Talk:Right-libertarianism/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 8

Davide King's comments

Moved from User talk:Davide King § Talk:Right-libertarianism

I hope it's not a problem if I write here my thoughts on the Right-libertarian page's discussion and ping @JLMadrigal, North8000, and Pfhorrest: and all other users involved, asking you if you can wait for my unblock request's result so that I can participate to the discussion since I was involved into it and this discussion goes on by months. To clarify, I was the IP that opposed PhilLiberty's discussion that started all this. I've got nothing personal against JLMadrigal (I commend you for not editing the page like PhilLiberty did and waiting to reach a consensus), but I'm honestly astonished by the direction all this took. I hope you will read this until the end; read it a little bit at a time, but please read it. I apologise for the length, but there was so much I wanted to say and counterargue, although Pfhorrest did a good job already, even if I disagree with the merger proposal. Whether I will be unblocked or not, I want to show my committement to Wikipedia in making good contributions and I hope my arguments and proposal will be taken in consideration regardless.

What's to be done

In short, the topics should be as follows:

1. Libertarianism (broad terms).
2. Left-libertarianism (libertarian socialist and other left-leaning ideologies and the broad libertarian left opposed to the use of the state and authortarianism in left-wing politics).
3. Right-libertarianism (American-style libertarianism, i.e. radical economic liberalism that in some ways part ways, no pun intended, from liberalism in its opposition to the state in some form and being even more critical of government and state intervention, especially in the economy, that has expanded around the world, or more specifically the libertarian ideologies which support free-market/laissez-faire/liberal capitalism and the private ownership of both natural resources and capital; and the broad libertarian right, opposed to both economic and social intervention).

Indeed, it's Libertarianism in the United States that desperately need to be discussed and improved; and where you can add Etimology/Definition/Typology and Left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism sections instead of disambiguating and deleting Right-libertariansm and/or Left-libertarianism. Besides, there's already Libertarianism (disambiguation) which discusses what you're talking about, perhaps expand it?

Libertarianism in the United States desperately needs:

1. New informations to the lead that better describe and summarise it.
2. Its double origins, namely how Joseph Déjacque, the one to first coin the political word, lived in New York City and published a book on the topic and a journal; and how it was used by anarchists in the United States to distinguish themselves from state socialism (much like in the rest of the world). It only talks in the sense of libertarian as a synonym for classical liberalism and economic liberalism.
3. Mentions of the origins of and debate/issues between communist and indvidualist anarchists about one being the true libertarian and accusing the other other of being authoritarian/statist, etc.
4. Mentions of left-wing market anarchism or other left-libertarians in the United States. Indeed, the page should also mention and talk about 19th–21st century anarchist/libertarian socialist movements.

We could create a Libertarian capitalism page, whose topics should be about economic and laissez-faire liberalism opposed to state interventions and government regulations present in democratic capitalism, which they deem as crony/state capitalism, corporatism, etc.

Issues

First of all, just a few months ago we had a requested move which resulted in consensus not to move the page and not seeing anything wrong with the current title. Second of all, I agree with Pfhorrest's arguments, which are basically mine too (I also agree with Pfhorrest's football comparison rather than North8000's previous dogs comparison). Just like the first move request, the premise a possible second move request is objectively false as right-libertarianism is the common name, whether we like it or not, which is what the opposition to the current name is based on, rather than a serious reasearch on what reliable sources say. Indeed, no reliable sources have been put on to support a move and I'm astonished that this discussion is still going on when right-libertarianism is the one with the most hits.

Thirdly, there's some serious misunderstanding of the topic and an American libertarian bias in JLMadrigal's arguments (arguing left-libertarians are a minority not by realiable sources, but by some party affiliations, or something like that, when most so-called left-libertarians are anarchists who reject electoral politics) and a lack of knowledge about the topic (the Libertarian League was created by anarchists/libertarian socialists much earlier than the Libertarian Party and before modern libertarianism in the United States became a thing). For instance, it's my understanding that JLMadrigal sees right-libertarianism in American libertarian lens, i.e. as libertarians who are cultural conservatives (Lew Rockwell, Hans-Hermann Hoppe, etc.), when in reality it refers to the libertarianism supportive of the private ownership of natural resources and of capital, i.e. the means of production; the reason why the page isn't titled libertarian capitalism is because right-libertarianism is the common name and that's fine (unless you simply don't want to be associated with the right, which is nothing new), even better because certain right-libertarians may reject capitalism, seen as state capitalism rather than the free market they support (which they prefer as term), even if in practice they support capitalism (private ownership of the means of production, production for profit, wage labour, etc.). Furthermore, left-libertarians don't identify as such either, but JLMadrigal only worried about libertarians that are considered right-libertarians, hence JLMadrigal's bias against left-libertarianism. We could make a Definition, Etymology, or Typology section in the more appopriate Libertarianism in the United States page instead of this disambiguation proposal.

Finally, it's my understanding that these two pages are a compromise, which I personally support. Libertarianism refers to the ideology in broad terms (if it's now mainly about so-called left-libertarianism is because we can't simply act like over hundred years of history didn't exist until the 20th century); left-libertarianism to the original/classical/19th century libertarianism (which is still the majority view of the world and is very modern/actual), i.e. libertairisme, libertarismo; and right-libertarianism to the modern 20th century libertarianism, i.e. libertarianisme, libertarianismo. Both pages are written in international lens (because American-style libertarianism has indeed expanded around the world ever since the 1970s) and so right-libertarianism is about American-style modern libertarian ideologies supportive of laissez-faire capitalism rather than just American right-libertarians. The issue is that in the United States left-libertarianism basically simply refer to the left of right-libertarianism, i.e. the Steiner–Vallentyne school, which as explained by The Four Deuces is very much close to right-libertarianism, but since it's also a tiny minority (per The Four Deuces, again), it shouldn't be a problem (especially since we're talking about left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism through global's lenses and not the United States') and thus left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism remain the most used and best possible titles, even if we don't like it. Ultimately, this whole discussion should be on Talk:Libertarianism in the United States because that's what JLMadrigal and Nort8000 actually seem to be referring to.

Proposals

This page should remain, just like left-libertarianism. What should've been discussed is ways to improve the page with more reliable sourced informations, not moving or deleting the page when reliable sources support the current naming; perhaps the page should be more clear and clarify what's talking about, not what has been proposed thus far. I propose to simply delete the History and Notable people and publications associated with right-libertarianism (which are basically the same in Libertarianism in the United States) since I believe that's the real issues JLMadrigal, so that the page reflects the left-libertarianism one and because I believe that's the real issue JLMadrigal has with and which caused a misunderstanding. As stated, this page is about libertarian ideologies supporting free-market/laissez-faire capitalism and the private ownership of both natural resources and capital, so that makes most American libertarians listed right-libertarians, even if they may not call themselves as such (I repeat this page should be looking at it internationally).

As such, I propose to move pages such as Libertarianism in the United Kingdom and Libertarianism in South Africa here, redirecting them to Right-libertarianism#Name country, where we would write a section about it, since they mainly talk in American-style/right-libertarian terms. I'm not even opposed to a Libertarian capitalism, perhaps talking about economic liberalism and laissez-faire as stated by The Four Deuces, or was it Beyond My Ken, sorry? The Economic liberalism page is really short and could be expanded with information about American libertarianism, which is basically its synonymous. I believe The Four Deuces and Beyond My Ken are two very expert-wise users and could do a really good job. Perhaps The Four Deuces could also re-write from the scratch a History section in Right-libertarianism.

I also propose to add more information, if we can find it from reliable sources, the New Left and libertarian left and the New Right and libertarian right in left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism, respectively, i.e. making them more broad than just libertarian socialism and libertarian capitalism (hence why the separate articles), talking about the anti-capitalist left opposed to the use of both authoritaranism and the state in left-wing politics; and the libertarian right supportive of both economic and cultural liberalism (cultural conservative libertarians are really conservatives who supports both social conservatism and economical liberalism in European terms) in right-wing politics.

Left-libertarianism's lead proposal

Extended content

A libertarian group diagram Left-libertarianism, or left-wing libertarianism, is a political philosophy which stress both individual freedom and social equality. As a term, it refers to several related yet distinct approaches to political and social theory. In its classical usage, it was a synonym for anti-authoritarian varieties of left-wing politics such as anarchism. In the United States, left-libertarianism refers to the left-wing of the modern libertarian movement and more recently to political positions associated with academic philosophers Hillel Steiner, Philippe Van Parijs and Peter Vallentyne that combine self-ownership with an egalitarian approach to natural resources. While maintaining full respect for personal property, classical left-libertarians are opposed to private property and the private ownership of the means of production. Modern left-libertarians are skeptical of, or fully against, private ownership of natural resources, arguing in contrast to right-libertarians that neither claiming nor mixing one's labor with natural resources is enough to generate full private property rights and maintain that natural resources should be held in an egalitarian manner, either unowned or owned collectively. Those left-libertarians who support private property do so under occupation and use property norms such as under mutualism, or under the condition that recompense is offered to the local or even global community such as with the Steiner–Vallentyne school. Market-oriented left-libertarianism, including Pierre-Joseph Proudhon's mutualism and Samuel Konkin III's agorism, appeals to left-wing concerns such as egalitarianism, gender and sexuality, class, immigration and environmentalism within the paradigm of a socialist free market. In the United States, libertarianism has become associated with right-libertarianism after Murray Rothbard and Karl Hess reached out to the New Left in the 1960s. However, political usage of the term until then was associated exclusively with anti-capitalism, libertarian socialism and social anarchism and in most parts of the world such an association still predominates.

Right-libertarianism's lead proposal

Extended content

Right-libertarianism, or right-wing libertarianism, is a political philosophy that advocate civil liberties, natural law, laissez-faire capitalism and a major reversal of the modern welfare state. Right-libertarians strongly support private property rights and defend market distribution of natural resources and private property. This position is contrasted with that of left-libertarianism, with which it is often compared to, hence the name. As a term, it refers to a collection of political philosophies that support laissez-faire capitalism. This is because libertarianism in the United States has deviated from its political origins to the extent that in the United States the common meaning of the term libertarianism is different from elsewhere, where it continues to be widely used to refer to anti-state socialists such as anarchists and more generally libertarian communists and libertarian socialists. Right-libertarian political thought is characterized by the strict priority given to liberty, with the need to maximize the realm of individual freedom and minimize the scope of public authority. Right-libertarians typically see the state as the principal threat to liberty. This anti-statism differs from anarchist doctrines in that it is based upon an uncompromising individualism that places little or no emphasis upon human sociability or cooperation. Right-libertarian philosophy is also rooted in the ideas of individual rights and laissez-faire economics. The right-libertarianism theory of individual rights generally stresses that the individual is the owner of his person and that people have an absolute entitlement to the property that his labor produces. Economically, right-libertarians emphasize the self-regulating nature and mechanisms of the market, portraying government intervention and attempts to redistribute wealth as invariably unnecessary and counter-productive. Although all right-libertarians oppose government intervention, there is a division between those who adhere to the anarcho-capitalism position, who view the state as an unnecessary evil; and minarchists who recognize the necessary need for a minimal state, often referred to as a night-watchman state. While influenced by classical liberal thought, with some viewing right-libertarianism as an outgrowth or as a variant of it, there are significant differences. Edwin van de Haar argues that "confusingly, in the United States the term libertarianism is sometimes also used for or by classical liberals. But this erroneously masks the differences between them". Classical liberalism refuses to give priority to liberty over order and therefore does not exhibit the hostility to the state which is the defining feature of libertarianism. Subsequently, right-libertarians believe classical liberals favor too much state involvement, arguing that they do not have enough respect for individual property rights and lack sufficient trust in the workings of the free market and its spontaneous order leading to support of a much larger state. Right-libertarians also disagree with classical liberals as being too supportive of  central banks and monetarist policies.

Right-libertarianism's full page proposal (titles are bolded to avoid having sections appear as subsections in the talk page)

Extended content

Right-libertarianism, or right-wing libertarianism, is a political philosophy that advocate civil liberties, natural law, laissez-faire capitalism and a major reversal of the modern welfare state. Right-libertarians strongly support private property rights and defend market distribution of natural resources and private property. This position is contrasted with that of left-libertarianism, with which it is often compared to, hence the name. As a term, it refers to a collection of political philosophies that support laissez-faire capitalism. This is because libertarianism in the United States has deviated from its political origins to the extent that in the United States the common meaning of the term libertarianism is different from elsewhere, where it continues to be widely used to refer to anti-state socialists such as anarchists and more generally libertarian communists and libertarian socialists. Right-libertarian political thought is characterized by the strict priority given to liberty, with the need to maximize the realm of individual freedom and minimize the scope of public authority. Right-libertarians typically see the state as the principal threat to liberty. This anti-statism differs from anarchist doctrines in that it is based upon an uncompromising individualism that places little or no emphasis upon human sociability or cooperation. Right-libertarian philosophy is also rooted in the ideas of individual rights and laissez-faire economics. The right-libertarianism theory of individual rights generally stresses that the individual is the owner of his person and that people have an absolute entitlement to the property that his labor produces. Economically, right-libertarians emphasize the self-regulating nature and mechanisms of the market, portraying government intervention and attempts to redistribute wealth as invariably unnecessary and counter-productive. Although all right-libertarians oppose government intervention, there is a division between those who adhere to the anarcho-capitalism position, who view the state as an unnecessary evil; and minarchists who recognize the necessary need for a minimal state, often referred to as a night-watchman state. While influenced by classical liberal thought, with some viewing right-libertarianism as an outgrowth or as a variant of it, there are significant differences. Edwin van de Haar argues that "confusingly, in the United States the term libertarianism is sometimes also used for or by classical liberals. But this erroneously masks the differences between them". Classical liberalism refuses to give priority to liberty over order and therefore does not exhibit the hostility to the state which is the defining feature of libertarianism. Subsequently, right-libertarians believe classical liberals favor too much state involvement, arguing that they do not have enough respect for individual property rights and lack sufficient trust in the workings of the free market and its spontaneous order leading to support of a much larger state. Right-libertarians also disagree with classical liberals as being too supportive of  central banks and monetarist policies. Philosophy An economic group diagram A libertarian group diagram Right-libertarianism developed in the United States in the mid-20th century from the works of European writers like John Locke, Friedrich Hayek and Ludwig von Mises and is the most popular conception of libertarianism in the United States today. It is commonly referred to as a continuation or radicalization of classical liberalism. The most important of these early right-libertarian philosophers was Robert Nozick. While often sharing the left-libertarians' advocacy for social freedom, right-libertarians also value the social institutions that enforce conditions of capitalism while rejecting institutions that function in opposition to these on the grounds that such interventions represent unnecessary coercion of individuals and abrogation of their economic freedom. Anarcho-capitalists seek complete elimination of the state in favor of private defense agencies while minarchists defend night-watchman states which maintain only those functions of government necessary to safeguard natural rights, understood in terms of self-ownership or autonomy. Right-libertarians are economic liberals of either the Austrian School or Chicago school and support laissez-faire capitalism. Non-aggression principle Main article: Non-agression principle The non-aggression principle (NAP) is often described as the foundation of present-day right-libertarian philosophies. It is a moral stance which forbids actions that are inconsistent with capitalist property rights. The principle defines aggression and initiation of force as violation of these rights. The NAP and property rights are closely linked since what constitutes aggression depends on what libertarians consider to be one's property. Because the principle redefines aggression in right-libertarian terms, use of the NAP as a justification for right-libertarianism has been criticized as circular reasoning and as rhetorical obfuscation of the coercive nature of libertarian property law enforcement. The principle has been used rhetorically to oppose such policies as victimless crime laws, taxation and military drafts. Property rights Main article: Property rights (economics) While there is debate on whether left-, right- and socialist libertarianism "represent distinct ideologies as opposed to variations on a theme", right-libertarianism is most in favor of private property and property rights. Right-libertarians maintain that unowned natural resources "may be appropriated by the first person who discovers them, mixes his labor with them, or merely claims them—without the consent of others, and with little or no payment to them". This contrasts with left-libertarianism in which "unappropriated natural resources belong to everyone in some egalitarian manner". Right-libertarians believe that natural resources are originally unowned and therefore private parties may appropriate them at will without the consent of, or owing to, others (e.g. a land value tax). Right-libertarians are also referred to as propertarians as they hold that societies in which private property rights are enforced are the only ones that are both ethical and lead to the best possible outcomes. They generally support the free market and are not opposed to any concentrations of economic power, provided it occurs through non-coercive means. State Main articles: Anarchism and Night-watchman state There is a debate amongst right-libertarians as to whether or not the state is legitimate. While anarcho-capitalists advocate its abolition, minarchists support minimal states, often referred to as night-watchman states. Minarchists maintain that the state is necessary for the protection of individuals from aggression, theft, breach of contract and fraud. They believe the only legitimate governmental institutions are the military, police and courts, although some expand this list to include fire departments, prisons and the executive and legislative branches. They justify the state on the grounds that it is the logical consequence of adhering to the non-aggression principle and argue that anarchy is immoral because it implies that the non-aggression principle is optional and that the enforcement of laws under anarchism is open to competition. Another common justification is that private defense agencies and court firms would tend to represent the interests of those who pay them enough. Right-libertarians such as anarcho-capitalists argue that the state violates the non-aggression principle by its nature because governments use force against those who have not stolen or vandalized private property, assaulted anyone, or committed fraud. Others argue that monopolies tend to be corrupt and inefficient and that private defense and court agencies would have to have a good reputation in order to stay in business. Linda and Morris Tannehill argue that no coercive monopoly of force can arise on a truly free market and that a government's citizenry can not desert them in favor of a competent protection and defense agency. Right-libertarian philosopher Moshe Kroy argues that the disagreement between anarcho-capitalists who adhere to Murray Rothbard's view of human consciousness and the nature of values and minarchists who adhere to Ayn Rand's view of human consciousness and the nature of values over whether or not the state is moral is not due to a disagreement over the correct interpretation of a mutually held ethical stance. He argues that the disagreement between these two groups is instead the result of their disagreement over the nature of human consciousness and that each group is making the correct interpretation of their differing premises. According to Kroy, these two groups are not making any errors with respect to deducing the correct interpretation of any ethical stance because they do not hold the same ethical stance. Taxation as theft Main article: Taxation as theft The idea of taxation as theft is a viewpoint found in a number of political philosophies. Under this view, government transgresses property rights by enforcing compulsory tax collection. Right-libertarians see taxation as a violation of the non-aggression principle. Schools of thought Anarcho-capitalism Main article: Anarcho-capitalism Murray Rothbard Anarcho-capitalism is a political philosophy which advocates the elimination of the state in favor of individual sovereignty in a free-market capitalism. In an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts and all other security services would be provided by privately funded competitors rather than through taxation and money would be privately and competitively provided in an open market. As a result, personal and economic activities under anarcho-capitalism would be regulated by privately run law rather than through politics. The most well-known version of anarcho-capitalism was formulated in the mid-20th century by Austrian School economist and paleolibertarian Murray Rothbard. Rothbard coined the term and is widely regarded as its founder. He combined the free market approach from the Austrian School with the human rights views and a rejection of the state he learned from 19th-century American individualist anarchists such as Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker, although he rejected their anti-capitalism, along with the labor theory of value and the normative implications they derived from it. In Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism, there would first be the implementation of a mutually agreed-upon libertarian "legal code which would be generally accepted and which the courts would pledge themselves to follow". This legal code would recognize sovereignty of the individual and the principle of non-aggression. Many writers deny that anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism at all, or that capitalism itself is compatible with anarchism, regarding it instead as right-libertarian. Classical liberalism Main article: Classical liberalism Classical liberalism is a political philosophy that advocate civil liberties under the rule of law, with an emphasis on economic freedom. Closely related to economic liberalism, it developed in the early 19th century, building on ideas from the previous century as a response to urbanization and to the Industrial Revolution in Europe and the United States. Notable individuals whose ideas contributed to classical liberalism include John Locke, Thomas Robert Malthus, Jean-Baptiste Say and David Ricardo. It drew on the classical economic ideas espoused by Adam Smith in Book One of The Wealth of Nations and on a belief in natural law, utilitarianism and progress. The term classical liberalism was applied in retrospect to distinguish earlier 19th-century liberalism from the newer social liberalism. Right-libertarianism has been influenced by this school of liberalism and has been viewed as an outgrowth or as a variant of it and it is commonly referred to as a continuation or radicalization of classical liberalism. Conservative libertarianism Main article: Conservative libertarianism See also: Fusionism Conservative libertarianism is a political philosophy that combines laissez-faire economics and conservative values. Conservative libertarianism advocates the greatest possible economic liberty and the least possible government regulation of social life, but harnesses this to a belief in a more traditional and conservative social philosophy emphasizing authority and duty. Conservative libertarianism prioritizes liberty as its main emphasis, promoting free expression, freedom of choice and laissez-faire capitalism to achieve socially and culturally conservative ends as they reject liberal social engineering, or in the opposite way yet not excluding the above conservative libertarianism could be understood as promoting civil society through conservative institutions and authority such as family, fatherland, religion and education in the quest of libertarian ends for less state power. In American politics, fusionism is the philosophical and political combination or fusion of traditionalist and social conservatism with political and economic right-libertarianism. The philosophy is most closely associated with Frank Meyer. Minarchism Main article: Minarchism Minarchism is a political philosphy supportive of a night-watchman state, or minarchy, a model of a state whose only functions are to provide its citizens with the military, the police and courts, protecting them from aggression, theft, breach of contract and fraud and enforcing property laws. 19th-century Britain has been described by historian Charles Townshend as standard-bearer of this form of government among European countries. Robert Nozick received a National Book Award in category Philosophy and Religion for his book Anarchy, State, and Utopia, where Nozick argues that only a minimal state limited to the narrow functions of protection against "force, fraud, theft, and administering courts of law" could be justified without violating people's rights. Neoliberalism Main article: Neoliberalism Friedrich Hayek Traditionally, liberalism's primary emphasis was placed on securing the freedom of the individual by limiting the power of the government and maximizing the power of free market forces. The philosophy emerged as a response to the Industrial Revolution and urbanization in the 19th century in Europe and the United States, advocated a limited government and held a belief in laissez-faire economic policy. Built on ideas that had already arisen by the end of the 18th century such as selected ideas of Locke, Smith, Malthus, Say and Ricardo, liberalism stressed the belief in natural law, utilitarianism and progress. These liberals were more suspicious than conservatives of all but the most minimal government and adopted Thomas Hobbes's theory of government, believing government had been created by individuals to protect themselves from one another. Neoliberalism emerged in the era following World War II during which social liberalism and Keynesianism were the dominant ideologies in the Western world. It was led by economists such as Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman, who advocated the reduction of the state and a return to classical liberalism, hence the term neo-classical liberalism. However, it did accept some aspects of social liberalism such as some degree of welfare provision by the state, but on a greatly reduced scale. Hayek and Friedman used the term classical liberalism to refer to their ideas, but others use the term to refer to all liberalism before the 20th century, not to designate any particular set of political views and therefore see all modern developments as being by definition not classical. Right-libertarianism has been commonly referred to as a continuation or radicalization of classical liberalism and referred to as neo-classical liberalism. Neolibertarianism Main article: Neolibertarianism The concept of neolibertarianism gained a small following in the mid-2000s among commentators who distinguished themselves from neoconservatives by their support for individual liberties and from libertarians by their support for foreign interventionism. Paleolibertarianism Main article: Paleolibertarianism Lew Rockwell Paleolibertarianism is a poltical philosophy developed by theorists Murray Rothbard and Lew Rockwell that combines conservative cultural values and social philosophy with a libertarian opposition to government intervention. Paleolibertarianism is a controversial current due its connections to the Tea Party movement and the alt-right. However, these movements are united by an anti-Barack Obama stance, their support of the right to keep and bear arms and as a result an anti-gun control stance in regard to gun laws and politics instead of further ideological overlaps. In the essay "Right-Wing Populism: A Strategy for the Paleo Movement", Rothbard reflected on the ability of paleolibertarians to engage in an "outreach to rednecks" founded on social conservatism and radical libertarianism. He cited former Louisiana State Representative David Duke and former United States Senator Joseph McCarthy as models for the new movement. In Europe, former European Union-parliamentarian Janusz Korwin-Mikke supports both laissez-faire economics and anti-immigration and anti-feminist positions. Propertarianism Main article: Propertarianism Propertarianism, is an ethical philosophy that advocates the replacement of states with contractual relationships. Propertarian ideals are most commonly cited to advocate for a state or other governance body whose main or only job is to enforce contracts and private property. Contention over placement on the political spectrum The Nolan Chart has been used by these libertarians which reject the traditional left–right political spectrum and see themselves as north of center in the Nolan Chart; right-libertarians are considered north of right Corey Robin describes right-libertarianism as fundamentally a conservative ideology united with more traditionalist conservative thought and goals by a desire to retain hierarchies and traditional social relations. However, many who have been labeled right-libertarians reject associations with conservatism and often reject its positioning on the traditional left–right line scale, favoring its center-north placement on the two-dimensional Nolan Chart, supporting both personal and economic liberty. Nonetheless, others also describe it as a reactionary ideology for its support of laissez-faire capitalism and a major reversal of the modern welfare state. In the 1960s, Rothbard started the publication Left and Right: A Journal of Libertarian Thought, believing that the left–right political spectrum had gone "entirely askew" since conservatives were sometimes more statist than liberals. Rothbard tried to reach out to leftists. In 1971, Rothbard wrote about his view of libertarianism which he described as supporting self-ownership, property rights and free trade. He would later describe his brand of libertarianism as anarcho-capitalism. Anthony Gregory points out that within the libertarian movement "just as the general concepts 'left' and 'right' are riddled with obfuscation and imprecision, left- and right-libertarianism can refer to any number of varying and at times mutually exclusive political orientations". He writes that one of several ways to look at right-libertarianism is its interest in economic freedom, preference for a conservative lifestyle, view that private business is "a great victim of the state", favoring a non-interventionist foreign policy sharing the Old Right's "opposition to empire". Some pro-property libertarians reject association with either the right or the left. Leonard E. Read wrote an article titled "Neither Left Nor Right: Libertarians Are Above Authoritarian Degradation". Harry Browne wrote: "We should never define Libertarian positions in terms coined by liberals or conservatives—nor as some variant of their positions. We are not fiscally conservative and socially liberal. We are Libertarians, who believe in individual liberty and personal responsibility on all issues at all times". Tibor R. Machan titled a book of his collected columns Neither Left Nor Right. Walter Block's article "Libertarianism Is Unique and Belongs Neither to the Right Nor the Left" critiques libertarians he described as left and right, the latter including Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Edward Feser and Ron Paul. Block wrote that these left and right individuals agreed with certain libertarian premises, but "where we differ is in terms of the logical implications of these founding axioms". Criticism See also: Criticism of libertarianism Criticism of right-libertarianism includes ethical, economic, environmental and pragmatic concerns, including the view that right-libertarianism has no explicit theory of liberty. For instance, it has been argued that laissez-faire capitalism does not necessarily produce the best or most efficient outcome, nor does its philosophy of individualism and policies of deregulation prevent the abuse of natural resources. Right-libertarianism has been criticized by the political left for being pro-business and anti-labor, for desiring to repeal government subsidies to the disabled and the poor and being incapable of addressing environmental issues, therefore contributing to the failure to slow global climate change. Furthermore, Noam Chomsky has repeatedly accused right-libertarian ideologies as being akin to corporate fascism because of how they remove all public controls from the economy, leaving it solely in the hands of private corporations. Chomsky has also argued that the more radical forms of right-libertarianism such as anarcho-capitalism are entirely theoretical and could never function in reality due to business' reliance on state infrastructure and subsidies. Among others, Chomsky reject the distinction between positive and negative rights as right-libertarians believe that negative rights should be recognized as legitimate, but positive rights should be rejected. Some left-libertarians have criticized right-libertarianism due its propertarianism, with Ursula K. Le Guin contrasting in The Dispossessed (1974) a propertarian society with one that does not recognize property rights in an attempt to show that property objectified human beings. Other non-propertarian left-libertarians such as Murray Bookchin have been called anti-propertarians. Bookchin objected to propertarians calling themselves libertarian. Bookchin described three concepts of possession, namely property itself, possession and usufruct, i.e. appropriation of resources by virtue of use. Anarchist critics such as Brian Morris reject right-libertarianism's sincerity in supporting a limited or minimal state, or no state at all, arguing that anarcho-capitalism does not in fact get rid of the state and that they "simply replaced the state with private security firms, and can hardly be described as anarchists as the term is normally understood". Anarchist Peter Sabatini noted: Within [right] Libertarianism, Rothbard represents a minority perspective that actually argues for the total elimination of the state. However Rothbard's claim as an anarchist is quickly voided when it is shown that he only wants an end to the public state. In its place he allows countless private states, with each person supplying their own police force, army, and law, or else purchasing these services from capitalist vendors. [...] Rothbard sees nothing at all wrong with the amassing of wealth, therefore those with more capital will inevitably have greater coercive force at their disposal, just as they do now. Likewise, Bob Black argues that right-libertarians are conservatives and that anarcho-capitalists want to "abolish the state to his own satisfaction by calling it something else". He states that they do not denounce what the state does, they just "object to who's doing it". From the political right, the American traditionalist conservative philosopher Russell Kirk criticized libertarianism in the United States, quoting T. S. Eliot's expression "chirping sectaries" to describe them. Kirk had questioned fusionism between libertarian and traditionalist conservatives that marked much of the post-war conservatism in the United States. Kirk stated that "although conservatives and libertarians share opposition to collectivism, the totalist state and bureaucracy, they have otherwise nothing in common" and called the libertarian movement "an ideological clique forever splitting into sects still smaller and odder, but rarely conjugating". Believing that a line of division exists between believers in "some sort of transcendent moral order" and "utilitarians admitting no transcendent sanctions for conduct", he included the libertarians in the latter category. He also berated libertarians for holding up capitalism as an absolute good, arguing that economic self-interest was inadequate to hold an economic system together and that it was even less adequate to preserve order. Kirk believed that by glorifying the individual, the free market and the dog-eat-dog struggle for material success libertarianism weakened community, promoted materialism and undermined appreciation of tradition, love, learning and aesthetics, all of which in his view were essential components of true community. Author Carl Bogus states that there were fundamental differences between libertarians and traditionalist conservatives in the United States as libertarians wanted the market to be unregulated as possible while traditionalist conservatives believed that big business, if unconstrained, could impoverish national life and threaten freedom. Libertarians also considered that a strong state would threaten freedom while traditionalist conservatives regarded a strong state, one which is properly constructed to ensure that not too much power accumulated in any one branch, was necessary to ensure freedom. Michael Lind has observed that of the 195 countries in the world today, none have fully actualized a society as advocated by American libertarians, arguing: "If libertarianism was a good idea, wouldn't at least one country have tried it? Wouldn't there be at least one country, out of nearly two hundred, with minimal government, free trade, open borders, decriminalized drugs, no welfare state and no public education system?" Furthermore, Lind has criticized it for being incompatible with democracy and apologetic towards autocracy. In response, American libertarian Warren Redlich argues that the United States "was extremely libertarian from the founding until 1860, and still very libertarian until roughly 1930". Nancy MacLean has argued that it is a radical right ideology that has stood against democracy. According to MacLean, American libertarian-leaning Charles and David Koch have used anonymous, dark money campaign contributions, a network of libertarian institutes and lobbying for the appointment of libertarian, pro-business judges to United States federal and state courts to oppose taxes, public education, employee protection laws, environmental protection laws and the New Deal Social Security program. See also Anarcho-capitalism Anti-egalitarianism Austrian School Classical liberalism Conservative liberalism Constitutionalism Criticism of democracy Cultural conservatism Debates within libertarianism Economic liberalism Fiscal conservatism Freedom of association Free market Fusionism Laissez-faire Left-libertarianism Labor mobility Liberal conservatism Libertarian conservatism Libertarianism in the United States Market fundamentalism Minarchy Mises Institute Outline of libertarianism Paleolibertarianism Patriot movement Propertarianism Reaganomics Republican Liberty Caucus Ron Paul Revolution Taxation as theft Thatcherism References Bibliography Baradat, Leon P. (2015). Political Ideologies. Routledge. ISBN 978-1317345558. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) Bogus, Carl T. (2011). Buckley: William F. Buckley Jr. and the Rise of American Conservatism. Bloomsbury Publishing. ISBN 1-596-91580-3. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) Caplan, Bryan (2008). "Friedman, David (1945–)". In Hamowy, Ronald (ed.). The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications; Cato Institute. doi:10.4135/9781412965811.n117. ISBN 978-1412965804. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) Carlson, Jennifer D. (2012). "Libertarianism". In Miller, Wilburn R. (ed.). The Social History of Crime and Punishment in America. London: SAGE Publications; Cato Institute. ISBN 1412988764. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) DeLeon, David (1978). The American as Anarchist: Reflections on Indigenous Radicalism. Johns Hopkins University Press. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) Goodway, David (2006). Anarchist Seeds Beneath the Snow: Left-Libertarian Thought and British Writers from William Morris to Colin Ward. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. ISBN 978-1846310256. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) Heywood, Andrew (2004). Political Theory, Third Edition: An Introduction. Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 0-333-96180-3. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) Kymlicka, Will (2005). "libertarianism, left-". In Honderich, Ted (ed.). The Oxford Companion to Philosophy (New ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0199264797. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) Long, Roderick T.; Machan, Tibor R. (2008). Anarchism/minarchism: is a government part of a free country?. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. ISBN 978-0-7546-6066-8. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) Miller, David (1987). The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Thought. Wiley-Blackwell. ISBN 978-0-631-17944-3. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) Morris, Andrew (2008). "Anarcho-Capitalism". In Hamowy, Ronald (ed.). The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications; Cato Institute. ISBN 978-1-4129-6580-4. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) Newman, Saul (2010). The Politics of Postanarchism'. Edinburgh University Press. ISBN 978-0748634958. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) Vallentyne, Peter (2007). "Libertarianism and the State". Liberalism: Old and New: Volume 24. New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0521703055. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) Stringham, Edward (2007). Anarchy And the Law: The Political Economy of Choice. Transaction Publishers. ISBN 978-1412805797. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) van de Haar, Edwin (2015). Degrees of Freedom: Liberal Political Philosophy and Ideology. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers. ISBN 1-412-85575-6. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Final thoughts

I could be wrong, but I would like to point out that libertarianism was first coined in political terms as a new philosophy, in that case libertarian communism (with its opposition to all authority and herarchies, including the market and property), regarded as the consistent view of anarchism. In the 1890s, it became associated to anarchism as a whole, including in the United States, where in the 20th century it also became used as a synonym for classical/19th century liberalism rather than some new philosophy. Indeed, it was only in the 1950s and truly after the 1970s that libertarianism in the United States became what it's today, parting ways with the classical liberal school due to the latter refusing to give priority to liberty over order and not exhibiting the hostility to the state which American libertarianism has ("Classical liberalism refuses to give priority to liberty over order and therefore does not exhibit the hostility to the state"). That's why it could be just as easily proposed that Libertarianism should be only about classical libertarianism.

If on the left it isn't much used as on the right, it's simply because it's literally seen as a synonym of anarchism, hence why Anarchism and Libertarianism could be just as easily merged, if it wasn't for the fact that Libertarianism contains much useful information which deserve to have its own article, perhaps moving Libertarianism's Modern American libertarianism and American libertarianism sections to Libertarianism in the United States and Liberalism pages since it should be considered a school of liberalism and as it came out from the liberal tradition, not being much different (indeed, American libertarianism is seen as the European liberalism within the right, compared to the American social liberalism which is seen in Europe within the centre/centre-left). I'm not going to really propose all this because I'm fine the way things stand now, but that would still be better than turning this page into a disambiguation page because someone doesn't like it.

@JLMadrigal: @North8000: @Pfhorrest:--Davide King (talk) 18:11, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

The page currently entitled "right-libertarianism" describes the taxonomy which is common to 25% of the US population. For this reason, it needs to be retitled. The current title is ambiguous and confusing to most people - except for the small group that calls itself "left-libertarian" who use it to describe the antitheses to their nuanced view regarding property. This usage needs to be clarified (made less ambiguous). JLMadrigal @ 19:53, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@JLMadrigal: Thank you very much for your reply. I think this just further convinced the suspictions I stated above. Left-libertarianism isn't a "small group"; it's the majority of libertarians worldwide. It's only in the United State where they're the minority, a minority itself in that it mainly refers to left-wing market-oriented libertarians and the Steiner–Vallentyne school which mainly differ from right-libertarians due its egalitarian approach to natural resources. However, the page isn't titled Right-libertarianism in the United States or Left-libertarianism in the United States; they're written without any country's bias but internationally, i.e. left-libertarianism referring to libertarian socialist and other left-leaning ideologies and the broad libertarian left opposed to the use of the state and authortarianism in left-wing politics, rather than just left-libertarianism in the United States; and right-libertarianism referring to modern American-style libertarianism which expanded globally in the 1970, not to cultural conservatives American libertarians like you may think. Please, check my full right-libertarianism page proposal I posted above which removed the History and People sections which are already in the Libertarianism in the United States article. This way it would be structured the same way like Left-libertarianism and it wouldn't include the People section you believe aren't warranted to be included since they simply label themeselves as libertarians. I reiterate what the topic should be and what the article should be talking about:

• Libertarianism: broad as it is now.
• Left-libertarianism: libertarian socialist and other left-leaning ideologies, including the ones which reject the private ownership of natural resources and that are called left-libertarianism in the United States; and the broad libertarian left opposed to the use of the state and authortarianism in left-wing politics.
• Right-libertarianism: American-style libertarianism (i.e. radical economic liberalism that in some ways part ways, no pun intended, from liberalism in its opposition to the state in some form and being even more critical of government and state intervention, especially in the economy) that has expanded around the world, or more specifically the libertarian ideologies which support free-market/laissez-faire/liberal capitalism and the private ownership of both natural resources and capital; and the broad libertarian right, opposed to both economic and social intervention).
• Libertarianism in the United States, the libertarianism you and @North8000: seem to be actually talking about and referring to and which is the page that truly need to be discussed and improved, such as follows:
  • Let's add a Definition, Etymology or Typology section in Libertarianism in the United States rather than delete or merge Right-libertarianism and/or Left-libertarianism or create a Libertarian (disambiguation) when there's already Libertarianism (disambiguation) for that.
  • Let's also add a Definition section in Right-libertarianism much like it's done in Left-libertarianism#Definition.--Davide King (talk) 20:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

P.S. In short, I'm for an improved status quo, i.e. keeping things as they are but improve them by adding further sourced content rather than remove it, creating for instance a new section (or improve an existing one) which better describe and clarify what it's talking about.--Davide King (talk) 21:10, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I also reiterate here—to make it more accessable and not make it look lost in the wall of text I've written above—what I further propose for Libertarianism in the United States:

1. New informations to the lead that better describe and summarise it. A History section that better describe its double origins, namely how Joseph Déjacque, the one to first coin the political word, lived in New York City and published a book on the topic and a journal and how it was used by anarchists in the United States to distinguish themselves from state socialism (much like in the rest of the world); and its origins as synonym for classical liberalism.
2. The whole page mainly talks only in the sense of libertarian being a more radical form of classical and economic liberalism. Besides clarifying the origins of the term, how it differs from what's understood in much of the world outside the United States, there're no mentions of the origins of and debate/issues between communist and indvidualist American anarchists about one being the true libertarian and accusing the other other of being authoritarian/statist and how that led to the end of 19th-century individualist anarchism heyday; no mentions of left-wing market anarchism or other left-libertarians in the United States; and no mention or section that talk about 19th–21st century anarchist/libertarian socialist movements in the United States.--Davide King (talk) 22:19, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

One final thing while we're at it. If I understood well, one concern of @North8000: is that people simply don't know the term (other proposed terms were either biased in favor of a specific form of libertarianism or terms just as less well known anyway), but I'm sure American people searching Liberalism or Conservatism on Wikipedia may expect to see what's actually written in the Modern liberalism in the United States and Conservatism in the United States. I'm sure American people searching Libertarianism would likewise expect what's actually written in Libertarianism in the United States. Either way, I don't think this justify a name change and American people aren't special or above other people. This isn't the United States or American (English) Wikipedia but the English Wikipedia, which I personally see as the international Wikipedia since English is the most widespread language. As Wintson Churchill famously said, "Right-libertarianism is the worst title of a Wikipedian article except all those other titles that have been proposed from time to time", or simply as it may not be the best name but it's the best choice/best (possible/working) title.--Davide King (talk) 23:10, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your extensive and thoughtful comments, Davide. I hope you get unblocked soon, I'd love to have you back participating in the encyclopedia. I also think your suggestions here are better than my merger proposal, which was always just a compromise to try to wrap up this dispute in some way or other without biasing the encyclopedia. --Pfhorrest (talk) 21:04, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I challenge you, Davide, to provide proof of your claim that left-libertarianism is a majority view. Even if you combine the population of all adherents of this philosophy around the globe, it is still only a small fraction of the 1/4 of Americans who identify as libertarians of the variety described in the article (some 82 million). JLMadrigal @ 04:07, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@JLMadrigal: Thank you again for your reply, but I have to apologise because it seems like I didn't explainn myself good or clear. Either that, or you haven't read in full the whole thing I wrote (please, do it when you can and feel free to ask for ay clarification, etc.). I'm saying this because I literally say I agree with that, namely that left-libertarians are the minority in the United States, which could be said to be dominated by liberalism since modern liberalism, conservatism and American libertarianism are all part of the same liberal tradition. However, left-libertarianism also refers to the original libertarianism; Left-libertarianism does't refer only to left-libertarianism in the United States (otherwhise it would have been title Left-libertarianism in the United States) but also to its anarchist/socialist wing which it's still the biggest worldwide form of libertarianism. You already made this argument months ago and, as I also stated in my original message here, "Even if you combine the population of all adherents of this philosophy around the globe" is simply wrong; the anarchist/socialist wing of left-libertarianism rejects electoral politics, so we can't just make up some numbers about parties and their membership; and that's not how it works. Reliable sources say it exists since the 19th century and continues to this day. I also don't understand why you and North8000 keep mentioning those so-called one fourth of Americans identifying as libertarians. I don't dispute that, but I don't see how that's relevant to the Right-libertarianism article, which I repeat is about a specific form of libertarianism that expanded worldwide since the 1970s and not just Libertarianism in the United States, or even what each responder understood libertarian to mean, or whether the responder was left-libertarian, right-libertarian, or any other type of libertarian. Indeed, there's literally a phrase in Libertarianism#American libertarianism stating: "However, a 2014 Pew Poll found that 23% of Americans who identify as libertarians have no idea what the word means". Source: Kiley, Jocelyn (25 August 2014). "In Search of Libertarians". Pew Research Center. "14% say the term libertarian describes them well; 77% of those know the definition (11% of total), while 23% do not (3% of total). See also these sources:

• Goodway, David (2006). Anarchist Seeds Beneath the Snow: Left-Libertarian Thought and British Writers from William Morris to Colin Ward. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. p. 4. "'Libertarian' and 'libertarianism' are frequently employed by anarchists as synonyms for 'anarchist' and 'anarchism', largely as an attempt to distance themselves from the negative connotations of 'anarchy' and its derivatives. The situation has been vastly complicated in recent decades with the rise of anarcho-capitalism, 'minimal statism' and an extreme right-wing laissez-faire philosophy advocated by such theorists as Rothbard and Nozick and their adoption of the words 'libertarian' and 'libertarianism'. It has therefore now become necessary to distinguish between their right libertarianism and the left libertarianism of the anarchist tradition".
• Marshall, Peter (2008). Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism. London: Harper Perennial. p. 565. "In its moderate form, right libertarianism embraces laissez-faire liberals like Robert Nozick who call for a minimal State, and in its extreme form, anarcho-capitalists like Murray Rothbard and David Friedman who entirely repudiate the role of the State and look to the market as a means of ensuring social order".--Davide King (talk) 06:20, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

OK Davide, I'll make it super easy for you. Provide ANY statistic proving your claim that left-libertarianism is the majority view. JLMadrigal @ 13:40, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@JLMadrigal: I don't think that's how Wikipedia works; Wikipedia works by reliable sources and not by some number statistics, which would also be impossible to verify. Libertarianism is a tradition that goes back to at least the 19th century; all anarchists and most libertarian socialists have been and are part of it; and as such, they don't have parties and don't support electoral politics. Are you denying this? We can't just act like over hundred years of libertarian history didn't exist. American liberals (social liberals), conservatives (liberal conservative) and libertarians (classical liberals) all come from the liberal school and can be considered part of the broad liberalism tradition; however, since the 19th century libertarianism has been part of the anarchist and libertarian socialist and communist tradition. In coining the term, Déjacque literally called Proudhon a mere liberal, a moderate anarchist. Anyway, see George Woodcock's Anarchism: A History of Libertarian Ideas and Movements (1962) and also the following sources:

Ward, Colin (2004). Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press. p. 62. "For a century, anarchists have used the word 'libertarian' as a synonym for 'anarchist', both as a noun and an adjective. The celebrated anarchist journal Le Libertaire was founded in 1896. However, much more recently the word has been appropriated by various American free-market philosophers."; Marshall, Peter (2009). Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism. p. 641. "The word 'libertarian' has long been associated with anarchism, and has been used repeatedly throughout this work. The term originally denoted a person who upheld the doctrine of the freedom of the will; in this sense, Godwin was not a 'libertarian', but a 'necessitarian'. It came however to be applied to anyone who approved of liberty in general. In anarchist circles, it was first used by Joseph Déjacque as the title of his anarchist journal Le Libertaire, Journal du Mouvement Social published in New York in 1858. At the end of the last century, the anarchist Sebastien Faure took up the word, to stress the difference between anarchists and authoritarian socialists". Ever since that, libertarianism has been used, and still is, to refer to anarchists and libertarian socialists and communists; and hence, it's more notable.--Davide King (talk) 19:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Response from Pfhorrest

Everyone involved here has already been pinged by him, but for posterity I would like to note User_talk:Davide_King#Talk:Right-libertarianism where another editor who had previously been involved here just expressed extensive support for my side of this argument. He makes some concrete suggestions that I think are better than my merge proposal (which was always just a compromise anyway). I'll quote his summary of them here for reference:

“

• Libertarianism: broad as it is now.
• Left-libertarianism: libertarian socialist and other left-leaning ideologies, including the ones which reject the private ownership of natural resources and that are called left-libertarianism in the United States; and the broad libertarian left opposed to the use of the state and authortarianism in left-wing politics.
• Right-libertarianism: American-style libertarianism (i.e. radical economic liberalism that in some ways part ways, no pun intended, from liberalism in its opposition to the state in some form and being even more critical of government and state intervention, especially in the economy) that has expanded around the world, or more specifically the libertarian ideologies which support free-market/laissez-faire/liberal capitalism and the private ownership of both natural resources and capital; and the broad libertarian right, opposed to both economic and social intervention).
• Libertarianism in the United States, the libertarianism [@JLMadrigal:] and @North8000: seem to be actually talking about and referring to and which is the page that truly need to be discussed and improved, such as follows:
  • Let's add a Definition, Etymology or Typology section in Libertarianism in the United States rather than delete or merge Right-libertarianism and/or Left-libertarianism or create a Libertarian (disambiguation) when there's already Libertarianism (disambiguation) for that.
  • Let's also add a Definition section in Right-libertarianism much like it's done in Left-libertarianism#Definition.--

”

The particulars of his suggestions are much more extensive, available at the link to his talk page above. --Pfhorrest (talk)

I would suggest a reorganization as follows:

Libertarianism, an ideology that developed in the 19th century,

Pro-capitalist libertarianism, an ideology that developed out of 19th century libertarianism,

Left libertarianism, a form of pro-capitalist libertarianism, and

Libertarian (political typology), a voting demographic that supports smaller government.

TFD (talk) 03:18, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Source for this "pro-capitalist libertarianism" terminology? (I don't dispute that that's at least an accurate description, but so is the current name, which is also reflected in sources).

Also, @Davide King: (who had some nice things to say about you, BTW) suggests at the link above that characterizing right-libertarianism as capitalist may be even more problematic than characterizing it as right-wing, as (he claims) some of them frame themselves as being against capitalism, but for free markets. (Which sounds to me like a libertarian socialist position, but I'm just relaying his comment here, not arguing for or against it).

Also also, are you suggesting that the article Libertarianism itself should be completely about the earlier, generally leftist/socialist strands of libertarianism, with everything about the kind that JLMadrigal calls "center-north" being confined to your proposed Pro-capitalist libertarianism article? That sounds like it would be biased in the opposite direction than most of the proposals thus far, and would probably be met with strong opposition from North and Madrigal here, and I would actually have to side with them on that point. I think Libertarianism should encompass all positions that have called themselves libertarian anywhere at any time, and educate users on both the taxonomy of sub-types of that field of views, and the historical relationships between them. As it generally does now. --Pfhorrest (talk) 05:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: Davide also had some nice sources to share on a broader use of left- and right-libertarianism than you've been wanting to limit them to:

“ David Goodway (2006) and Peter Marshall (2008) use left-libertarianism to refer to the original libertairisme (English: libertarianism) specifically to distinguish itself from what they call right-libertarianism, i.e. modern American libertarianism which is within the liberal tradition but isn't called liberalism because in the United States the word liberal mainly refers to what in Europe we call social liberalism.

Sources: Goodway, David (2006). Anarchist Seeds Beneath the Snow: Left-Libertarian Thought and British Writers from William Morris to Colin Ward. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press. p. 4. "'Libertarian' and 'libertarianism' are frequently employed by anarchists as synonyms for 'anarchist' and 'anarchism', largely as an attempt to distance themselves from the negative connotations of 'anarchy' and its derivatives. The situation has been vastly complicated in recent decades with the rise of anarcho-capitalism, 'minimal statism' and an extreme right-wing laissez-faire philosophy advocated by such theorists as Rothbard and Nozick and their adoption of the words 'libertarian' and 'libertarianism'. It has therefore now become necessary to distinguish between their right libertarianism and the left libertarianism of the anarchist tradition". Marshall, Peter (2008). Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism. London: Harper Perennial. p. 565. "In its moderate form, right libertarianism embraces laissez-faire liberals like Robert Nozick who call for a minimal State, and in its extreme form, anarcho-capitalists like Murray Rothbard and David Friedman who entirely repudiate the role of the State and look to the market as a means of ensuring social order".

”

--Pfhorrest (talk) 05:20, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Some more sources courtesy of Davide, copied from his talk page, on the notability of broadly leftist libertarianism:

see George Woodcock's Anarchism: A History of Libertarian Ideas and Movements (1962) and also the following sources:

Ward, Colin (2004). Anarchism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press. p. 62. "For a century, anarchists have used the word 'libertarian' as a synonym for 'anarchist', both as a noun and an adjective. The celebrated anarchist journal Le Libertaire was founded in 1896. However, much more recently the word has been appropriated by various American free-market philosophers."; Marshall, Peter (2009). Demanding the Impossible: A History of Anarchism. p. 641. "The word 'libertarian' has long been associated with anarchism, and has been used repeatedly throughout this work. The term originally denoted a person who upheld the doctrine of the freedom of the will; in this sense, Godwin was not a 'libertarian', but a 'necessitarian'. It came however to be applied to anyone who approved of liberty in general. In anarchist circles, it was first used by Joseph Déjacque as the title of his anarchist journal Le Libertaire, Journal du Mouvement Social published in New York in 1858. At the end of the last century, the anarchist Sebastien Faure took up the word, to stress the difference between anarchists and authoritarian socialists". Ever since that, libertarianism has been used, and still is, to refer to anarchists and libertarian socialists and communists; and hence, it's more notable.--Davide King (talk) 19:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

--Pfhorrest (talk) 23:32, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Also from same:

In its oldest sense, [left-libertarianism] is a synonym either for anarchism in general or social anarchism in particular. Later it became a term for the left or Konkinite wing of the free-market libertarian movement, and has since come to cover a range of pro-market but anti-capitalist positions, mostly individualist anarchist, including agorism and mutualism, often with an implication of sympathies (such as for radical feminism or the labor movement) not usually shared by anarcho-capitalists. In a third sense it has recently come to be applied to a position combining individual self-ownership with an egalitarian approach to natural resources; most proponents of this position are not anarchists.

Source: "Anarchism". In Gaus, Gerald F.; D'Agostino, Fred, eds. (2012). The Routledge Companion to Social and Political Philosophy. p. 227.

--Pfhorrest (talk) 23:52, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

From here:

Extended content

Indeed, it's a matter of semantics. You describe early America really well, but by capitalism I mainly mean industrial capitalism and I wouldn't consider these self-employed workers as capitalists. Do they employ other people and do they receive income from owning the workplace? Do they make a profit from the employment of other people, extracting their labour's value? Or do they equally share profits and wages? Wage labour/system isn't present only in capitalism, wage slavery is. Indeed, individualist anarchists wanted the worker to receive the full fruct of their labour. They opposed usury, interest and profit and viewed them as exploitation. They wanted to socialize capital and its effects. They were "fervent anti-capitalists [who saw] no contradiction between their individualist stance and their rejection of capitalism". Source: Brown, Susan Love; Carrier, James G., ed. (1997). The Free Market as Salvation from Government: The Anarcho-Capitalist View, Meanings of the Market: The Free Market in Western Culture. Oxford: Berg, pp. 104, 107. I wouldn't phrase it as "workers [...] setting up their own small businesses and hence become capitalists themselves"; I would describe them as producers, neither worker nor capitalist, or also both a worker and a capitalist at the same time. The free association of producers. Stirner was anti-capitalist, but he wasn't opposed to socialism per se; he said he was opposed to the "sacred socialism". Source: Roudine, Victor. La lotta operaia secondo Max Stirner. p. 12. My literal translation from Italian to English would be: "I'm not at all against socialism, but against sacred socialism; my selfishness is not opposed to love [...]; neither is he an enemy of sacrifice, nor of self-denial [...]; and even less than socialism, [...] — in short, it is not an enemy of real interests; it rebels not against love, but against sacred love, not against thought, but against sacred thought, not against socialists, but against sacred socialism". Stirner has had just as much influence a major influence on anarcho-communism and anarcho-syndicalism, with the latter especially being based on his union of egoists, just as much, if nore more, influed he has had on individualist anarchism. According to anarchist historian Max Nettlau, "On reading Stirner, I maintain that he cannot be interpreted except in a socialist sense". I'm not saying that he was a socialist, he was againt dogmas and "sacred thoughts"; just that his philosophy, if we can call it that, fits well with anarchism/libertarian socialism, especially anarcho-communism economically. He didn't call himself an anarchist, yet I think he's rightfully considered within that tradition. One can be both an individualist and communist; one can be an individualist anarchist and support anarcho-communism or anarcho-syndicalism. The difference is whether there should be any collective organisation or not; whether supporting revolutionism or evolutionism; market socialism, decentralised planned socialism, or communism; and so on. I put that quote because individualist anarchist identified themselves as socialists and viewed themselves as such. Tucker specifically called his philosophy anarchistic socialism and especially distinguished it from state socialism, even stating, "The anarchists of the Liberty magazine are socialists only in the economic sense; in the political sense, they are arch-individualists." Some took part in the Socialist International and most were part of the broad labour movement. Unlike Tucker, Lydander Spooner even opposed wage labour, "All the great establishments, of every kind, now in the hands of a few proprietors, but employing a great number of wage labourers, would be broken up; for few or no persons, who could hire capital and do business for themselves would consent to labour for wages for another." I'd dare saying that one could be both a (political) liberal and a (economically) socialist; as you said yourself, "socialists obtained a lot of their theories from classical liberalism." It was the liberals who first talked about the class stuggle and Marx has aknoledged that. Liberalism and socialism weren't so far away as they may be today, as you say, "the economy is dominated by large corporations often with significant political power"; and liberalism wasn't merely an apology for the status quo as it's now. Ricardian and Smithian socialism is a thing too. I'm not saying that Smith or such people were socialists, just that individualist anarchism isn't pro-capitalism. Indeed, it's my understanding that anarcho-capitalism isn't reject by anarchists merely because it uses capitalism in its name but because it actually advocates it; and that individualist anarchism would still be well within the libertarian socialist, or otherwhise anti-capitalist tradition and movement. Now back to left-libertarianism. Left-libertarianism has been used to refer to anarchism/libertarian socialism and that's why I believe Left-libertarianism to be fine as it is, including the anarchist and non-socialist wing of left-libertarianism as well as left-libertarianism in the United States (agorism, left-wing anarchism, Steiner–Vallentyne school, etc.) and the libertarian left. See David Goodman (2006), Peter Marchsall (2008), Saul Newman (2010) and The Routledge Companion to Social and Political Philosophy (2012). @The Four Deuces: I apologise for writing so much but I'm enjoying this dicussion and I find both it and your comments useful and helpful.--Davide King (talk) 03:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Added by Davide King (talk) 03:38, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Glad to see you're back in action Davide, and thank you for your contributions here already.

With regards to the edits reverted by North8000, I would like to voice my support for all of those changes, for the reasons you gave in your edit summaries, and I'd like to hear North's rationale for opposing them. --Pfhorrest (talk) 08:11, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

The ones that I oppose are the ones that redefine this article away from what has been decided. David mixed them all into a gigantic Gordian knot where smaller scale reverts would not be made without spending far more time than people have available. There were also many good edits in that giant Gordian knot. Suggest slowing down and splitting them up. Also acknowledging that for better or worse that this article is about what was decided above. E.G significantly about the form that is common in but not limited to the US. North8000 (talk) 14:06, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@North8000: I'm not sure what was decided this article to be about. As far as I know, right-libertarianism is the libertarian philosophy (most influenced by European liberalism and mainstream American libertarianism) that support the private ownership of both land and capital. This would include most American and American-influenced libertarianism but not all of it. I removed the parts that didn't explicity refer to right-libertarianism but mainly referring to what is talked about in Libertarianism in the United States; indeed, wasn't one of JLMadrigal's main concern that of people labelling themselves libertarian being labelled right-libertarians?). I also believe both Left-libertarianism and Right-libertarianism should be strictured similarly and not beig too big or long. Right-libertarianism needs a Definition section like Left-libertarianism which hopefully can clarify why the term is used, etc. and help the reader in better understanding the article.--Davide King (talk) 14:33, 11 November 2019 (UTC)