote above, although relevant, says nothing about "rejecting capitalism", socialism, control of "means of production", etc. Lockean One (talk) 05:27, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Lockean, I understand your sourcing and ambiguity arguments. But, those aside, on your underlying argument, you never directly answered my one question and so I don't know which of those two is your underlying argument. I pinged Eduen to help with what is the more relevant of those two questions which is: Are there strands who self-identify as libertarian who reject capitalism? While "reject" is admittedly ambiguous (as you pointed out)I don't think that such invalidates the question. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree that that ambiguity does not invalidate that question, and the answer to that question is "yes" and not in dispute. But notice that that question above does not match either of the choices you provided before. If my explanation there was unclear, I would prefer to address it further there, or in another section, instead of sidetracking this one further. Merry Christmas! Lockean One (talk) 05:48, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks.North8000 (talk) 12:49, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

How about a substitute statement? Something to the effect that libertarians disagree about how natural resources may be appropriated and whether and when such appropriation would justify requiring payment (taxation) to the rest of society. A statement like that would seem to be fully supported by those sources. Lockean One (talk) 05:50, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Disagree. TFD (talk) 10:45, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

No, that would not be a substitute statement. That would be a lie, which is not supported by anything. Why? Because libertarian socialists want to abolish and eradicate the capitalist system and the capitalist mode of production, in Marxian terms, hoping to some day purge society fully of its very last vestiges. I'm not sure how that can be any clearer. They don't want, as you'd kept insisting, "free market" capitalism; they're not just opposed "crony capitalism" or only "state capitalism." They are opposed to capitalism. Period. They don't like private ownership of the means of production, which is key to any definition of 'capitalism'. They do not like it in a house. They do not like it with a mouse, etc. And there's no twist at the end. They just don't like green eggs and ham, and their libertarianism is concerned primarily with how to best get rid of it. Would you like more references, other than those mentioned above, and, you know, all over the article? Finx (talk) 21:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Finx, you seem to be very confused again. Neither sentence says "libertarian socialists want" or "don't want" anything, and I have made no objections to any statement containing the phrase "libertarian socialists want...", nor would I. And the statement you call a "lie" is exactly what that source says, and has nothing to do with "libertarian socialism". And as of yet, nobody has quoted a single source saying what the other (objected to) statement says. And BTW you replaced my added (fully sourced) accurate statement with one that is simply not what that source says. To sum it all up, WTF are you even talking about, Dude? Lockean One (talk) 00:11, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. And until you or someone else provides quote(s) from reliable source(s) that support that statement, I will keep adding the CN tag and periodically remove the statement. The fact that you insist on incessant misguided lecturing and edit warring instead of simply providing such quote is bewildering to say the least. Lockean One (talk) 00:30, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

North's take on this We seem to be going around in circles. If I may try to distill where we're at. Based on the discussions, I believe that the statement "some..... reject capitalism" is essentially correct (albeit ambiguous) and probably "sky is blue" amongst those with expertise in left libertarianism. However it appears that there is nothing in the sources given (or even in the "left libertarian" body of the article) referring to or even using the word "capitalism". So Lockean has policy on their side (wp:ver, wp:nor. wp:burden) in this argument, at least for the exact wording chosen. IMO the fix is obvious.....folks knowledgeable on left libertarianism should either get sourcing that mentions "capitalism" or else modify the wording so that it matches what is sourced. And a couple more sentences in the body of the which explain this would be nice. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:03, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Once again, as I'd told Lockean One, just in the intro, sources 8 (Woodcock), 10 (Kropotkin), 11 (anarchist journal), and 16 (Chomsky), just to name a few, all discuss opposition to capitalism. If we need more, I can furnish another dozen in half an hour, so let me know. (edit: order has changed, but still easy to find; I tried to put them where they're most appropriate to cut down on further confusion) Finx (talk) 21:37, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

The market anarchist tradition is radically pro-market and anticapitalist... This book is intended as an extended introduction to the economic and social theory of left-wing market anarchism. Market anarchism is a radically individualist and anticapitalist social movement. ... By the later 1970s and 1980s, the anticapitalist tendency among market-oriented libertarians had largely dissipated or been shouted down by the mainstreaming pro-capitalist politics of well-funded "libertarian" institutions like the Cato Institute and the leadership of the Libertarian Party. ... In "Market Anarchism and Stigmergic Socialism" and "Socialist Ends, Market Means," Brad Spangler and Gary Chartier argue more aggressively that the market-oriented anarchism of the individualists is, as Tucker made clear, not only anticapitalist but part of the socialist tradition.

— Left libertarians Gary Chartier and Charles W. Johnson. Markets Not Capitalism: Individualist Anarchism Against Bosses, Inequality, Corporate Power, and Structural Poverty. Minor Compositions. 2011. pp.1-11 (bold added)

Here's my take on this: all this discussion over the lead is asinine. First off, (social) anarchists have always been anticapitalist, and they have been using the term libertarian for 100+ years now. Make the necessary assumptions, and it's clear that some libertarians are anticapitalist, socialist, want collective control of natural resources, etc. If we're not explaining this well enough, we need to do so, but we shouldn't be removing true statements due to the ignorance of some editors. What we need to be doing is working on the rest of the article, trying to get it to FA status, and worrying last about the lead, which is a summary of the entire article. Hopefully, we can put this discussion on hold until we fix the problems with the rest of the article. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:49, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree. MilesMoney (talk) 17:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Replaced that statement with one that more accurately describes the left-right distinction as presented in the reliable sources, instead of as modified by original research. Lockean One (talk) 11:00, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Reverted for removing libertarian socialism. Thanks!

Again replaced misleading statement synthesized from multiple sources using original research with a statement that reflects what the sources actually say. Please discuss honestly instead of edit warring. Lockean One (talk) 17:41, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Narrower question

I'd like to distill a narrower question out of the above wide-ranging debate. And that is: shall the article say (in whatever words are chosen to implement this, including those already in the article) that some strands of libertarianism reject capitalism? And so this refers to the libertarian philosophy/ideology/platform, not to the people who practice it. North8000 (talk) 13:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

• Comment IMHO, in the context of this article, the answer should be based on whether such significantly exists or has existed, identified as libertarianism, not a debate of the validity of it. And I would like to see someone knowledgeable on left-libertarianism (MisterDub, Euden, TFD?) give a direct answer to this question before I weigh in. North8000 (talk) 13:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

the answer should be based on whether such significantly exists or has existed, identified as libertarianism, not a debate of the validity of it.

It sounds like you are trying to remove left-libertarianism based on the number of followers you think it does or doesn't have. A philosophical theory is not dependent for its validity upon the number of followers it has. It is dependent on rational argumentation in reliable sources. Take Utilitarianism. It is an important philosophical theory which is taught in philosophy courses in colleges across the world. How many utilitarians there are in the world makes precisely zero difference in how important or notable the theory is. — goethean 16:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Umm, yeah... anarchism is traditionally anticapitalist. I don't really see the point of this discussion though. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. This is just to settle it, seemingly one of the few concrete questions from the closed thread. Goethean's complete-misfire inventing bad faith aside. North8000 (talk) 17:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Then maybe you could explain what you intended by your comment, which is not at all clear. (IMHO, in the context of this article, the answer should be based on whether such significantly exists or has existed, identified as libertarianism, not a debate of the validity of it.) It sounds exactly like what I interpreted it as, an attempt to reduce the meanings of libertarian to those meanings which have a certain level of followers. Maybe you can enlighten me regarding exactly what you meant and exactly how my interpretation was so far off base. — goethean 18:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

The wording was to elicit information from people more knowledgeable on left libertarianism than me. And the rest of the wording was paraphrased from the close on the huge RFC which we had. Basically, if a strand significantly exists, we will cover it here. And it ended up as I thought it would....me supporting inclusion. As has consistently been my pattern here for several years. North8000 (talk) 01:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it was something that I had previously taken as fact but I decided to recheck after TFD seemed to hedge on it in the big thread.....seemingly to the effect that it was a natural conclusion rather than a stated tenet. North8000 (talk) 02:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

• Support including "some strands of libertarianism reject capitalism" North8000 (talk) 17:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

You mean, like the article currently does? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes.North8000 (talk) 18:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. TFD (talk) 18:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Yup. I changed the admittedly ambiguous 'reject' to 'oppose' just to be clearer. As in, they want to abolish it the way abolitionists wanted to abolish chattel slavery. That's what literally defines libertarian socialism: abolishing capitalism through some anti-state/non-vanguardist/direct means, whether they be syndicalist or insurrectionist or platformist or any of the other innumerable ways they want to get to that goal. The goal, again, just to be clear, is to make capitalism history. Finx (talk) 02:18, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

• How about "some strands of libertarianism reject state support of capitalism", since so many are insisting that is what is actually being rejected? Lockean One (talk) 00:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

No. Libertarian socialists reject capitalism, not just the state support of it. Some of them believe that without the state, capitalism cannot be sustained, but make no mistake, they are still anti-capitalist. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

LOL, you don't say. Wow, who would have guessed that? Did you miss the reason for my suggestion? It follows the word "since" above. Lockean One (talk) 16:49, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

You know what else I missed? A reliable source. This isn't a debate site, it's an encyclopaedia based on verifiability. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:28, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

A reliable source for what? I have not suggested adding or including any unsourced content in this article. "Case of the missing source" solved. :) Lockean One (talk) 22:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Please read the notices at the top of this page. "This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Libertarianism article." "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." TFD (talk) 22:42, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Then perhaps you should refrain from derailing discussions about article accuracy and neutrality with such nonsense just because you can't get by with shutting them up before they start. I will certainly try my best to refrain from taking your bait in the future. Lockean One (talk) 00:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

You just wrote "I have not suggested adding or including any unsourced content in this article." TFD (talk) 03:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I know what I wrote. The source for my suggested wording is already referenced at the end of that sentence, and does in fact say that "Libertarian Socialists" reject state support of capitalism, so I'm not sure what your point is in just telling me what I said, other than taking up space to derail the discussion. Lockean One (talk) 03:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Can you provide a source that makes the same claim you wish to include? TFD (talk) 03:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Already addressed. Lockean One (talk) 03:34, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

A point on the introduction and 'liberal libertarianism' vs anticapitalist libertarianism

If you read through the references cram-packed into the lead, it's clear that there's two different things being described on what's nominally the 'left' of this umbrella, quite apart from ultra-capitalist side of all different feathers.

Particularly, on one side of that side, there's different flavors of economically liberal parties concerned with social welfare which are upset about how unappropriated stuff is made private stuff. These go by different names - 'georgism' and 'geolibertarianism' are two. They span the stretch from non-socialists who want common ownership of common goods to 'capitalism + land reform' liberals.

On the 'leftier left' you have groups more interested in expropriation, dissolution of private property, abolition of wage labor and a permanent paradigm shift of power in labor relations from bosses and proprietors to workers, whether through market means or market abolition - aka: socialists. This might be the cause of some confusion and I tried to reorganize the paragraph and its references to make the distinction more clear. Finx (talk) 03:26, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

The lead has since been cut back a ways and FWIW, by the way, I much prefer Somedifferentstuff's last edit to the longer, wordy lead this was addressing. Going over the details of 'geolibertarianism' vs anticapitalism doesn't seem appropriate for the introductory paragraph. On the other hand, if we were painting radicals with the center-left brush, as in the last version of the lead, some explanation is needed to make it clear they're not one and the same. Finx (talk) 05:04, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

"The" instead of "any" means of production?

Seriously, an edit war to preserve an obvious grammatical error? Using the definite article "the" is a simple grammatical error here. LibSocs oppose private ownership of "any" means of production, not just certain "particular ones" as the definite article "the" would refer to. Anybody else object to fixing this obvious grammatical error in the intro?

Or does anyone claim that Libsocs only oppose private ownership of certain particular means of production but not others? (and if so, which ones?). Or should a grammatical error be purposely used in this article simply because such grammatical error is "common" in certain circles? Lockean One (talk) 22:34, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

When did the come to mean only some??? And really, who cares either way?! This is completely asinine! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree it's asinine, all I did was correct an obvious grammatical error and got reverted without discussion. Lockean One (talk) 23:09, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the phrase is usually "the means of production,", and it's not a grammatical error, let alone an obvious one. I don't see how you've interpreted it as, "maybe kinda sorta some of thems?". -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 23:14, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

LOL, yes, I'm aware that it's "usually" worded that way by socialists. And it's not my "interpretation" that the word "the" means "specifically identified ones" instead of "any". It's why it's called a definite article. Returning to the relevant issue, any legitimate reason to oppose wording it accurately as "oppose private ownership of any means of production", given that they mean any of them, any that currently exist plus any that would or could ever be built by anyone, precluding the legitimate use of the definite article "the"? Lockean One (talk) 23:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Garbage. "The" is inclusive in this context. If you have an actual argument then present it, otherwise leave it alone. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:51, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Advice declined. If you have a legitimate reason to insist on incorrectly using the definite article "the" to refer to an indefinite plural noun (means of production, in this context), or if you disagree that LibSocs oppose private ownership of "any" means of production, in the indefinite sense, please explain. Thank You. Lockean One (talk) 02:45, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Lockean One, can you please stop posting disingenuous discussions. TFD (talk) 01:31, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Sure, if you would please stop punching kittens. See how fruitless it is to ask uncivil loaded questions? Lockean One (talk) 02:45, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Are you pretending that you are not familiar with the term "means of production" or do you not know what it means. If the former, then stop it. If the latter, then you should read about subjects before wasting other editors time asking them to explain them to you. TFD (talk) 04:22, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn't ask anyone to explain that to me, and you know it. And the answer to your first question is "neither", and you knew that, too. And your petty and misguided lecturing is as entertaining as ever. You just go ahead and ramble on with such nonsense. Lockean One (talk) 14:31, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Propose mass changes, part 2

In my continued quest to improve this article's grade, I'd like to change the "Philosophy" section dramatically, as it is currently a confusing list of value-distinctions without any rhyme or reason. I propose summarizing the common tenets of these philosophies here, with a short introductory paragraph explaining that, though they may differ significantly, they all have been identified with the term libertarianism. I think we can change the current content to a more coherent description of the major differences between these philosophies (i.e. the existence/role of the state and support/rejection of capitalism), while still stressing that they all value, to some extent, an opposition to the state. Here is what I have thus far:

The term libertarianism refers to a wide range of differing philosophies, including anarcho-capitalism, traditional, left-wing anarchism and libertarian Marxism (aka libertarian socialism), and the libertarianism that is commonly referred to as a continuation, or even radicalization, of classical liberalism. These philosophies all share a skepticism of governmental authority, but have distinct views on the role of the state and capitalism.

collapsed list of sources
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Notes: References:

Some issues I'll note right off the bat:

1. I'm not very knowledgeable about anarcho-capitalism and, honestly, didn't feel like searching for a REF to support this. I figured the "citation needed" template could be filled quickly by someone more knowledgeable than I in this area.
2. I'm not sure of Geolibertarianism's proper place in the organizational scheme I've worked up, and thus have omitted it from the introduction I've proposed here. It seems more on the socialist (in the American individualist sense) side to me, but one source characterizes it as "a branch of anarcho-capitalism" and the other, a free-market ideology (though it doesn't refer specifically to either capitalism or socialism). Do we have a reliable source that concretely places it in one of these currents? One source says that adherents to both libertarianism and Georgism/geoism are called geolibertarians, so maybe it's not a subset, but a fusion (the article currently calls it a synthesis).
3. I've copied the lead from the Geolibertarianism article as a (hopefully) fair summary of the philosophy, but perhaps our coverage should not be so extensive. Maybe we should leave my sandbox's version out and simply use the section we have currently (under "History"), whether we leave it there or move it to the new "Philosophy" section.
4. I don't think it necessary to summarize Objectivism as I've done here. Instead, we should probably discuss the similarities between it and libertarianism, while noting the criticisms and rejection of libertarianism by Rand and other Objectivists.
5. It is probably also worthwhile to add a section on left libertarianism explaining the use of the term to refer to those who support an egalitarian sharing of natural resources, whether this describes the socialists and communists who reject private property, the market-oriented anarchists who extoll freed markets but maintain they are still part of the socialist tradition, or the Georgists and others who have proposed a land-value or similar tax. However, I have left this out of the "Philosophy" section of my draft at this time.
6. I think we can organize the references better by adding a "Notes" section, as shown in my sandbox. This will clear up our "References" section and still provide a place for people to get more information about, or clarification/confirmation of, the relevant statement; however, I have yet to do so for much of the content in question.

I'm not sure if we want to tackle any or all of these issues before making the edit, or if it would be better to get a good foundation and make changes later. In any case, please let me know what you think. Again, thank you for your time and consideration! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 04:08, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Just as a comment on where "Geolibertarianism" fits in, it clearly uses the term "libertarianism" to refer to libertarian philosophy as defined in Stanford, etc., ie in the same broad category as classical liberalism, U.S. libertarianism, etc.

I would also suggest that it's misleading to say that (non-socialist) libertarians have "distinct views" on capitalism. The encyclopedic sources on libertarianism (Stanford EOP, Internet IOP, and Britannica, for example) don't even mention capitalism. Libertarianism (in that sense) isn't about capitalism vs socialism per se. It's about advocating liberty itself, not what people choose to do with it. -Lockean One (talk) 15:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the "distinct views" on capitalism, I'm open to phrasing this better, but US libertarians quite clearly extoll private property, "free" markets, and capitalism, as is made clear by many on the left who criticize these values. Maybe we have to explain it as a criticism from the left, and not an explicit tenet of these propertarian ideologies, but this information should be in the article. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:31, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree, (regarding capitalism specifically) that would belong as a "criticism from the left" instead of an actual stated tenet. And I agree that such criticisms should be in the article. That's a double agreement! Lockean One (talk) 17:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

All, I have replaced the current "Philosophy" section with the one I proposed in my sandbox. I have slightly modified the leading paragraph to avoid claiming that these differing philosophies have "distinct views" and corrected many of the references in this section, including grouping the more detailed ones into a "Notes" section for further reading. The coverage of Geolibertarianism and Objectivism still need work, per my list of issues above, but I will work on these as time permits. Thank you everyone for your input! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Overall it looks good, but can you point me to where you proposed this version? I don't see it. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

North8000, it's the very first comment of this section.

Finx, I have a couple of concerns with the reorganization you did in this section. First, I don't mind grouping them together as you have, but I feel others will. The main issue here being that "Laissez-faire capitalism" (aka right-libertarianism, propertarianism) isn't an explicit value of neoliberalism, even though it is certainly an implicit value, as evidenced by the criticism of others. Second, you've included Objectivism within the "Laissez-faire capitalism" section. While it is true that laissez-faire capitalism is an explicit value of Objectivists, Objectivism is not itself a libertarian ideology, according to its major theorists Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff. In fact, I intentionally placed this last, as its own philosophy, for just this reason. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:08, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

@Misterdub, from a process standpoint, if you are proposing a huge change you should specifically show us what you want to change it to. Again, it looks like overall good work. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:56, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

You know, I really don't need to adhere to your perception of how Wikipedia works. If you didn't read the section with the heading "Propose mass changes" to understand what was being suggested, that's on you. Please do not respond with more irrelevant comments. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you need to talk like that? Where did you show us specifically what you proposed to put in? North8000 (talk) 02:04, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources on the meaning of 'neo-classical liberalism'?

The classical liberalism article has very poor, incomplete references on this topic. I can't seem to track them down. The links to it, previously linked to 'neoliberalism', are now circular references. This discussion suggests there are no such reliable sources describing any 'neo-classical liberalism' at all.

I've always simply assumed it to be the longer-form version of 'neoliberalism', describing the bulk of currents among economists and intellectuals to advocate certain laissez-faire capitalist ideas and doctrines, under (rightly or not) the banner of a sort-of return to classical liberal philosophy, going back to before Hayek, etc. I could be mistaken. Is anyone here knowledgeable on this topic?

If we can't get to the bottom of it, I'd suggest linking to the neoliberalism article, which has a little more meat on its bones than a single unsourced claim. Finx (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The problem, if I'm not mistaken, is that critics tend to use the term neoliberal while adherents use the terms libertarian and/or classical liberal. I'm fairly certain Chomsky has mentioned that libertarians within this classical liberal current ought to use neo-classical liberalism because they do not quite follow the classical liberal "agenda." I will have to return with that source. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:42, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

The article on classical liberalism is sourced and explains what neo-classicl liberalism is. Essentially, they rejected classical lbieral tenets such as the labor theory of value, the iron law of wages and Malthus's population theory, while retaining faith in minimal government, free trade and laissez-faire. "Neoliberalism" was the term adopted by the Mont Pelerin Society in the 1930s, but became a popular term in the 1990s to describe the Reagan-Thatcher policies implimented in the 1980s, which drew heavily on neo-classical liberalism. Sometimes neoclassical liberalism, including neoliberalism and libertarianism, is referred to as classical liberalism. Apparently the original term was "true liberalism", in order to distinguish them from the new, or "social", liberals. What does this have to do with this article? TFD (talk) 03:06, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

As far as the label "neoliberalism" it has been used so widely and for decades now in such a huge number of books that it is clearly a serious field of scientific and academic enquiry. But frankly i don´t understand what some people have againts that label and here i mainly refer to economic liberals/right libertarians. The "neo" just means a recent or a renovation of something old, in this case a new kind of liberalism and not the old "classical liberalism". The reason that neoliberalism is so important a concept in the social sciences is the perception that the 2 or 3 past decades of state economic policies have been hegemonized by economic laissez faire deregulated capitalism which replaced as a dominant paradigm the previous keynesian economics approach.--Eduen (talk) 04:33, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

In the US, the common meaning/usage of "neo" has been corrupted to often mean "extreme" or negative-because-extreme. North8000 (talk) 12:51, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I do not think that is true. Why do you think that? TFD (talk) 16:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

My description of the "negative" use was a little narrow, but, for example, If you google "Neo-con epithet" (don't use the quote marks) you will see a lot about it being used as an epithet rather than (and largely unrelated to) the actual intellectual meaning of neoconservative. North8000 (talk) 17:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

The neo- prefix doesn't mean anything like extreme; that's just complete nonsense! neo- means new, as Eduen stated, and sometimes the new ideologies are extreme, but that doesn't somehow place a negative connotation on the prefix itself. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

As I indicated, my first attempt was too narrow/specific. But either way, noting common meanings in usage is not "making stuff up". But either way, it was a just a side note to Eduen, not a proposal for the article. North8000 (talk) 18:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

No, your statement was wrong, plain and simple. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:18, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

TFD, it has to do with the article having a section on so-called neo-classical liberalism, which is a label that's been challenged (not by me) as being basically made-up by some editor, on account of seemingly having zero reliable references to be found anywhere. I'm not trying to be difficult, and I'm aware of the history you're describing; just not sure about the terms being thrown around. Maybe I'm just blind. I'll give the classical liberalism article another look, but on first glance I hadn't found anything there which supports that 'neo-classical liberalism' (as opposed to just 'neoliberalism') is an actually-existing label used in any serious academic texts or otherwise. If you'd be so kind as to provide a source, I'd be much obliged. Finx (talk) 02:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

TFD Finx, here is one of the primary references for the Classical liberalism article, Alan Mayne's From Politics Past to Politics Future: An Integrated Analysis of Current and Emergent Paradigms (p. 124, emphasis added):

In the early nineteenth century, all liberals supported 'laissez-faire liberalism' and capitalism, which was developing rapidly as a result of the Industrial Revolution. This variant of liberalism developed into neo-classical liberalism, which argued that government should be as small as possible to provide full scope of the exercise of individual freedom. The more extreme neo-classical liberals advocated social Darwinism, whereby the 'survival of the fittest' should apply to social and economic life as well as to wildlife. A later variant of neo-classical liberalism is libertarianism, which supports an exceptional degree of individual freedom, indeed, so much that it advocates minimal intereference by the state, even where the freedom of different individuals clashes severely.

I prefer to use the term neo-classical liberalism because "Classical liberalism does not constitute the whole of the tradition but refers to a particular historical phase" (James L. Richardson. Contending Liberalisms in World Politics: Ideology and Power. p. 42), but I think classical liberalism will work if there is significant repudiation. I think changing it to neoliberalism would be a change for the worse, as that term is really only employed critically and its use--I suspect--would violate NPOV. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Neoclassical refers to the liberalism that emerged in the mid-nineteenth century, while neoliberalism is defined more narrowly as the liberalism that was adopted by governments in the 1970s. I don't see any POV issues. Neoliberals read Hayek and Friedman, they don't read just Jevons and Menger. They also accept that government has grown bigger and do not attempt to return it to what it was in 19th century, they just try to scale it back. TFD (talk) 18:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The contemporary use of neoliberalism is even more striking because scholars once employed the term nearly the opposite of how it is commonly used today. As we demonstrate in the second section, the term neoliberalism was first coined by the Freiberg School of German economists to denote a philosophy that was explicitly moderate in comparison to classical liberalism, both in its rejection of laissez-faire policies and its emphasis on humanistic values. These characteristics imbued neoliberalism with a common substantive meaning and a positive normative valence: it denoted a "new liberalism" that would improve upon its classical predecessor in specific ways. Only once the term had migrated to Latin America, and Chilean intellectuals starting using it to refer to radical economic reforms under the Pinochet dictatorship, did neoliberalism acquire negative normative connotations and cease to be used by market proponents.

[...]

Despite the prevalence of the term neoliberalism, its application in contemporary scholarship is uneven. In the present-day study of political economy, the term neoliberalism is most frequently employed by those who are critical of the free market phenomena to which it refers. Neoliberalism is not exclusively a bad word, but one rarely sees it used as a good word—as the term that an author chooses when emphasizing the positive aspects of a pro-market philosophy, development model, or reform policy. One compelling indicator of the term’s negative connotation is that virtually no one self-identifies as a neoliberal, even though scholars frequently associate others—politicians, economic advisors, and even fellow academics—with this term. While a fifth of the articles on neoliberalism in our sample referred prominently to other people as neoliberals, in all of our research, we did not uncover a single contemporary instance in which an author used the term self-descriptively, and only one—an article by New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman (1999)—in which it was applied to the author’s own policy recommendations.

Above excerpts from Taylor C. Boas and Jordan Gans-Morse's Neoliberalism: From New Liberal Philosophy to Anti-Liberal Slogan illustrate (with figures displaying their research) that neoliberalism is overwhelmingly a term used by critics, not supporters. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

If you think that nothing changed in the 1970s, that Reagan and Thatcher made no changes to governance or that "New Democrat" Clinton and "New Labour" Blair changed them back to what they were before, and that none of these policies affected the rest of the world, then I would agree. But if you believe there was a shift in government polices, then we can either call it "the changes that began in the 1970s, which were accelerated by Reagan and Thatcher and became permanent as they were accepted by their successors" or "neoliberalism." True, no one used the term "neoliberal" until the 1990s, after Reagan and Thatcher were out of power, although ironically it had been used by Hayek and Mises' colleagues in the 1930s, but no one used the term "classical liberal" in the early 1800s and the term liberal was not even used in England until about 1830. I suppose the reason adherents do not use it is that they call it liberalism. Incidentally the prior paradigm is social liberalism, but their adherents generally did not use that term either, but called themselves liberals. So too did classical and late 19th century neo-classical writers. It is confusing however if we call all of them liberals without qualification. TFD (talk) 21:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

TFD, I guess I'm not following. I agree with what you've just wrote, but my point is that, though libertarian proponents of the free market do not never self-identify as neoliberals, they do self-identify as classical liberals (see Hamowy and Boaz for confirmation). Because of this, I think it'd be appropriate to use either classical liberal or the more accurate neo-classical liberal, instead of the pejorative neoliberal. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Libertarianism is an ideology, while neoliberalism is a paradigm. There is certainly overlap between the two, and the terms may sometimes be used interchangeably, but the concepts are distinct. There are a lot of non-libertarian aspects to the neoliberal paradigm, and notably Ron Paul, Stockman and other libertarians broke with Reagan over them. TFD (talk) 00:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that one thing that is particularly important is that terms are terms, not fundamental entities, and their meaning varies with time and place. For example, in the current United States, where in many major respects "liberalism" means the opposite of what it meant many decades ago and what it means elsewhere in the world, people who know will be sure to add qualifiers (e.g. "classical") when using the term liberal/liberalism. And doubly so proponents of Libertarianism/Classical Liberalism. In short the common meaning of the term "liberal/liberalism" in the US is (on many issues) the exact opposite of classical liberalism, and so the qualifier "classical" is important and used. North8000 (talk) 11:28, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Liberalism as popularly used in the U.S. does not mean the "exact opposite" of what it meant decades ago.. As Ian Adams explains in Political Ideology Today, p. 42, "Ideologically, all US parties are Liberal and always have been. Essentially they espouse classical liberalism, that is a form of democratized Whig constitutionalism, plus the free market. The point of ideological difference comes with the influence of social liberalism. How far should the free market be left alone; how far should the state regulate or manage, and how far should government at federal or local level provide social security and welfare services?"[2] they these two versions of liberalism appear to be the "exact opposite" to you is probably based on the fact that actual conservatives and socialists, let alone fascists, are not part of U.S. political discussions.

Also, informed writers in the U.S., such as academics, are able to distinguish between the universal meaning of liberalism, and its regional variations in the U.S. and France. Americans do not use the term "classical liberal", they say "economically conservative."

In any case, what does it matter whether some people find these terms confusing?

TFD (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the good info and link. I was making the point about terminology for one small reason at the moment (a reason why no US libertarian or classical liberal would self-identify as a liberal or neoliberal). But in the broader sense it is to avoid a Tower of Babel on the talk page or in the article. (the latter in order to clearly communicate to folks on both sides of the pond) (As it turns out, that was a big part of the problem and solution a few years ago when this article was in flames.) But what would you say to this: A portion of the common meaning of one-word "liberal" in the USA is to favor a larger and more activist government in almost all areas (except military, security, and legislating morality (e.g abortion) including larger taxes, expenditures, redistribution of wealth, larger amounts of regulation etc.. Would you not agree that in those areas, such is the opposite of libertarianism/classical liberalism? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

It is more a matter of degree than two distinct ideologies. McCain for example wanted a 36% maximum federal tax rate, while Obama wanted 38%. Not exactly the same as the difference between the world views of the leaders of North and South Korea.

Liberals do not support redistribution of wealth. While there was a social safety net, no attempt was made to turn over factories to the workers. And mostly the safety net was paid for through regressive taxation. So unemployed persons would be drawing from funds that they would pay into when they were employed. Classical liberalism had also provided a safety net, through workhouses and public works programs such as road-building.

U.S. libertarians do not self-identify as neoliberals, but then neither did Clinton and Obama, although both supported the neoliberal paradigm. In fact they are closer to it than libertarians, who reject certain aspects such as "free trade" agreements, agricultural subsidies, foreign interventionism, the war on drugs, the war on terror, no child left behind, and a strong central government.

TFD (talk) 21:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

China btw is seen as having adopted neo-liberal policies since 1978, and so have other Third World countries. But one would not call them libertarian. TFD (talk) 00:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

LOL, I doubt North8000 had McCain and Obama in mind as examples of opposite ideologies, they are both anti-liberal in the classical sense, and as you point out, differ only marginally as "a matter of degree". But in the U.S., Obama is considered (slightly) more "liberal" than McCain precisely because he is (slightly) less classically liberal than McCain. The word itself has opposite meaning, even when used to describe politicians who are not opposites. 166.147.67.42 (talk) 12:32, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Certainly they differ on some issues, but they agree on fundamental principles as enshrined in the U.S. constitution, even if they may disagree on some matters of interpretation. That puts both firmly within the liberal tradition. That they may appear to be at opposite poles owes to the fact that no one in the U.S. political mainstream questions the fundamental issues on which they agree. Compare with France, where both the National Front and the Communist Party challenge the fundamental values of the French constitution. TFD (talk) 19:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure they may share some fundamental liberal principles, but they also share some anti-liberal (and anti-constitution) principles. But the point I (and North8000) was making was that the term "liberal" itself is used in the U.S. to mean the opposite of classical liberal, ie to specifically refer to how the views of McCain and Obama differ from classical liberalism, not how they are similar to it. Again, it's the word "liberal" itself that is often used to mean the opposite of classical liberal, not that the people referred to are opposites. Nobody here has even remotely suggested or implied in any way that McCain and Obama (or any U.S. politicians) are opposites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.195.192.167 (talk) 10:51, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

No, liberal is not the opposite of classical liberal; these words have real meanings that TFD made clear. If you and North8000 want to pretend liberal means something it doesn't, present some sources. We don't get to change Wikipedia to reflect the personal experiences and assumptions of its editors. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

You might try rereading the post you responded to. It didn't say "liberal is the opposite of classical liberal". It said the word "liberal" is often used to mean the opposite of classical liberal, a subtle but important distinction, since the actual people referred to share many tenets. And we don't need to change Wikipedia, since it already says that in the various respective articles. 70.195.194.25 (talk) 04:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I read MisterDub's posting to mean "liberal", as the term is commonly used in the U.S. is not the opposite of classical liberal. I quoted Adams above who wrote, "Ideologically, all US parties...espouse classical liberalism...." TFD (talk) 05:07, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, MisterDub's posting tried to reference my post while omitting the term "often". As an example, expanding government power is the opposite of limiting government power, and the term "liberal" is often used in the U.S. to refer to the former, while "classical liberal" refers to the latter, as described in various Wikipedia articles, including modern American liberalism that you linked below. That doesn't mean that the terms are opposites in general, just that they are used to have opposite meanings in certain specific contexts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.195.194.25 (talk) 05:27, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Expanding government power (I assume you mean expanding what government does) is not a liberal objective, even if it has been a result of government policy. So when the government paves your street they do not do so because they want to expand, but because (a) they think paved roads are good and (b) it is more efficient and effective for them to pave the road than leave it to the individuals who use the road. TFD (talk) 05:41, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

LOL, that's hilarious, dude! As if we were talking about roads, or as if classical liberals opposed roads. As if that's what Americans argue about: whether to have public roads! Very funny! Try reading the article you linked earlier on modern American liberalism. It's not about roads, it's about "government management of the macroeconomy", etc. You know, things that people actually have opposing views on? Roads? That was a good one! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.196.0.228 (talk) 11:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Not sure how accurately you have read that. The source says that they accomplished this through tax cuts, believing that tax cuts would stimulate the economy. That is not the opposite of what libertarians believe. And yes, liberals did build roads in the Works Progress Administration for example. You are taking the few points in which U.S. liberals and conservatives disagree and ignoring the vast amount of issues on which they agree. TFD (talk) 20:02, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

No, I ignored nothing. You are merely continuing to argue against things no one has argued for. Nobody said that tax cuts were the opposite of libertarianism. And it's clear that you are feigning such inability to comprehend what others are saying. If you don't want to address someone's point, that can be more efficiently accomplished by just ignoring it instead of treating this talk page like it's a SNL skit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.196.5.125 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 17 January 2014

TFD, I have a lot of respect for you and have learned much from you. But I don't think that you are recognizing that the common meanings of terms are relevant and important (at least in the context of where and when they have that meaning) and I'm also thinking that you may not understand the common meaning of "liberal" in the US. Probably the best definition that I can give is the the "progressive" corner of the Nolan chart, recognizing that the Nolan chart has the minus that it itself uses common US meanings of other terms. I think that you are dealing only the world scale and academic meanings which of course are also valid and important. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:52, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

In the 1930s, Roosevelt called his supporters liberals and his opponents conservatives and hence we have two articles modern American liberalism and conservatism in the United States. But the line between the two was never fixed and both are within the liberal tradition. Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn called this the "Great American Semantic Confusion." While Hayek and others disliked the terminology, U.S. conservatives adopted the term after 1955. See for example John Wayne saying "I always thought I was a liberal." The 1930s KKK had complained saying they were "true liberals." Schlesinger wrote about it in "A note to Europeans." Different countries have different terms for distinguishing left and right-wing liberals, e.g., the UK, where they are yellow-book and orange book Liberals.

So yes I am aware of it. I just do not see what relevance it has to the article.

TFD (talk) 20:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Mainly that we should provide context for clarity when using terms which have very different meanings in different places and times. North8000 (talk) 12:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

First you apparently have to spell out in excruciating minute detail that you are referring to the terms themselves often having opposite meanings, while repeatedly trying to prevent that seemingly simple and obvious point from being misconstrued as claiming that various ideologies are opposite of one another. 70.196.4.123 (talk) 14:35, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you meant, but what I meant is just providing the place/time context in term-use cases where the meaning varies a great deal. North8000 (talk) 15:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I was just facetiously referring to your (relevant, well-known, and obvious) point about the term "liberal", how it has been misconstrued by some despite repeated efforts to clarify it. I seem to be the only one here who accurately comprehended what you were saying. Unless you were really claiming that McCain and Obama are "opposites"? If so, then I'm the one who misunderstood, and the others had it right ;). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.196.4.123 (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

This conversation has gone way off-topic. Are we talking about a change to the article or not? If not, let's close this discussion. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:14, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

The conversation has gone in a different direction than the heading, but is nevertheless about and relevant to the content of the article. But either way I think that the particular thread is completed. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

North8000, it was not relevant, but I'm glad we can drop it. IP, we all understood what North8000 was saying, Wikipedia just doesn't provide a platform for OR. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:20, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Who suggested using OR in the article? That's the kind of response that might lead someone to think you have no idea what North8000 was saying, since he never suggested using OR in the article in any way as far as I can tell.

MisterDub, you know that I respect you and your work a lot, but you seem to have been taking some crabby pills lately with swipes like this. I let the last one pass (saying I was wrong that the term sometimes has that common meaning, when I already showed that it did) but now you did it again. If certain terms heavily used in the article have significantly varying meanings, discussing that and how to approach using and clarifying such when used in the article certainly is relevant. Let's be nice.  :-) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Let me summarize. Different writers may use the same words to refer to different concepts, while individual concepts may be described by different words. That is a problem across all articles about ideology. That may lead to ambiguity in articles, but we should be able to resolve it by writing in a manner that the meaning of each word is clear from context or we explain what we mean when we use a word. TFD (talk) 20:07, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

North8000, I really don't care. I'm honestly sick of you demanding other editors acquiesce to your OR. Provide sources or shut up. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:19, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

How libertarian of you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.196.5.125 (talk) 20:58, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

MisterDub, you do not understand what OR is....it is a term for unsourced/unacceptable material in article/main space, not the talk page. Most talk page material (such as your last post) is unsourced. That is normal talk, not "OR". North8000 (talk) 21:23, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Criticisms?

The "Criticisms" section (like other sections) is a basket case. First, the statement "Critics have claimed the political philosophy does not satisfy collectivist values, and that private property does not create an egalitarian distribution", while technically true, falsely implies that proponents claim otherwise. Since those "claims" are not disputed in any of the sources, they should not be referred to as "claims of critics" as if proponents disagree with them.

Also, the last sentence obviously does not apply to all of the philosophies referred to as libertarianism in this article. Clearly classical liberalism has been tried, and demonstrated to be "viable and beneficial". While perhaps not perfectly "fully actualized", it was certainly close enough to qualify as a valid example. No political philosophy could ever be "fully actualized" in a stricter sense than that on a large scale. In addition, there certainly is no example of a more "viable and beneficial" single political philosophy being fully actualized, which negates the stated premise of that sentence, anyway. Lockean One (talk) 08:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Criticism sections are not recommended, and I suggest we remove it. TFD (talk) 18:05, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. On top of just being useless, the umbrella label is so broad, nebulous and divided that there's barely anything coherent to criticize, unless you want to call it "self-described libertarians criticizing other self-described libertarians". Finx (talk) 09:55, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. I was thinking about a particular comment to make and noticed that Finx already wrote it. North8000 (talk) 12:52, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I took it out. I move the internal link to the further reading section. I checked the references and I think that they are all op ed pieces and are not orphaned elsewhere in the article. North8000 (talk) 01:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Propose changing libertarianism portal icon/image

Discussion moved to Portal talk:Libertarianism#Possible image changes
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This is really not okay. It's US-centric It carries overtones of exclusively capitalist ideology, if not implied goldbuggery, which describes the bulk of libertarian history poorly It's not very representative of the history or the origins of the term My suggestion is a crop of Liberty Leading the People. It's fairly inclusive and shows some effort at NPOV It's a very iconic painting It's very appropriate, given that libertarian is a cognate of the French libertaire and all schools of libertarianism have or at least claim Enlightenment roots I'm very aware that it's a republican symbol, but given that it epitomizes social revolution in rebellion against domination and monarchism, I hardly think many anarchists would find it inappropriate. Finx (talk) I like your idea and picture, but I can't see where the coin is being used, unless you mean that little icon.....even the coin just looks like a little gold disk at that size and I think the picture that you suggest would look like an ink spot. North8000 (talk) 01:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC) I do mean the little coin but I think the very random header image on the portal also needs an update. For the tiny one, a cropping and removal of background would make it recognizable, think. Finx (talk) 02:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC) The image on the coin is the "Angel of Victory", and therefore not an obvious symbol to use. But I do not see the Liberty painting as a good replacement, although it is better. TFD (talk) 02:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC) I suppose sabot cat is out? Maybe sabot cat ensnared by an ouroboros-like self-consuming snake on the yellow gadsden flag... with a side of freedom fries? Pretty appropriate way to sum up this clusterfuck, IMO. Finx (talk) 02:48, 21 January 2014 (UTC) I think that the US coin is a bad idea, but when it's so small that you can't see it it doesn't make much difference. I think that the Statue of Liberty is OK (It's sort of general, and a gift from France) but not US currency. And I think that your proposed picture is really cool. Maybe you can experiment to see if you can crop it (or one like it) and see if it can look like more than an inks spot at that tiny size. Even more perfect (and less likely to gather a few complaints) would be one like that but a bit less risque, if such exists. And that banner picture at the portal looks weird and sort of ugly. The cat is cool! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 03:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC) I was joking about the cat, because it would have the same NPOV problems as the coin, being a symbol of militant IWW-style unionism and anarchist syndicalism. That said, I'm open to ideas and offer to fix any image up in photoshop if (god willing) we can settle on something inclusive and appropriate. Finx (talk) 03:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC) There's also the Tarantino-esque hands-breaking-chains motif... minus the cowboy on horse, presumably. Finx (talk) 03:29, 21 January 2014 (UTC) This is not a topic related to improving the article. It should be discussed on the portal talk page and/or Wikiproject:Libertarianism talk page. – S. Rich (talk) 03:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC) Very well, but as far as I can tell, Wikiproject:Libertarianism barely gets more than a few edits in a year. I guess I'll just do it myself and see if it sticks since I can't discuss it with anyone. Closing. Finx (talk) 03:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Propose mass changes, part 3

Hi all, I think the article is improving well, and I just have a couple more changes I'd like to bring to the table. This time, I'd like to take a look at the "History" section, which is rife with anarchism, but little else. When discussing the coverage of anarchism in this article previously, it was decided that we should minimize its presence because anarchism already has an article with more detailed information. Assuming that we are all still in agreement on this, I propose that we:

1. Remove the sections entitled "Individualist anarchism", "Mutualism", "Geolibertarianism", and "Left-libertarianism"
2. Replace the removed sections above with a summary of History of anarchism (as seen in my sandbox)
3. Move "U.S. libertarianism" section to "History" after "Anarcho-capitalism"
4. Rename sections in the revised "History" section to prevent replication (HTML anchor tags need unique names)

Regarding the last item, I have renamed these four sections in my sandbox to "Age of Enlightenment" (no change), "Rise of anarchism", "Private-property anarchism", and "Revival of classical liberalism". I have a concern that using the name "U.S. libertarianism" for that section is incorrect, or at least, not as accurate as it could/should be: the last two sections, i.e., those that deal with anarcho-capitalism and neo-classical liberalism, both had their origins in the USA—beginning with Ayn Rand and Murray Rothbard in the '50s, and continuing to Robert Nozick, David Nolan, and the US Libertarian Party in the '70s—and spread outward from there. I'm not sure that I'm pleased with these new names, but I figured they'd be good enough to start a discussion. Thank you all very much! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Did a quick look. Lots of good work there. But I spotted one big problem. It deletes coverage of contemporary common US libertarianism, (the "60,000,000 person" type.) under contemporary libertarianism. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it moves that section to "History," which I argue is more appropriate, as little of that section is actually contemporary. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to split the section so the last paragraph (the only part of that section that I can see has contemporary information) stays in "Contemporary libertarianism" while the rest moves to "History"? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:07, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Good idea. I did read that you moved it, but in your draft. that last paragraph was deleted, not moved. North8000 (talk) 19:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, ok... I guess I didn't catch that. Thanks! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Please have another look at my sandbox. I copied the current "U.S. libertarianism" section from this article, and split the information as previously suggested into the "Revival of classical liberalism" (under "History") and "U.S. libertarianism" (under "Contemporary libertarianism") sections. The only other changes I made were to 1) delete the first sentence of the "Revival of classical liberalism" section because that is already well covered under "Philosophy", and 2) split and re-align the images in these two sections. Let me know what you think... thanks! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:46, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

After just a quick look, looks good! North8000 (talk) 23:04, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposed changes have been implemented. Thanks everyone! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:26, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations: Article quality

I know that the editors involved in the day to day thrashing out of the article may not realise it, but: it is looking good. It is looking better than I have seen it in quite sometime. The article attends to two different but related major strands of thought, without privileging or discarding either. The citation quality seems good. The language, coverage and scope seems good. Frankly, when I happened to follow a link to this article I have seen many, many, many times before, I was expecting to have seen a degradation in quality rather than improvement. I know that the regular editors of this article focus strongly on the points they are actively writing and editing, and that it may feel as if things don't move forward, but the current state of the article in general is very good and (from the rest of this talk page) the methods by which people argue is improved. Keep up the good work, thank you for working from high quality sources, thank you for structuring the article in a useful and accessible format. Fifelfoo (talk) 23:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks! North8000 (talk) 23:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I often get quite agitated over one disagreement or another and practically want to throw down in fisticuffs, but the article really does look a hell of a lot better. I think the major contributors here deserve some praise for their commitment and patience, especially MisterDub for the recent overhaul. Finx (talk) 03:27, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Propose mass changes, part 4

All, the last part of my proposed changes is the lead, which should reflect the substantial changes made in the past month or so. I have worked up the following as a (hopefully) accurate summary of the new material:

Libertarianism (Latin: liber, free) is a set of related political philosophies that uphold liberty as the highest political end. It claims that individuals are both ontologically and normatively primary, and seeks to establish robust boundaries for individual action: it is the "moral view that agents initially fully own themselves and have certain moral powers to acquire property rights in external things." Libertarian philosopher Roderick Long defines it as "any political position that advocates a radical redistribution of power from the coercive state to voluntary associations of free individuals", whether voluntary association takes the form of the free market or of communal co-operatives.

Currents within libertarianism are distinguished by their support for, or rejection of, the state and private property: neo-classical liberalism supports both laissez-faire capitalism and a minimal government limited to preventing aggression, theft, breach of contract, and fraud; anarcho-capitalism proposes a replacement of all state functions with private firms, including law enforcement, courts, and all other security services; and libertarian socialism advocates common or cooperative ownership and management of the means of production.

The term libertarianism is an antonym of authoritarianism and has been used as a synonym for anarchism since the 1890s. In the United States, libertarianism generally refers to neo-classical liberals and anarcho-capitalists, who share fiscally conservative and socially liberal political views, observing the colloquial meanings of conservative and liberal in that region.

I think this draft improves on the current lead in the following ways: 1) the first paragraph of this draft has much of the same content as the current second paragraph, but is organized into a more coherent account; 2) the second paragraph explains the common currents within libertarianism, including neo-classical liberalism, anarcho-capitalism, and libertarian socialism, as opposed to the haphazard list of similarities and differences in the current lead's first paragraph; and 3) the last paragraph gives a short history of the term libertarianism and how it means different things in different contexts (e.g. academic disciplines, regions, etc.).

Notes about this draft:

1. I think we might want to remove the source from the uncontentious claim that libertarianism is an antonym of authoritarianism, as this should be well evidenced by the source in the "Etymology" section.
2. Should we add geolibertarianism and Objectivism to the second paragraph?
3. I'm not sure about specifically mentioning neo-classical liberals and anarcho-capitalists in the last sentence of the last paragraph. Perhaps this should simply read, "In the United States, libertarianism refers to those who share..."?

Once the lead is improved, I will request a new assessment of the article and see if we've moved up from C-class. Thanks again! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:51, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I just took a fast look and it looks good. Both the new one and the recent current one are lacking a mention of what common US libertarianism is. Maybe your idea that you mentioned was doing that. Previous it was in as a USLP statement. If you could add that that would be great; otherwise that could be a "someday" thing. Agree on #1, neutral on #2, and I think my previous comment reflects on #2. Nice work! Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:35, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on what you mean by "lacking a mention of what common US libertarianism is"? What are you looking for as a description? Thanks! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Something along the lines of of pointing out the corner of the Nolan chart, with explanation / caveat that the Nolan chart uses the US definitions of terms. North8000 (talk) 15:12, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

So, you'd say that the lead should mention the Nolan chart in order to accurately portray US libertarianism? I'm just asking because I think the last sentence of this proposal says essentially the same thing, but without an explicit mention of the Nolan chart. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually you did it well already. Sorry, I don't know what happened.....I must have had a bout of temporary blindness. North8000 (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for your input! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but that's not an improvement, it's a downgrade in quality and accuracy for several reasons. Your second sentence is awkward and unclear. Do libertarians seek to establish boundaries for individual action, robust or not? While I know what you mean, it should be clear that libertarians (in that sense) seek to eliminate or reduce, not establish, boundaries on individual action.

Also, it's not clear that "private property" here refers only to productive property. Non-socialists don't politically distinguish between "private property" and "personal property", and would not automatically know that the latter is not also being referred to. And the phrase "the state and private property" could easily be construed as a package deal the way it's worded, ie that it is necessarily both that are supported or opposed, not one or the other.

Your last sentence also isn't accurate for a number of reasons, including that the colloquial meaning of term "liberal" is often anti-libertarian on some social issues (such as gun control). Also, in general, U.S. politicians referred to as "fiscally conservative" are nothing close to (economically) libertarian.

Without going into further detail, I think the current intro is far better in both quality and accuracy, except for the last sentence of the first paragraph, as has been discussed previously. Does anyone even object to any of the current intro except for that one sentence? Lockean One (talk) 02:30, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Lockean One, yes, libertarians seek to establish robust boundaries for individual action. And if people don't know what private property means, they can click the wikilink and learn about it (this is an encyclopaedia after all). We can certainly rephrase the bit about "the state and private property," but I honestly don't see this as an issue: naming two things doesn't necessarily denote inseparability. Also, your comments about the terms liberal and conservative directly contradict reliable sources.

The current lead, on the other hand, is atrocious: almost all of the first paragraph is incoherent nonsense. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I said nothing about people not knowing what private property means, I was referring to people who know perfectly well what it means and know that their shoes are private property according to the normal definition in their dictionary. They should not be expected to inexplicably assume otherwise and click on that link. And I know you are smart enough to know that already, so why the argument? Ditto for the rest, I see no reason to keep trying to convince you of things you obviously already know. Lockean One (talk) 23:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

What?! No. If anyone thinks shoes are private property, they are in desperate need of finding a dictionary. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 07:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Found one. dictionary.com: private property — n, land or belongings owned by a person or group and kept for their exclusive use.

So I don't just think my shoes are private property by the standard meaning of the term, I know they are. And so does every literate English speaker, including you. Why feign such absurd illiteracy? Lockean One (talk) 09:05, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not feigning anything; I have never seen private property defined in such a blatantly wrong way. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:51, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

LOL, OK, but that makes no sense. The terms "private" and "property" defined separately would also include my shoes. And there is simply no reason that a non-socialist would consider their shoes to be any different from a productive tool in this context, since non-socialists don't consider productiveness to be a factor in determining whether something is either "private" or "property" or both. You had to be aware of that. Lockean One (talk) 03:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

No, not at all. I actually looked up private property in my American Heritage and Oxford English dictionaries and didn't find it there, which makes sense as it's not a dictionary term per se, but a concept. In any case, I don't think it's appropriate for an encyclopaedia to promote ignorance. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 22:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Which is why I suggested clarifying that that sentence refers only to productive private property, and not to non-productive private property (perhaps by simply adding the word "productive"). Expecting non-socialists to just assume that the normal dictionary definitions of "private" and "property" are not being used is just silly. Lockean One (talk) 22:38, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose - Proposed lead is garbage. Cites two neoliberal definitions, one touting a bizarre form of dualism which is basically exclusive to ancaps and conservatives; the other implies a harmonious compatibility between ideologies which want to forcibly abolish private property and those which want to privatize the state. It's just ridiculous and needs a complete rewrite. If the current one is atrocious (not that I'm a big fan of it) this one is something we don't have a word for yet. I would also like to know why ancappery needs so much prominent real estate in this article, being a marginal sect of practically no significance which exists pretty much entirely on American internet forums. Furthermore, it should be clear that traditional anti-capitalist libertarianism is anti-capitalist; it's not just some vaguely "cooperative" flavor or hippy rendition of natural rights dominated self-ownership ideologies stacked on the pillar of property rights. It is primarily focused on expropriation and the removal of the capitalist system from society. Let's stop trying to bowdlerize this narrative please. Finx (talk) 18:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Finx, I have to admit, I'm not sure to what you are referring. What neoliberal sources that are in this proposal but not the current lead do you not like? I ask because I don't think there is any. In fact, most of the sourcing for the lead is the same; I've simply removed some that supported uncontentious claims supported later in the body of the article. Regarding anarcho-capitalism, it only has one clause in the new lead; I wouldn't exactly call that "so much prominent real estate," but we can certainly reduce it if need be. And we can certainly add that libertarian socialism is anticapitalist. It sounds like these are minor criticisms at most. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:44, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy definition is a description of what Ayn Rand (correctly, in my opinion) called the "New Right": the Koch-style neoliberalism that took wind in the 70s. This is perfectly fine, in context. Context being that the bulk of the libertarian tradition does not profess any allegiance (and sometimes actively opposes) the idea of "natural rights" - much less the weird, anachronistic dualism in "self-ownership" and the property-based moral framework derived from it, which most anarchists (in line with just most people) would find totally laughable. In no way is that an 'uncontentious' claim. It's a description of one particular side of self-described libertarianism. For that matter, why not use Kropotkin, if that's your standard for NPOV? e.g. "the definition of libertarianism is a working class movement to expropriate all private property, abolish the capitalist mode of production and terminate the state that enables it". Does that sound neutral and encyclopedic? Well, there's about as much basis to do that as what you're proposing. Ancaps are literally all over the article and Rothbard is even credited with 'new right' libertarianism below, which is just ridiculous. He was a marginal figure on the sidelines who eventually dropped out of CATO. These are narratives basically constructed by editors with no historical foundation. Finx (talk) 18:56, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Finx, I agree with much of what you said, but I honestly don't see how they are relevant to the proposal. I don't see any mention of natural rights or a dualism with regards to self-ownership and property rights. If you think the description is too favorable to neoliberalism, how would you propose we remedy this? I was trying to be as all-inclusive as I could, but suggestions for improvement are welcome. As for anarcho-capitalism, if the problem is there's too much information in the body of the article, we can work to reduce that. I don't see how that has any bearing on the lead proposal though. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll come back with some suggestions when I have time, but basically the idea that people "fully own themselves" is reference to self-ownership, which is inseparably tied to both dualism and the concept of natural rights. I don't know how many socialists you'll find who'll agree with the idea that a person can "own" oneself. They very typically reject all morality perceived as inverted and based on the social law concept of property. This goes back to classical liberalism, actually, which didn't end with the Lockean concept of estate. Finx (talk) 19:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I honestly dislike saying self-ownership myself, and prefer to use the term individual sovereignty in my own writing, as I feel ownership (aka property rights) is a later development. I'm not sure if replacing self-ownership with individual sovereignty will fix the problem here, but just a suggestion. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:23, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be better, but we need a source or something to point to in the body of the article. The only way out of this I see is to recognize that there are conflicting views: a more-or-less cohesive definition from historians like Woodcock and prominent anarchist thinkers, a more-or-less cohesive definition from later-20th-century US schools advocating a form of economic liberalism (borrowing a few things directly from Locke and company, though their monopoly over classical liberalism is certainly in dispute), and maybe a more vague and generic "small l libertarian" definition concerning non-specific individual autonomy. The first two are clearly irreconcilable even though they might agree on some things apart from the central argument. The last one (if it can be found) just kind of nebulous. Sorry if I came off sounding crass, but I just want to be blunt about this instead of beating around the bush. Finx (talk) 20:37, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Not a problem; I really do appreciate your candor. What I was trying to achieve with this proposal—and apparently failed—was to explain the common currents of libertarianism as you have described them here (i.e. "to recognize that there are conflicting views" and present a "more-or-less cohesive definition" for each). I think the current lead is poor in that it does just the opposite: it tries to group distinct ideologies together, presenting a chimera of differing and often incompatible beliefs as if they comprised a single creature. That is the problem I am attempting to resolve with this edit. Thanks! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:48, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Seeking consensus

I agree with users Lockean One and Finx in rejecting the proposed changes to the lead. Where does everyone else stand? -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 19:55, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Whoa! Does no one even want to talk about it?! This isn't an all-or-none thing. Let's discuss improvements to the lead instead of rejecting them out of hand. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm all for discussing, MisterDub. You've made a lot of improvements to this article, and I'm not trying to be crass. I just really don't think this is one of them. It's the opposite of an improvement. Maybe there's a way to modify it to change that, but I think it needs a major overhaul if you want to substitute it for the current lead. Finx (talk) 20:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I made a fast look, and also (on my 2nd try) made sure it had an informative sentence on common US libertarianism and just generally said it looked OK to me. I did not do a detailed "compare and contrast". Being the lead on a top level article, if there are difference of opinion, it's quite appropriate to deal with / discuss it it at a paragraph-by-paragraph or sentence-by-sentence level. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Finx, thank you for discussing the changes. Your first comment didn't seem to have much in the way of discussion, but your more recent ones make it clear that there is a dialogue. And thank you, North8000, for your comments and suggestions; I hope it is clear I was not referring to you with my previous post. I just don't want anyone to get the impression that the only available course of action is voting to accept or reject changes; this is a collaborative effort and suggestions or even entirely new proposals are welcomed to fix the haphazard and confusing lead we have currently. Thanks again! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. And don't worry, I didn't take it that way and wasn't referring to you. I was just reminding ourselves. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

wealth redistribution; and the libertarian commitments to just possessory claims

this passage is confusing, redistribute wealth, but only unjust wealth? who would be the arbiter of such? how does one make the case his wealth aka possession is just? Darkstar1st (talk) 23:26, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Currently the police usually make that call but they have to explain what act they are using (e.g., Racketeer Influenced Criminal Organization (RICO) and Continuing Criminal Enterprise and son of Sam laws, although ultimately the courts decide. TFD (talk) 23:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

no, wealth redistribution is taxing one person a different rate than another. rico/cce/sos directs government to seize the profit of crime. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:48, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

IOW it redistributes wealth. TFD (talk) 06:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Darkstar, post the exact sentence you're referring to and the source which is supporting it so we can have a look. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 23:58, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

it is the 1st sentence of the left libertarian section, source a blog [3] Darkstar1st (talk) 06:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't the first sentence. Here it is:

Left-libertarians simultaneously value leftist commitments to improving worklife, promoting environmental well-being, and wealth redistribution; and the libertarian commitments to just possessory claims, freed markets (rejecting the view that such a market would be a corporate playground), and diminution or elimination of government power.[4]

Shall we try to find another source that supports this material? -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 10:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Why not just accurately reflect the sources used instead? If the term "left-libertarianism" must be used to refer to three different and mutually exclusive ideologies, at least it should be in the form of "The term 'left-libertarianism' may refer to X, Y, or Z, which should not be confused with each other" instead of purposely trying to confuse them with each other. Lockean One (talk) 08:35, 7 February 2014 (UTC)