Template talk:Libertarianism US/Archive 1

Archive 1

Under discussion

Template talk:Libertarianism sidebar#Recommend creating separate sidebar for Libertarianism in the United States czar 16:26, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Image

What do we think about replacing Calvin Coolidge's photo with one of Barry Goldwater (File:Barry Goldwater photo1962.jpg)? I think Goldwater had a greater and more direct impact on the libertarian movement, whereas Coolidge just had libertarian leanings. Although Goldwater was never president, he was probably the closest that an identifiable libertarian ever came to becoming president – Flyedit32^(talk) 12:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Flyedit32, Coolidge and Rand did not identify as libertarian and Rand was personally opposed to the movement. Friedman is already at Conservatism in the United States (along with Coolidge). Larry Elder is a conservative. Jo Jergensen is not warranted (David Nolan and Gary Johnson are more warranted and the female Wilder Lane certainly is more warranted than all three). If we ought to put an image like this, Thoreau, Spooner, Tucker (first person to popularise libertarian after Joseph Déjacque), Wilder Lane (one of the founding women of modern libertarianism), Mencken (one of the first persons to use the libertarian label in the 20th century), Goldwater, Rothbard, Paul and Long (ordered chronologically) would be a better choice. The previous one was also conservative biased, this one include all types of libertarians. Davide King (talk) 15:37, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Most Wikipedia sidebars about ideologies no longer use specific symbols. See Template:Communism sidebar, Template:Communitarianism sidebar, Template:Conservatism sidebar, Template:Corporatism sidebar, Template:Liberalism sidebar, Template:Libertarianism sidebar, Template:Republicanism sidebar, and Template:Socialism sidebar. The few sidebars that still feature specific symbols are Template:Anarchism sidebar, Template:Anarcho-capitalism sidebar, and Template:Libertarian socialism sidebar, but Anarchist symbolism is universally accepted and recognized (confer also: 1.Template:Fascism sidebar and Fascist symbolism; 2. Template:Nazism sidebar and Nazi symbolism). American libertarianism has no such unique set of symbols. Editors' personal tastes/opinions keep factoring into this discussion, hence the constant edit-warring. Why don't we just remove the image parameter? --Omnipaedista (talk) 16:16, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the gallery: it seems inevitable that a gallery of American libertarians will partially duplicate the gallery featured in Template:Conservatism US due to the definition of conservatism in the U.S. So I would not endorse a gallery either. --Omnipaedista (talk) 18:07, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Hey, it's me, the guy who added all those pictures of American libertarians that everyone's getting all bent out of shape about. I included Coolidge and Rand because while they weren't Libertarians themselves, they were very influential to libertarians and the libertarian movement. Even though Friedman and Coolidge are also on the Conservatism in the United States sidebar, they are very influential figures within the libertarian community, and conservatism and libertarianism often overlap. Larry Elder is, in fact, a libertarian. He literally moderated the Libertarian Party presidential debate. I'd say that Jo Jorgensen is more warranted than Gary Johnson since Gary Johnson did a really bad job of representing libertarians compared to her, but in hindsight her inclusion was unnecessary. I'm not a fan of including Lysander Spooner since he's associated with anarchism and socialism, not right-libertarianism which is the brand of libertarianism that most Americans associate with libertarianism. I also have reservations against including Barry Goldwater because he's not a libertarian by today's standards, but then again he was a very influential figure within the libertarian community so I'm not totally against it. I'm also not a fan of including Wilder Lane because based on your reasoning it seems like the only reason why you want to include her is because she's a woman. Also, most of the people you listed as people who should be included are people who most American libertarians don't care about and weren't influential figures within the libertarian movement. -- (Cc330162) 16:00, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Libertarianism is very popular in the U.S., almost as much as modern liberalism and conservatism and I support a gallery as long as each of the 9 figures are original and do not overlap with any in Conservatism US. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 22:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

No one disputes the immense popularity of libertarianism in the U.S. We are talking about the lack of universally accepted symbolism and the lack of a universally accepted gallery of representatives. This discussion is prone to pointless POV disputes. --Omnipaedista (talk) 11:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Where does the notion that the Torch of the Statue of Liberty is a universally accepted symbol for American libertarianism even come from? No citation was ever given supporting this claim. --Omnipaedista (talk) 11:06, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Hey, it's me, the guy who added all those pictures of American libertarians that everyone's getting all bent out of shape about. I considered changing the image to the Gadsden Flag since that's a universally accepted symbol of American libertarianism (unlike the torch of the Statue of Liberty), but I decided to add those pictures of important figures of American libertarianism instead since it better matched Conservatism in the United States and Modern liberalism in the United States. -- (Cc330162) 15:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Cc330162, they may have been very influential on certain types of libertarians, but there is not only one tradition (the right-libertarian ones). Secondly, Larry Elder is a conservative according to reliable sources in his own article. You write that Jo Jorgensen is more warranted than Gary Johnson since Gary Johnson did a really bad job of representing libertarians compared to her, but that is just your personal opinion based on your dislike of Johnson for not being true libertarian. Johnson is more warranted for the simple fact he received 3% of the popular vote, amounting to more than 4.3 million votes, I assume the party's highest result. So if we are going to put a Libertarian Party figures it is either David Nolan or Gary Johnson. Your writing that you are not a fan including Lysander Spooner since he's associated with anarchism and socialism, not right-libertarianism which is the brand of libertarianism that most Americans associate with libertarianism just shows your right-libertarian bias. Yes, right-libertarianism is the dominant tradition in the United States, but I thought the sidebar should have been inclusive, hence why I added both prominent left-libertarians and right-libertarians; note that I also included 19th, 20 and 21st century figures, not just those who are popular in 2020. Wilder Lane is described as one of the founding figures of modern libertarianism in the United States (I simply assumed that Jorgensen was there because she was a woman, for I could not see any other way why she is due to be there when many other women are more warranted), so the fact that she is a woman has nothing to do with that. Finally, you write that most of the people [I] listed as people who should be included are people who most American libertarians don't care about and weren't influential figures within the libertarian movement, but this is nonsense. While your list show presentist and right-libertarian bias, mine merely reflected libertarians that are usually discussed and hence relevant in books about libertarianism in the United States, which incidentally is what we should base on which figures list; not whatever self-described American 'libertarians' says so but what reliable sources and books list or discuss as relevant to libertarianism in the United States. I agree with Omnipaedista. We need to list either a universally accepted symbol or people that are commonly listed and discussed in books about libertarianism in the United States. Davide King (talk) 19:40, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Well, the claim that the Gadsden flag is a universally accepted symbol of American libertarianism feels like common knowledge (I myself don't dispute this claim at all), however our article about the Gadsden flag does not even mention libertarianism. When I say universally accepted symbolism of an ideology, I mean something like this: scholars have written so much about the symbolism of that ideology that we can create an article about it; confer Anarchist symbolism, Communist symbolism, Fascist symbolism, Nazi symbolism. Regarding the analogy with conservatism and modern liberalism: the reason one is able to create a gallery of American conservatives and liberals is that this particular division reflects a division on party lines; things cannot get any more clear-cut than this. However, *notable* American libertarians are either Republican supporters (in which case a gallery of American libertarians will partially duplicate the gallery featured in Template:Conservatism US due to the definition of conservatism in the U.S.—e.g. Coolidge, Friedman, Goldwater) or claim that their ideas cut across party lines (in which case there there will be no duplication but there will be endless dispute over each person's "true-libertarianness"—Rand comes to mind). Listing only supporters of the American Libertarian Party would be pointless since they are not the most notable representatives of the movement. --Omnipaedista (talk) 09:41, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm good with the Statue of Liberty hand holding a torch as the image. The symbol of the statue of liberty torch is the official libertarian emblem (see the current website here: https://www.lp.org/) and was so going back to at least 2012 (look at this image of Gary Johnson at the 2012 convention, note the logo on the podium: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:GaryJohnsonLPConvention2012.jpg). Beyond that, some form of the liberty flame has been the logo for years (see this picture from the 2016 convention too: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:VP_debate_Libertarian_Convention_(27266650516).jpg ). The gadsden flag, however, has been in no way an official libertarian logo, ever. And it is a far more divisive and controversial symbol. We should add back the image of the Lady Liberty hand and torch – Flyedit32^(talk) 04:59, 06 September 2020 (UTC)

Let us suppose that this is pretty good evidence that the LP has endorsed the symbol (I am bit skeptical because this feels like original research: the image formerly used here is not the same as the LP one). What about the representatives of American libertarianism who do not endorse the LP though? We do not have Republican/Democrat symbolism in the sidebars about conservatism/modern liberalism. Party-related symbolism might serve as an indicator, but at the end of the day sidebars about ideologies are not sidebars about parties and their symbolism. --Omnipaedista (talk) 13:10, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

People

Regarding this, what is the criteria for adding People? We should avoid adding any person just because they are a libertarian (some is not so clear whether they are more conservatives or libertarians, or more relevant to conservative sidebar or this one) and follow books about libertarianism in the United States to establish relevancy and notability; is a person mentioned? That may still not be enough, if it is just a passing mention. As I wrote here, "[Jorgensen] reeks of recentism; this sidebar is not about the Libertarian Party but libertarianism in the United States; Paterson, Wilder Lane and Rand are all more relevant; Milton is already at Conservatism, where he is more relevant, so David is more relevant here and [we should] avoid the same surname's issue; same thing for Paul; Ron is obviously more relevant here; Liberty Fund is conservative." You did not even opened a discussion, you just edit warred when I was merely trying to restore the status quo ante and follow BRD. Same thing was done for adding images without consensus and in spite of the discussion above. Omnipaedista, your thoughts and input on the matter would be very helpful. Davide King (talk) 05:24, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Davide King, Jorgenson is a recent libertarian celebrity in the US, yes, but she's not new to the movement and she doesn't "reek of presentism" - she ran for a House seat as a Libertarian in the early 90s and was the party's VP nom in the 96 race. Regardless, getting as many votes as she did (2nd most in the party's history), and placing 3rd in a general election, makes her deserving of a spot here. I don't understand why whenever she's brought up, you always mention how the three other listed females are more relevant, as if the template has a limit on female libertarian figures that can be included. Yes, Wilder Lane and Paterson are more important to the movement's history, but I wouldn't say that they're more relevant today than Jorgenson. More people right now probably know Jorgenson's name than Wilder Lane or Paterson (not Ayn Rand, however). Why can't all four be included? (Note also that Howie Hawkins' placement on the Socialism in the US sidebar is not being questioned, and he received considerably less votes than Jorgensen as the Greens' nom this past election.) If you want to play the game of relevance, there are several men listed here that are not as objectively relevant as Jorgenson, but I won't push for their removal.---- One of those figures is the other in question - David Friedman. Switching gears, he has had a far less profound impact on libertarianism than his father (but again, I'm not saying David should thus be deleted, they can both co-exist). Milton is one of the most consequential figures to libertarianism (lowercase "l") in US history, and it's arguable that there is no other American in the last 50 years (not since Goldwater during the 60s) that has had a greater impact on the philosophy's popularity in the US than Milton. It's telling that when we argue Jorgenson from a Libertarian Party perspective, you say this is not about the party but the philosophy, but when I bring up people like Milton's influence on the philosophy, you argue basically that his involvement in the party wasn't strong enough (or that it was stronger on conservatism, thus making him somehow ineligible—when really it depends on who you ask, conservatives would say his impact on conservatism is greater and libertarians would say otherwise).---- If figures like Ron Paul, Goldwater, Ayn Rand, and Milton Friedman have all had an almost-equally significant impact on both Conservatism and Libertarianism in America, then their names can and should be included on both sidebars. Right now, Goldwater, Ron Paul and Ayn Rand (who you've pushed for) do in fact exist on both templates and no one is raising issue about that, because it's a reasonable phenomenon that there might be some overlap with the two philosophies. And Milton, more than anyone else, should be another co-inclusion on both templates. (See Sanders' and AOC's co-inclusion in both the US Socialism and Modern Liberalism sidebars as well.)---- Lastly, there's nothing wrong with a distinction of two of the same surnames (per any other political sidebar). See the US Conservative template for example, where Ron and Rand Paul, Allena and John Foster Dulles, Davide and Charles Koch, and Robert A. and William H. Taft are all listed this way (and see the the numerous last names that are the same on both the Modern Liberalism and Socialism in the US sidebars). Disliking the way something looks stylistically in a sidebar template is not a good enough argument for excluding a deserving figure (or figures).---- In Conclusion, stop hijacking the "People" section of this sidebar and allow Jorgensen and Milton Friedman to be listed (and, in my opinion, the Kochs as well, but I don't feel as inclined to push hard for them). Thank you. Flyedit32 (talk) 01:10, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Please, provide reliable sources that establish relevancy, otherwise this all just a wall text of personal opinions. Milton Friedman is more relevant to conservatism (that is why he is there and in the picture) and what other sidebars do should not be used as an excuse. The sidebars you listed have the same problems where they list a bunch of people and politicians but that does not establish whether they are routinely mentioned in books about the ideology or movement. We should only list 10 people, not 30 or 50. Most of the people you list are conservative or right-libertarians; while they are more notable than left-libertarians, we should not focus only on them and only list the most relevant people from both sides of the movement, not every Libertarian politician or presidential candidate. Just because other sidebars may do this, it does not make it right. We should only list no more than 10 people, at least one from all relevant schools, who are routinely mentioned and discussed in books about the movement. This is how we establish whether they are due. Davide King (talk) 10:06, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

I accidently hit 'enter' too early on my edit. What I meant to type was: For more left-leaning libertarians, Chomsky should be included; and the fact that Davide King is outnumbered means that consensus should be required for why Jorgenson and Milton Friedman should not be included, not for why they should be included. Milton's whole article is filled with references validating inclusion and this very template is even placed in his 'Public policy positions' section, not to mention the number of times he's mentioned in the Libertarianism in the US article - once as a "Prominent consequentialist libertarian", and in the "Intellectual sources" section under "People". The number of sources is overwhelming that supports this claim. See here for just a few: , this ref literally calls him "the 20th century's most influential libertarian": , and lastly, for further reading: Steelman, Aaron (2008). "Friedman, Milton (1912–2006)". In Hamowy, Ronald (ed.). The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; Cato Institute. pp. 195–197. doi:10.4135/9781412965811.n118. ISBN 978-1-4129-6580-4. LCCN 2008009151. OCLC 750831024. Thank you. Flyedit32 (talk) 01:59, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

There are indeed plenty reliable sources establishing that Milton Friedman is a very influential figure both within the American libertarian community and the American conservative community. --Omnipaedista (talk) 12:24, 2 January 2021 (UTC)