Template talk:Libertarianism sidebar/Archive 1

Archive 1

Formatting

I don't really know what I'm doing with the formatting... if someone wants to spice this up, that would be cool. Dave 03:55, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

How many things should we put in this? I don't want it to get too long, but I also don't want it to leave anything important out. It could easily get to 30-40 lines long if we don't set guidelines. Dave 05:12, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Image

The image strikes me as rather specific to a certain group of libertarians, rather than Libertarianism as a whole. I think something more universal should be chosen. The Statue of Liberty is a common symbol but this is representative of the U.S. and stands for other things as well; perhaps the best graphic expression of libertarian ideas is simply the Nolan chart.--Pharos 05:00, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I was hoping no one would mind. You're right, of course, but I couldn't think of anything better. The Nolan chart would make this ugly (and would confuse people. And wouldn't fit in a 150*150 pixel box while remaining legible). The statue of liberty might be the best we can do. Dave 05:03, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

The dollar-sign-based logo is rather absurd and doesn't seem to be widely used as a symbol of libertarianism. It seems rather intended to imply that libertarianism is about money or greed, which is not particularly true. It does seem to be somewhat related to John Galt as I recall ... but Objectivism is not libertarianism (as Ayn Rand was the first to note).

We do not need to show a logo or symbol here -- libertarianism in the general case does not have a widely-recognized logo or symbol. The U.S. Libertarian Party uses the Statue of Liberty as a symbol, but (as noted above) this is not internationally applicable. It's worth noting that while there are libertarian parties in many nations now, libertarianism is not an internationalist political philosophy (as is, say, revolutionary Communism). Thus it is not too surprising that there isn't an internationally recognized symbol as there is for Communism. --FOo 05:25, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I guess that settles that, then. Dave 05:27, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know, in general I think it's good to have some image. I've previewed the template with the Nolan chart and it is legible at this size (try it yourself). I know it's a little outside of the box, but think of it - what other graphic symbol better represents libertarians' views of Libertarianism?--Pharos 05:31, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Nolan chart is at best only a little better than nothing. I'm tempted to use the statue of liberty, but I'm sure that either someone won't like it or that someone will think someone won't like it and take it down. I dunno. Dave 05:37, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

This settles it

image:LibertarianzLogo.png A New Zealand libertarian party uses the statue as a symbol. It's not just American, and is therefore a good logo for the sidebar. Dave 06:37, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

I know the statute was French made. It is not totally a U.S. mascot. But do we really need such a useless icon? I mean are there any libertarian thinkers ever use that statute as his/her symbol? I don't really think many liberal thinkers would like to wear a Statute of Liberty button everyday. -- Toytoy 17:16, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

Rename

I like the image, and I think it's great to have a template on this.

However, this needs a rename. The template shouyld be for right libertarianism, and not just libertarianism. This also avoids having to list Libertarian socialism and other ideologies in the bottom. I think the move should be done quickly before too many pages need to have their links changed.--Che y Marijuana 09:30, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

I hope you guys like my changes, I think it looks neater and cleaner.--Che y Marijuana 14:00, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the cleanup. In my opinion, there is roughly zero risk of confusion because of the template because:

1. 1. the statue of liberty is prominently placed.
   2. the first link is to anarcho-capitalism. The fourth one is to Objectivism.
   3. most importantly, this will only be on pages about "right-libertarianism," as you call it.

I think that linking to the other libertarian issues is still a good thing, though.

Dave 02:52, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

It's not so much confusion that I'm worried about, it's accuracy. While Libertarianism with a capital L is accepted as us-style Libertarianism, that is specific to one kind of right-libertarianism. Anarcho-capitalisms wouldn't really be members of a us Libertarian party, would they? It's for that reason, as well as my belief in differentiating between the right and left, that I believe the template should be renamed. We can keep the links if you want, but they wouldn't need to be qualified with "other ideologies that are considered libertarian" or something like that, because that's a sentence that needs explaining. The template's purpose is to provide info in a condensed manner, calling it right libertarian or something of the sort simply conveys more info right off the bat.--Che y Marijuana 05:35, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

I'm having a bit of trouble understanding your post. Let me make sure I'm understanding you. Are you saying that the template should be renamed (so you type in {{right-libertarianism}} instead of {{libertarianism}}, or that the template's contents should be renamed "so it says 'the right-libertarianism series?'" If it's the former, I don't really care one way or the other, because there's no way to disambiguate it.

If you're suggesting that the contents should be changed, I'm less convinced. I think the template is not for information; it's for navigation, which is why libertarian socialism is on there in case someone needs disambiguation.

As far as the capitalization issue goes, the only Capital-L-Libertarian pages are the libertarian party ones. The rest are lowercase-l. While anarcho-capitalists might not join a libertarian party, they do call themselves libertarian (lowercase). I'm not sure what your concern is here.

The last reason to keep it the same is that "right-libertarians" typically don't call themselves that (at least in the U.S.). I can't think of anyone (that I've met or read from) that used the term to describe himself or herself.

Dave 06:15, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Che y Marijuana,

As a left-Rothbardian, I absolutely, absolutely, absolutely oppose the idea of renaming this "right-libertarianism." Such a name change would be a clear violation of POV, since not everybody who subscribes to the philosophy that advocates little- or no-government and holds that property can be justly acquired by individuals or voluntaryist collectives through homesteading or free trade considers him- or herself "right-wing."

I, for one, consider myself completely and wholly a left-winger, and given that this view is perfectly acceptable under the form of libertarianism corresponding with this template, it could only therefore be POV to falsely label my political beliefs "right-wing." (As far as I'm personally concerned, there is no such thing as right-libertarianism; however, I have left "right-libertarianism" in the template because removing it would be a POV violation on my part.)

Besides, the conflict has been resolved through the addition of the "related" subcategory.

Respectfully yours,
allixpeeke (talk) 21:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Dave's edits

I combined a lot of stuff on here. The template was longer than most articles it was attached to! Hopefully I didn't leave anything important out. Dave 01:25, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Linking to sections of articles

I don't think it makes much sense to link to sections of articles. If a topic has its own article or is part of a larger relevant article we should link to that, but linking to sections of articles is excessive.--Pharos 08:19, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It depends. I can imagine there being a reasonable need to link to a specific section of an article, depending upon what the topic is or how much the article over-all deviates from the information a wikipedia reader my be intending to acquire from the link. allixpeeke (talk) 21:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Overuse, improper use, illogical use, etc.

I know that libertarianism is the flavor of the month as political ideologies go, but using this topic box on everything related to the concept is an improper and excessive (perhaps propagandistic) use of the template. Im not antithetical to the use of template topicboxes - from the time they first were implemented, I was extremely enthusiastic about their use, provided they did not violate some very basic constraints - reason and rationality for starters.

So, I am proposing some reforms for the use of this template, and to make it clear to people who like sticking it everywhere that its not everywhere to be stuck. I will report back with some links shortly. Sinreg, SV|t 04:30, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's violating "reason" or "rationality" in the current system, but I'll wait to see what links you come up with. In defense of the template, I think that just about anyone that went to a page on, say, the Cato institute would be interested in links to libertarianism, as well as to its factions, influences, and key issues, including criticism of the movement from different perspectives. And I don't feel that there's anything unreasonable about putting those links all in one place instead of buried in the "see also" section at the bottom. I don't think that the template qualifies as propaganda given that it links to a criticism section that's longer than most articles. If you'd like to make criticism easier to find, we could give it a section on the template (like "influences" or "factions").

I'll admit I haven't looked at every page the template has been placed on, so it's possible that it's been overused. I'll take a look at any examples you post. Dave (talk) 18:17, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in responding. Ive read your points, and agree with some. Your point that the entire box be used as a feature on certain articles --just because it has a link on it --isn't valid because 1, that's not a proper use for the template. 2, criticism related to specific issues needs to be addressed on the specific pages - not relegated to a "criticism" section. Of course linking to a main article is proper, if enough basic treatment is given. I agree about the "see also" section being miniscule, but if you look at many articles with depth and branching topics, simply adding a short 2 pgh section with a main article link at top is a good compromise between excessive treatment and buried links.-SV|t 21:22, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your assertion that "that's not a proper use for the template" is uncompelling because there is no metaphysical "proper" use, and we should just look at what's useful. I think that putting the template on a page like Cato Institute is more useful than putting each of the links in the See Also section. The criticism article is there not because we think the libertarianism article should be pro-libertarian but because there's too much criticism to fit. The solution was to have the most important criticism in the main article and the other stuff in a subarticle. I still don't know what your goal is, though. I don't consider the template to be "excessive treatment" and you haven't given any reason to think that it is. Dave (talk) 00:58, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

i raise once more, for anybody who might be interested, the specific situation of the Geolibertarianism article hooking onto the libertarian template, apparently without consulting anyone. in the interest of acting in good faith, i left it, while also adding accuracy and NPOV disputes on the page -- going into far more detail on the talk page than i wanted to. the article is not up to wikipedia standards, and for that reason alone should not have the libertarian template on it. beyond, i do not believe that "geolibertarianism", despite claims in the article and on the talk page, is even a flavor of libertarianism. the article wraps itself in the mantle of libertarianism, yet its supposed mere "exception" regarding property is collectivist stew, clearly at odds with the primary tenets of libertarianism. yes, we see the invocation of "different forms in the writings of John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, Adam Smith, Thomas Paine, David Ricardo, and John Stuart Mill". i'm not sold, and i think it was a dirty trick the way the article popped up out of nowhere and glommed onto the libertarian template.

my interest in this derives solely from the template. i believe a substandard article is now holding others hostage in small form because of it. i tried to explain what was wrong with the article, but it's just the start. even what i mentioned wasn't corrected adequately. people shouldn't be put in the position of improving an article they have no interest in. it all comes down to the template.

simple example, the first sentence of the article: "Geolibertarianism is a political philosophy that holds with other forms of libertarianism that the products of one's labor should be privately owned and controlled but that land or other natural resources cannot be owned exclusively." it's not even faithful to the author's intentions. it can easily be taken as a primary meaning that libertarianism holds that land cannot be owned exclusively. that is false, of course. it's poorly written (if you don't agree, please take another look -- slowly). further, with just that sentence, it logically denies, even were it "corrected" with regard to geolibertarianism's supposed differences with libertarianism, the fundamental principle of libertarianism: exclusive right to property (with yourself being your property, and so forth). it's specious to add the template and then claim, "well, it's libertarianism except for that."

this editing problem was just dumped on other people via the template with no prior consultation. i have other preferences than to ride herd on an awfully blah showing by the originator in reaction to this situation. i believe the template should be removed immediately from the page, with no further attempt to replace it as long as "geolibertarianism" holds that one cannot own real property. it's not libertarianism, and it doesn't matter how many revered names are invoked. i hope somebody will take it from here and defend the template, because i'm done with it. i am certainly not going to continue working on the geolibertarianism article as a hostage. i reiterate that regardless of one's views of the article's libertarianism purity, it is not up to standards, and should not have the template for that reason alone. i hope somebody, ideally the instigator, will remove it soon. i'm out of this now, so if i was the only holdup, do what thou wilt. thanks. perhaps somebody with more spare time can come along and create an article mimicking this situation to drive the point home -- maybe Communolibertarianism, where the only "exception" is that while it's exactly like libertarianism, favoring profit and property based on different forms in the writings of john locke, thomas jefferson, adam smith, thomas paine, david ricardo, and john mill, the profit and property goes into a big bucket first. other than that? direct crossover, baby! SaltyPig 02:54, 2005 May 29 (UTC)

Perhaps this depth of criticism belongs on the particular article, Salty. Simply pointing there (from here) to a more in-depth comment is much better IMHO. -SV|t 21:22, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As I've said before, I think that the rhetoric and political history of the geolibertarian movement show clear linkages with libertarianism. I'll admit that the first sentence should be reworded. I think that you'll find that the differences between geolibertarians and other libertarians are no greater than the difference between paleolibertarians and everyone else, or Objectivists and everyone else. See the talk page for a bunch of links I posted showing the similarities between the movements. The difference between "communolibertarianism" and geolibertarianism is that geolibertarianism actually exists, actually has followers, they share an intellectual pedigree with other libertarians, and are somewhat consistent, even where they disagree (e.g. the Milton Friedman quote I link to). Dave (talk) 04:00, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what Salty's problem with "geolibertarianism" is. Admittedly, the word is new, but there have been lots of libertarians historically who were at least sympathetic to Henry George: notably, Albert Jay Nock and Frank Chodorov. To claim that georgism is inherently anti-libertarian is to claim that Nock was not a libertarian, which is a pill I cannot swallow.

I will agree, though, that the Geolibertarianism article is not a very good one. I wouldn't object to removing it from this template until such time as the article is improved. - Nat Krause 05:41, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Back to the point, the issue is the overuse of this template, not the particular issues related to certain poorly written articles. Though related to libertarianism, geolibertarianism doesnt seem like a major enough topic to warrant inclusion in the template - though it may warrant inclusion with the template. Im still asserting that the templates use on various articles (bio stubs, for starters) is excessive, and while I can simply remove it, I wanted to give fair warning.

<opinion>Note, of course that as hyperconnectivity continues, for aristocracy to continue, it must base itself in new incarnations which appeal to liberal concepts (work force, jobs) but are ultimately rooted in elitism and domineering. I think this is the problem that pervades libertarianism —as an "alternative" to liberalism, libertarianism is perhaps even-split along the most fundamental principles —such as the line between centralized and decentralised government. Deregulation, though disguised as "liberty," still equals centralized power. </opi> -SV|t 21:22, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Geolibertarianism

I fixed up the Geolibertarianism article a little. I think it's good enough to link to now. Hogeye 07:24, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I added Geolibertarianism. Apparently some people would exclude this group since it differs from "normal" libertarianism on one point in property rights. I would point out that this is not the only property definition dispute among libertarians. There are e.g. pro-IP and anti-IP factions. (Intellectual Property.) Hogeye 16:33, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Neolibertarianism

I added neolibertarianism, and moved the article from neolibertarian to neolibertarianism. The article itself still needs (a good deal of) work. --Daniel11 05:44, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Objectivism

Recently, a fan of Rand decided to remove any mention of Objectivism from this template. Last time I checked, Objectivism fully endorses the concepts of libertarianism, although Rand herself didn't like the l-word.

Now, it may be that I'm mistaken, but if I am, perhaps the best way to handle this is a reasonable discussion based on the evidence, not the deletion of Objectivism without comment or explanation.Alienus 23:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

It looks like there were a bunch of edits in quick succession. I'm not sure if everyone involved even fully realized what the others had done, or why. I had already added 'Objectivism' back into the template before Alienus made his edit, but not with the same link. The suggestion in discussion at Talk:Objectivist_philosophy suggesting that the link in the template be directed at the Libertarianism and Objectivism article, rather than the Objectivist philosophy article. The Libertarianism and Objectivism article is more directly related to the subject matter of the libertarianism sidebar, and discusses the influence of Objectivism on libertarianism in more depth than the main article on Objectivist philosophy does. Linking this way also finesses the POV dispute about the relationship between the two ideologies, by pointing to an article that explores both sides. -- RL0919 23:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

There were definitely a bunch of changes at once, and some of them either lacked comments or had misleading ones. I don't know about you, but when I click on Objectivism, I don't expect to get linked to Abortion. It would make considerably more sense to link directly to Objectivism, which has a little section headed with "Influence on libertarianism", which itself links to Libertarianism and Objectivism. In any case, as a point of order, discussions of what changes to make to this template should occur on this page, not somewhere else. Alienus 00:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, let's discuss it. In proposing the idea originally, D prime suggested that we "add 'Objectivism and Libertarianism' to the libertarianism series, and put the bar on that page. The Objectivism article does already have a link to it, under the header concerning its relationship to libertarianism, so they're connected, but no one will be led to believe that Objectivism is merely a faction of libertarianism, which it isn't, or that it's officially aligned with it, which it is not." The actual article is Libertarianism and Objectivism, not vice versa, but other than that specific glitch, I think his point is a good one. The directing of the word 'Objectivism' to an article about Libertarianism and Objectivism isn't very similar to the two examples you give (directing the word 'Objectivism' to an article on abortion, or the word 'Abortion' to an article about marriage). It is even less so when you consider that the word 'Objectivism' is appearing in a sidebar about Libertarianism, under a sub-head about Influences. In that context, it doesn't seem at all misleading to send the reader to an article about the relationship between Objectivism and libertarianism.

Note also that this wouldn't be the only "redirect" in the sidebar. The link labeled 'Individualist anarchism' actually goes to American individualist anarchism, and all the links under the Key Issues sub-head go to articles named differently than what the link text shows. In fact, the article on 'Objectivism' is actually called Objectivist philosophy. So what is the harm in sending the link to a slightly different namespace that is actually more directly on-point in discussing the influence of Objectivism on libertarianism? -- RL0919 06:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a no-brainer that the Libertarianism template should reference Objectivism. The only controversy seems to be over whether the reference should be directly to the article on Objectivism or to the article on both Libertarianism and Objectivism. Of the two choices, the first seems clearer to me, since none of the other links I sampled went to "free speech zones" that buffer direct access to the linked topic. Is there a particularly compelling argument for not linking directly? Alienus 07:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

For now, I commented out the second link to prevent duplication.Alienus 07:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

My take is that when there are multiple articles on a subject, a sidebar template should point to the article most relevant to that sidebar. In this case, there is an article specifically about Libertarianism and Objectivism, so this sidebar, which is about Libertarianism, should point to that article. If there were a similar breakout article about "Classical Liberalism's Influence on Libertarianism," then I would favor pointing to that with the 'Classical Liberalism' link.

Your "free speech zone" comment leads me to think that you disapprove of the Libertarianism and Objectivism article in the first place, which is really a different issue, better discussed on the Talk page for that article. Insofar as the article exists and discusses in depth the exact issue intended for the link -- the influence of Objectivism on libertarianism -- it strikes me as clearly the preferred destination. There is a close parallel here with the link labeled 'Individualist Anarchism.' That link goes to the article on American individualist anarchism, not the plain Individualist anarchism article. Now, there are those who think the America-specific article should not exist, that the relevant people and ideas should be discussed under the general article. But the article does exist, and the details in it are the ones most relevant to the influence of that tradition on libertarianism -- so that is the article the link goes to. -- RL0919 17:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the American individualist anarchism article should exist, but as a fork from Individualist anarchism. Likewise, when someone clicks the link labelled "Individualist Anarchism", then that's the page they ought to wind up on. In the same way, clicking on "Objectivism" ought to lead to Objectivism, as opposed to a fork page. Now, if the template had instead promised to link to a page discussing the relationship between the main topic and the listed one, then linking to the fork wouldn't be as confusing. However, it still wouldn't be as clean as a direct link.

The other problem with linking to forks is that it breaks reciprocity. The Libertarianism page contains this Libertarianism template, which mentions Objectivism, but some people would prefer to endorse the orthodox ARI view by refusing to display the template on Objectivism. This is clearly POV and they're simply using this "let's link to forks" idea to help justify their biased changes.

The reason I referred to forks as "free speech zones" is that they are on the periphery and all too often become dumping grounds for material of low quality. People don't visit the forks as much as the main pages, so the forks degrade.

Fundamentally, linking to where the text says it will link is the most honest thing we can do because it follows the basic rule of UI design: avoid surprises. Alienus 17:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Objectivism is currently located in the "ideas" section, and relocates to Libertarianism and Objectivism. We could either leave it where it is, or move it down to the "related" section. I personally don't have much preference either way at this point, but I wanted to throw the suggestion out there for people to discuss.

Cheers,

allixpeeke (talk) 21:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Libertarian Republican

I removed Libertarian Republican. Here are my reasons:

1. There are also libertarian Democrats, in other words, libertarians in the Democratic Party. Neither this nor libertarian Republicans, i.e. libertarians in the Republican Party, need be mentioned in this template. Libertarianism (small-L) is a philosophy, and persons holding this philosophy can be the member of any party. A libertarian could join the Communist Party, for example, despite disagreeing with communism. Parties that do not hold a strictly libertarian philosophy yet hold some libertarian members are irrelevant to libertarianism

2. Neolibertarianism is already listed in the template. This is an ideology which combines aspects of libertarianism with [neo]conservatism. This being a popular ideology among libertarian Republicans, and deserves mention, being an political philosophy, in the template. Libertarian Republicans, however, do not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Allixpeeke (talk • contribs)

Visuals

The entries are hard to see due to a lack of contrast with the dark red background. Attempting to correct this. Lycurgus 03:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Er... I didn't see a dark red background until recently. That red definitely looks ridiculous and should go. --Daniel11 04:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the dark red and returned it to the white/blue color scheme C mon 10:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Given that the colour yellow (or gold) tends to be highly connected with classical liberalism and modern libertarianism (even the anarcho-capitalist flag adopts yellow in its layout), might it be a worthy idea to change the colour layout from LightSteelBlue to Gold (or even Yellow)?

Just a thought. Personally, I like the idea of changing it to Gold, if there are no objections.

Yours,
allixpeeke (talk) 21:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

LightSteelBlue

Gold

Yellow

Okay, I've begun playing around with the colours in Cast's sandbox, and I really like the idea of using the gold (technically #FFEB00). Does anyone have any objections? allixpeeke (talk) 07:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I like the gold! Makes me want to click it, while the old color choices didn't bring my curiocity forward. Lord Metroid (talk) 01:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, since it's been a while, and I've seen no objections, I'm going to make the change.

Of course, it's possible that there have been no objections because of this talk page not being visited too extremely often, so if anyone sees the change and believes there is reason for concern, that concern can be addressed here.

Cheers,

allixpeeke (talk) 20:55, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Libertarian movement

Does anyone think the article on the libertarian movement belongs in this template? It's a crappy article at the moment, although that shouldn't affect whether or not it belongs here. It does mean the article needs a lot of work, though, or perhaps we should combine it with something like history of libertarianism. Anyone have any thoughts on that issue either? (Although I guess we ought to continue the latter dialogue on the article's talk page.) --Daniel11 04:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Image

I don't think that image is appropiate for this template. --Hetfield1987 (Wesborland | James Hetfield) 17:46, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Would you care to elaborate? 12.65.120.161 (talk) 19:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Libertarian socialism and other left forms of libertarianism

I've noticed that this template is unabashedly biased toward right-libertarianism, when in fact the term "libertarianism" was used by left-anarchists like Peter Kropotkin long before it was commandeered by small-government capitalists in the United States. (In fact, the first documented usage of the term was by Joseph Déjacque in the 19th century.) Thus, I propose that this template include a link to the libertarian socialism article, as well as perhaps some other related articles. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 04:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Wrong. Left-socialists used the term "libertarian" in a completely different way, implying something much closer to the "liberation of the worker from the bourgeoisie" than the modern meaning of liberty, limited government, and free markets. The way they used libertarianism was entirely different from how it is understood contemporarily. If the template was so unabashidly biased towards right-libertarianism, it would not have included geolibertarianism, green libertarianism, agorism, or left-libertarianism. 12.64.126.10 (talk) 04:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

That's not really true. Libertarian socialists believe that capitalism, along with the state and other coercive institutions, are a barrier to maximal liberty. It is true that libertarian socialists wish to liberate "the worker from the bourgeoisie" (or rather for the worker to liberate his or her own self) but they do not use liberty in a different way from the modern usage. "Liberty" means "freedom from usually external restraint or compulsion," to which libertarian socialists believe capitalism is a barrier. Regardless of whether you agree with them that capitalism is a barrier to liberty, they do believe this. At any rate, what is important is that the libertarian socialist tradition predates the libertarian capitalist tradition, so libertarian capitalists have no rightful claim to the word. At the very least, the template ought to reflect both usages, not just the American one. As I noted here, outside of the United States, the term "libertarian" is still largely used to refer to libertarian socialists. It would reflect a U.S.-centric POV to ignore the usage of the word outside the U.S.

At any rate, I am going to add libertarian socialism into the template. Notice that I'm not calling for the template to primarily reflect the leftist schools of libertarianism; I just want a balance of the two. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 18:33, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The modern libertarian movement is primarily a movement of the United States. The modern movement came out of Classical Liberalism and the Old Right. That's what this template is about, not what a number of socialists sometimes called their political programs decades ago (and an even smaller number of socialists, European ones, today). I'm reverting your edit. The issue has already been discussed and a consensus was reached to not include libertarian socialism. The issue is closed.

"Libertarian socialists" reject what is arguably the fundamental central tenet of libertarianism, the private property ethic, and they have no concept of the Non-Aggression Principle. Libertarian socialists are also ultra-democratic, whereas modern libertarianism qua libertarianism rejects democracy.

Even "progressive libertarianism" is selectively very interventionist. Marxism has had a history of using the term "libertarian" and Marx's ideal was a stateless society. Should we now include Marxism in the template just to "balance" a list that already features geolibertarianism, green libertarianism, agorism, libertarian feminism, progressive libertarianism, and left-libertarianism? 12.64.48.56 (talk) 03:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

No, the modern libertarian movement as defined by American right-libertarians is primarily a movement of the United States. Out of the small number of established editors which have weighed in at the discussion at Talk:Libertarianism, it appears that the agreement that the article on libertarianism is to reflect both usages. Your conception of the philosophy is very U.S.-centric and highlights the gross systemic bias of Wikipedia. We should strive not to reflect an American bias. I don't see how anyone could say otherwise; this goes against one of Wikipedia's core tenets, the neutral point of view policy. I am going to revert, and I hope that you do not engage in an edit war, 12.64.48.56/12.64.126.10, and agree to compromise. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 02:55, 23 January 2008(UTC)

Libertarian Socialism should be removed from the template. Libertarian socialists like any other kind of socialists are against private property. Libertarians are for private property. The two share almost no similarities other than use of the same name. BWF89 (talk) 00:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

BWF89 has a point. Libertarianism is founded on private property, and opposed to non-representative democracy. I am removing it, again. 12.64.66.147 (talk) 04:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Give me a break – right-libertarians don't own the term libertarian nor did they originate it. Nor should Wikipedia articles and templates your POV or anybody elses. Peter G Werner (talk) 04:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

All of the first classical liberals were Christians, and in fact their positions on rights were grounded in their religious beliefs. Should we link Christianity in the Liberalism template just to reflect that fact? Or should we maintain the NPOV by recognizing that Christianity is not strictly relevant to modern Liberalism qua Liberalism? 12.64.180.54 (talk) 19:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not in the business of telling its readers that the etymologically first usage of a term is the only right one. For instance, our article Computer deals with the electronic machines described by the modern sense of the word. It does not deal with the former profession called "computer" (for which see human computer). Similarly, it is quite true that the earliest sense of the word "libertarian" had to do with a form of socialism. However, this meaning is not, by and large, the current use.

A small minority of people disapprove of the current use, accusing modern libertarians of having "stolen" the word, much as certain people accuse homosexuals of "stealing" the word "gay". However, there is little reason for us to credit this accusation, or even to care about it. It is not our job here to sit in judgment of whether libertarians (or gays, or computers) have "stolen" their name; it is sufficient for us to note that this is the current usage, and the other one is an historically significant, but not currently widely-used, meaning. --FOo (talk) 08:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the term "libertarian" as used in most of the world still means essentially anarchist or near-anarchist. That American "libertarian" ideologues are pig-ignorant of this fact doesn't change that. Peter G Werner (talk) 10:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Peter Werner, as you well know this template doesn't cover that kind of "libertarianism". If you'd like for the encyclopedia to give an article to this kind of libertarianism and can prove it exists in some organized fashion, go ahead and make a separate article. But that has nothing to do with this template; if we add LS to the template for forms of libertarianism, then we should add anarcho-communism and Chomsky to the origins section, and solidarity and environmentalism to the ideas section, just to make sure everything is buddy buddy. The kicker is that if libertarian socialism went by another name, everyone would consider it utterly ridiculous to add it to the template. I am inclined to again remove the ridiculous Libertarian Socialism link from the template, but I don't want to start an all-out edit war. 12.64.128.148 (talk) 21:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a new deal is in order...

Now that I've implemented a drop menu system, the menu can now hold a larger number of links. I'd like to suggest ending this debate by creating a new section: Related. Catchy, right? Libertarian socialism can go in there, as well as "classical liberalism", "objectivism", and any other philosophy that has ever intersected with the western "libertarian" thought. What say each of you?--Cast (talk) 06:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Except it's not "related". In most of the world the term libertarianism refers to libertarian socialism. Reggie Perrin (talk) 06:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, will you give me a break? I'm trying to be a peace maker here. Lets try it this way... Libertarianism is related to anarcho-capitalism, Market-anarchism, and Agorism. These each draw some degree of inspiration from Individualist Anarchism. Still with me? Well that is related to libertarian socialism! Eh? Eh? C'mon, it's either this or the edit war continues. Just take the olive branch! At the very least, how about a section called See Also? Howzaboutit?--Cast (talk) 06:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not personal, it's an attempt to recognize that this isn't an American article but an international one and I'm afraid the circular logic you are employing evades the reality that in most of the world libertarianism is understood as a left-wing concept, what in the US is called "libertarian socialism". Maybe we'd do better to rename the template "American libertarianism" if you think it should only reflect what Americans think libertarianism is? Reggie Perrin (talk) 07:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

In the interest of full disclosure, let me make this perfectly clear. I am not a supporter of "libertarianism" in the sense advocated by pro-free market capitalists of the United States and elsewhere. I am a libertarian socialist of the anarchist without adjectives persuasion. I am fully aware of the fact that "libertarian" is a synonym for "anarchism" throughout the world, and that it has been ever since it's adoption by anarchists in the 1880s, when French anarchists were barred from placing the term "anarchist" in there publications, and so resorted to adopting the term "libertarian" as a political philosophy, where previously it had been a philosophy predominantly concerned with ethics. My intention in suggesting a rational compromise was not an attempt at circular logic in advancement of a pro-capitalist agenda, but rather the reduction of tension over a divisive subject. Your suggestion that this template be renamed to reflect an international interpretation of Libertarianism fails, however, because while it originated within the United States, it has now spread beyond those boarders and can be found in regions as far afield as France and Puerto Rico. So how about you try coming up with a template name which doesn't "evade" reality?--Cast (talk) 07:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey! There's an idea! Free Market Libertarianism? That could be a new name for the template? Eh? You know you like it. I know you like it. It's awesome.--Cast (talk) 07:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

That would work. Reggie Perrin (talk) 08:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Cast writes, "Lets try it this way... Libertarianism is related to anarcho-capitalism, Market-anarchism, and Agorism."

No, agorism is a type of anarcho-capitalism, and anarcho-capitalism is a type of market anarchism. Anarcho-capitalism is also a type of libertarianism. Libertarianism is a big-tent philosophy that encompasses all limited- or no-government political ideologies espousing belief that private property can be justly acquired by individuals and voluntary collectives so long as physical force is not employed by the individual or voluntary collective. It could possibly even be argued that mutualism is a form of libertarianism, despite calling themselves "anti-capitalist," because of Kevin Carson's propensity to cite anarcho-capitalists (e.g. Rothbard) as influences and because of his support for free trade. Although it might also be argued that mutualism is only closely related to libertarianism, and is not itself a form of libertarianism.

I would definitely object to including libertarian socialism in the 'schools of thought' section of this template because this template and the articles to which it is attached specifically refer to that theory of libertarianism which entails the belief that private property can be justly acquired by individuals and voluntary collectives (within the confines of the non-aggression axiom), and not all libertarian socialists are comfortable agreeing with these notions. It's not that libertarian socialism does not contribute ideas and concepts which have been considered valuable by libertarians—certainly they have. But the libertarianism this template refers to does not specifically address or encompass all of those entailments.

It might also be worth adding that the term 'socialism' itself is vague and, at times, misleading. Define it narrowly enough, no libertarian or libertarian socialist is a socialist, since we all object to the state ownership of the means of production. Define it broadly enough, and even I could be considered a socialist. The agorist Brad Spangler has already explained why he considers Murray N. Rothbard is a stigmergic socialist—a label I don't mind adopting for myself, given my understanding of what Spangler aims to imply (in other words, he does not mean to imply the state ownership of the means of production, but rather a spontaneous socialism that arises out of the order of a free-market propertarian anarchism).

I honestly don't believe that most libertarian socialists would feel comfortable having libertarian socialism listed as a school of thought on this template. Why would they want to be associatd with this theory of libertarianism? I could easily see libertarian socialists begging to have the term removed from the template ("please don't associate us with them!"), even if we include libertarian socialism in a 'related' rection rather than the 'school of thought' section. However, although I'm sure there will be libertarian socialists who want libertarian socialism completely and totally expunged from this pro-property template, I'm disinclined to say that they should be able to remove it from a 'related' section of the template, if for no other reason, because it is indeed related broadly to the ideology of this template. (Proudhon himself having said that property is liberty.)

On the other hand, I have much fear of what would happen if we included a 'related' section to the tenmplate. I fear that someone might try to include conservatism in such a section, despite the fact that conservatism has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with this philosophy. They might try to include it because there are many conservative Americans who seem to think that libertarianism is somehow their step-cousin, when in fact it is nothing of the sort. I'd be far more inclined to call libertarianism a left-wing ideology and conservatism a right-wing ideology, despite the popular misconception of many contemporary Americans.

Reggie Perrin writes, "Maybe we'd do better to rename the template 'American libertarianism' if you think it should only reflect what Americans think libertarianism is?"

I would completely and wholly reject renaming the template.

For one thing, various libertarian parties exist all over the world, including in Europe, which all espouse this theory of libertarianism. This philosophy is not a strictly American philosophy. To re-label it as such would distort the understanding of the documents to which this template is attached.

Secondly, there is no term "American libertarianism" in popular usage. Google shows less than four thousand hits, as compared to the near 77,000 hits for "libertarian socialism."

Thirdly, there is nothing inherently American about this conception of libertarianism. America just happens to be the place where the first Libertarian Party was founded.

Finally, there is no specifically American conception of libertarianism. All there are are American misconceptions about it. For example, many Americans stupidly consider libertarian capitalism a right-wing ideology, when in fact it is an inherently left-wing conception capitalism. It is worlds apart from the conservative (i.e. statist) theories of capital.

(Of course, the term "capitalism" is just as vague as the term "socialism," so I'm not surprised that many Americans fail to grasp the broad distinction.)

In short, renaming the template would quite confuse the entire issue and lead to much disruption.

Final thoughts:

I fully object to changing the name of the template. The term "libertarian" alone is perfectly suitable for the ideology which this template concerns. It's meaning is narrow enough that few would be confused when seeing it and broad enough that it can hold as its various subtypes both anarchistic and minarchistic theories, both theories that accept that land can be owned and theories that do not, both theories that limited- or no-government can be achieved through political electoral success and theories that eschew politics in favour of revoluntary counter-economics. But it is well-understood by anyone who sees this template what is meant by it.

I believe that libertarian socialism has a very suitable home in the anarchist template, where it invariably will confuse far less people and will not cause no retaliation or edit-warring by anyone. The anarchist template can easily be used on any article which addresses libertarian socialism, whereas the inclusion of this template on such articles is bound to infuriate libertarian socialists as well as anarchists of all stripes.

I don't like the idea of adding a 'related' section per se, but mostly because I fear that stupid Americans might try to add conservatism to that section. If we are sure to be vigilent and keep conservatism out of that section, then I can feel comfortable with a 'related' section being added, and libertarian socialism being added to that section.

Although I wholly object to the inclusion of libertarian socialism in the 'schools of thought' section (not because I find no value in libertarian socialism, but because it is not a school of thought in this ideology of libertarianism, not by a long-shot), I don't object as wholly to it as I do to changing the name of this template.

I believe it would be as misleading to place libertarian socialism in this template as it would be to place a link to libertarianism in a 'libertarian socialism' template or in the anarchism template (although I do support keeping agorism and anarcho-capitalism in the anarchist template, since they are not as big-tent as libertarianism and cannot, by definition, include minarchism). To make another analogy, it is just as misleading to place a link to libertarian socialism in this template as it is to place a link to ordoliberalism in this template. Ultimately, this would confuse readers and infuriate libertarian socialists who will suddenly see all this propertarian stuff being linked on their articles. In short, there are wide-spead repercussions from altering the original intent of this template.

I haved removed libertarian socialism once from the template. I will now remove it a second time. If, after all I've pointed out, you still believe it is wrong of me to remove it, feel free to point out why you believe this is wrong.

Respectfully yours,

allixpeeke (talk) 18:53, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Both of you are completely ignoring the fact that the left-wing meaning of libertarianism as libertarian socialism predates the Libertarian Party's appropriation of the term by about a century. Precedence should count for something as should international usage. The fact is that the Libertarian Party's definition of libertarianism is not definitive; it is but one of many - most of which do not view libertarianism as synonymous with free market economics or capitalism. In actual fact, what you view as libertarianism is actually one school of the actual, older libertarian concept. Reggie Perrin (talk) 20:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I have already specified that I am not ignoring this; that I am fully aware of the fact. What you are completely ignoring is that the project for arguing precedence is getting you nowhere. To that end, I've stepped out of the sidelines to suggest alternatives, but I'm not going to push anything beyond this. I leave it to those who regularly edit such articles, as they would have a greater degree of knowledge on the subject. I trust this issue will be resolved in time.--Cast (talk) 21:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

And I've said I agree with your proposal to rename the template "Free Market Libertarianism" if it is to exclude non or anti-market concepts such as libertarian socialism or civil libertarianism. Reggie Perrin (talk) 21:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

So... what? Don't misrepresent me. I'm not out to ignore anything, and I doubt Allixpeeke is either.--Cast (talk) 21:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Reggie Perrin,

A) the term libertarian has been used to describe the philosophy that "advocates little- or no-government and holds that property can be justly acquired by individuals or voluntaryist collectives through homesteading or free trade" long before the Libertarian Party was created in the 1970s.

B) There is nothing un-left-wing about this meaning.

C) Of course the term "libertarian" has its roots in socialist anarchism, but so does what we today call "anarcho-capitalism." I went ahead and made the suggestion over at the socialism template that anarcho-capitalism, which Spangler describes as a stigmergic form of socialism, be added to their template; but I won't be a bit surprised if they reject that proposal. The international usage of the term "libertarian" today, as far as I can tell, primarily reflects the philosophy that "advocates little- or no-government and holds that property can be justly acquired by individuals or voluntaryist collectives through homesteading or free trade." It is still used once in a while to describe, say, Proudhon, but virtually everybody understand that you mean "one who advocates little- or no-government and holds that property can be justly acquired by individuals or voluntaryist collectives through homesteading or free trade" today when you use the term "libertarian." I honestly fear that inclusion of libertarian socialism under "schools" will confuse people, and the point in having wikipedia around is not to confuse people.

D) With that said, I've given more thought to the Castian compromise whereby we add a 'related' section. I went ahead and added the section, and placed libertarian socialism, civil libertarianism, constitutionalism, libertarian Republican, and libertarian Democrat in it.

This should ensure an end to the edit warring.

Currently, Objectivism is located in ideas and relocates to Libertarianism and Objectivism. Perhaps we should move that down to 'related' as well? Should we? What do you all think?

Sincerely yours,

allixpeeke (talk) 21:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Reggie Perrin had removed "Transfer theory of contract" from 'ideas.' I re-added it. Unfortunately, since there is no article dealing with this theory of contract as of yet, it merely links to contract. Still important, but it would be good to see an article written about the transfer theory itself, and how it differs from other theories of contract (e.g. the promisory theory).

I love that... "Castian". Sounds sexy and important.--Cast (talk) 21:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I can agree to the "related concepts" compromise. Sorry about removing "transfer theory of contract", I hadn't realized it had been added when I reverted. Reggie Perrin (talk) 04:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Just be thankful we aren't debating whether or not to add Libertarian Marxism ;) Reggie Perrin (talk) 04:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

New template proposal.

I have created a new variation on the currently existing template. This experimental template uses a drop menu system -- the very same used by the current Anarchism template. I will not simply replace it myself, as I feel a discussion on the matter may be appreciated. I feel that the advantages to such a system are readily manifest. By shortening the menu, article layout is simplified, allowing for easier image and quote box placement. Further, the menu can be enlarged and the scope of its contents may be expanded, without it becoming obscenely large. This is because readers need only open desired subsections, which means it can hold far more sections in total.

I invite everyone to view it, to experiment with it, at the sandbox I've created for it. Any discussion concerning it should be kept here, for template-talk archival purposes. Note that I've tried to keep the same color scheme and image, out of respect to any users who prefer its current style. My only major addition was a link to the philosophy portal, placed next to the politics portal link, as I feel it is also pertinent to Libertarianism philosophy. Feel free to remove it if you wish. And again, I leave it to you to implement it. I will close the sandbox once a decision is reached.--Cast (talk) 04:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't think the drop style really adds anything. 12.64.126.10 (talk) 04:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The anarchism one looks nicer. I don't like the border with the blue. However, I think that it's more easily accessible if they're already expanded. It's just along the right side, and it's pretty narrow, so I don't think that it's too intrusive. нмŵוτнτ 04:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Plus, the anarchism template links to 130-something articles under the headings, while the libertarianism one only links to thirty-something. нмŵוτнτ 04:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The template colors can easily be changed, but I'd leave that to regular editors of libertarian articles to consider. It is perhaps true that links are more accessible if they are readily available, but there is a side effect to this. Because the template may get too large if you added more links, there is always going to be a certain maximum. So which would be preferred? To have a few links immediately within view, or to have more links which must be accessed by an extra step (dropping the menu). Both have their advantages and disadvantages. It falls to editors to decide which would be best, given the scope of the template and subject matter. Is libertarianism a topic that can be covered in a few articles, or will it require more? And given that, should the template attempt to cover as many as possible, or only the core topics?

On the matter of article layout: the template does not effect article text by any large measure, as it is indeed quite thin. However, the length of the template is another matter. I can provide three examples of how the template pushes aside other items on an article page. The first would be the Minarchism article, in which the Libertarian template forces the Forms of Government template to the bottom of the page. The second would be the Voluntaryism article, where we find the Libertarian template shoves the Anarchism template out of it's intended subsection. And the third, within the Libertarianism article itself, the Libertarian template pushes an image out of its position, forcing it to the center of a section when it is intended to be placed at the top. There are other articles like these three, and a shorter template would fix each of these.

As for your point on the number of links provided, this is actually something I consider a positive. If the Libertarian template were to try and have many more links, to encompass more topics of Libertarianism, it simply couldn't. It's too large. This was the exact same situation the Anarchism template had before the drop style was initiated. Now the Anarchism template can afford to hold more links, and has broadened in scope. As mentioned above, the advantage of this depends on what the scope of the template should be. --Cast (talk) 06:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I like the new template. It's a lot cleaner looking than the old static one. BWF89 (talk) 00:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't really have too strong of an opinion on it, I simply think that it's unnecessary, as there aren't that many article in it. It can always be changed in the future. If 50 more articles get added to it, I'd definitely support the new one. нмŵוτнτ 01:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, as I mentioned before, the initiation of the drop menus preceded the adding of more links. If the drop menu system was put into place, new links would naturally be added over time. As it is, adding in just a few will cause people to prefer removing links, rather than adding a hypothetical 50 more. If you'd prefer to add links before initiating the drop menu system, I suggest adding them in that sandbox. I am inviting everyone to freely edit that box with new links and sections you'd like to see on it. A discussion on newly desired sections can be started here and now.--Cast (talk) 06:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I like the design you've come up with, Cast, and will fully support its implimentation. allixpeeke (talk) 17:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It would seem that there is no significant objection to the implementation of this new template. It may well be that anyone who would care is simply not monitoring the template, and will not notice until a change is visible wherever the template appears. Given that, I'm going to load the drop menu. If any significant objection is then made, we can continue to discuss the merits of the old vs the new.--Cast (talk) 06:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

RFC: Libertarian socialism

The left-wing meaning of libertarianism as libertarian socialism predates the Libertarian Party's appropriation of the term by about a century. Precedence should count for something as should international usage. The fact is that the Libertarian Party's definition of libertarianism is not definitive; it is but one of many - most of which do not view libertarianism as synonymous with free market economics or capitalism. In actual fact, what you view as libertarianism is actually one school of the actual, older libertarian concept.Reggie Perrin (talk) 20:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

A) the term libertarian has been used to describe the philosophy that "advocates little- or no-government and holds that property can be justly acquired by individuals or voluntaryist collectives through homesteading or free trade" long before the Libertarian Party was created in the 1970s.

B) There is nothing un-left-wing about this meaning.

C) Of course the term "libertarian" has its roots in socialist anarchism, but so does what we today call "anarcho-capitalism." I went ahead and made the suggestion over at the socialism template that anarcho-capitalism, which Spangler describes as a stigmergic form of socialism, be added to their template; but I won't be a bit surprised if they reject that proposal. The international usage of the term "libertarian" today, as far as I can tell, primarily reflects the philosophy that "advocates little- or no-government and holds that property can be justly acquired by individuals or voluntaryist collectives through homesteading or free trade." It is still used once in a while to describe, say, Proudhon, but virtually everybody understand that you mean "one who advocates little- or no-government and holds that property can be justly acquired by individuals or voluntaryist collectives through homesteading or free trade" today when you use the term "libertarian." I honestly fear that inclusion of libertarian socialism under "schools" will confuse people, and the point in having wikipedia around is not to confuse people.

D) Inclusion of this template on various articles dedicated to libertarian socialism will surely infuriate libertarian socialists who do not want their ideology associated with what we today call libertarianism.

E) With that said, I've given more thought to the Castian compromise whereby we add a 'related' section. I went ahead and added the section, and placed libertarian socialism, civil libertarianism, constitutionalism, libertarian Republican, and libertarian Democrat in it.

This should ensure an end to the edit warring. Reggie Perrin gets what he wants, i.e. libertarian socialism acknowledged on the template, and this is accomplished in a manner to ensure that wikipedia readers will not become overly confused upon reading our articles.

This is a respectable compromise that we can all learn to live with.

Sincerely yours,

allixpeeke (talk) 21:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The "related" box seems to precisely fit the current relationship between the two terms. User:Krator (t c) 21:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

This actually comes across as a reasonable compromise. My larger concern is the article Libertarianism, which I think should cover the larger term "libertarian" and not just current US libertarianism. The article is so focused on current US-style libertarianism, in fact, that coverage of the historical development of US-style libertarian thought is completely overlooked – the article on individualist anarchism actually covers this history better. The thing is, US-style libertarianism is but one branch of what historically was a broader libertarian movement, one with widely varying approaches to the question of property. The problem with the article is that it doesn't cover what's central to the idea of "libertarianism" in this broad sense (and there are some core ideas common to both left and right versions of libertarianism), and within that, how different kinds of libertarianism differ. Peter G Werner (talk) 18:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

My opinion on this is yes. Libertarian socialism belongs as one of the uses of the trem. Yahel Guhan 00:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Template organization

I don't agree with the current organization of the template with "show" buttons. I think it is fairly more practical to have templates without "show" buttons. They are more easily manageable. I subsequently ask to return to the prevoious version without "show" buttons. --Checco (talk) 09:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Changes and Thoughts --- night watchman state, classical liberalism, utilitarianism, anarchism, non-voting

I moved "Night watchman state" from the "Schools of thought" section to the "Ideas." Minarchism, which advocates the night watchman state, is already listed in the "Schools of Thought" section (and is a school of thought). "Night watchman state" does, however, make an appropriate addition to the "Ideas" section.

I removed classical liberalism from the "Related" section, as it was already listed (appropriately) in the "Origins" section, and it seemed pointless to have it listed in both sections.

Finally, I added libertarian transhumanism to the "Related" section.

I noticed we've added "Rights libertarianism" to the schools of thought. Might we also want to add something about libertarian utilitarianism?

I see that individualist anarchism is mentioned in both the "Schools" section and the "Origins" section. Although I find it awkward for it to be listed in both, I didn't do anything about it, since it can be viewed as an approach of the greater libertarian movement and an obvious predecessor to modern libertarianism which heavily influenced the anarchistic side of the movement. Honestly, I don't find as great a dictinction between these various approaches to anarchism as some others might, and I do fear that listing market anarchism and anarcho-capitalism might confuse people into thinking that they are mutually exclusive, when in fact anarcho-capitalism is just a part of the slightly broader category of market anarchism. On the other hand, I can find no just cause for excluding them, either.

I think non-voting definitely needs to be listed in the "Ideas" section, although there does not appear as of yet to be an article on this libertarian/anarchist approach. There should also be something about the transfer theory of contract (Rothbard goes over this in his The Ethics of Liberty), but the same issue arises.

Some things to think about.

Cheers
Alex Peak
allixpeeke (talk) 20:22, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Did you mean the Title-transfer theory of contract by Stephan Kinsella? There is no such thing as transfer theory of contract. 71.175.31.106 (talk) 03:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Not all minarchists advocate a night watchman state. Some of them want government ownership of roads, hospitals or education, for example. "Night watchman statism" should be a school of thought, like minarchism.

Civil liberties are rights granted form the government, which includes both negative and positive rights. Civil libertarians endorse that belief, which is incompatible to anarcho-capitalism. They are a general concept of liberalism.

Not all libertarians are humanists. 71.175.31.106 (talk) 17:05, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Collapsable sections

There has been considerable discussion on the issue of the collapsable sections of templates like this, such as {{Social democracy sidebar}}, {{Christian Democracy sidebar}} etc. I created a centralized place for discussion about this issue here. I invite every one to participate. C mon (talk) 18:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Moving sandbox sidebar

Several months ago I created a mock-up sidebar for Libertarianism which has now evolved into the current form. I'm now interested in clearing up my sandbox space, and would like to delete the userpage I created for the project. If anyone would like to retain the page and it's history, I can transfer it to them now. Simply respond here (not on my talkpage) and we can confirm the move. --Cast (talk) 07:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Renamed a section to "Theory and ideals"

Hello everyone,

The "theory and ideals" section had the name "concepts" before I renamed it to this. I renamed it because, firstly, the term "concepts" too broadly represents such constituents. We can even categorize almost all the sections of this template as "concepts." Hence, we need to find a more specific name for the section. We found that "theory" and "ideals" precisely attributes this section.

The term theory refers to political theory, which refers to the underlying justifications for a political, ethical, or moral theory. Contrastingly, an ideal refers to an ethical, political, or social principle or value that one advocates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.175.42.124 (talk) 19:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The Cologne Blue skin

Honestly, I'm not sure how important this is. I noticed that this template does not look good in the Cologne Blue skin using my Internet Explorer browser. Some of the titles conflict with the [Show] links. This template looks good in all skins using Firefox. If you use Internet Explorer, you can see what I mean by clicking on this link. If it's important to look good across all nine skins, then editors may want to consider improving this template so that it looks good in the Cologne Blue skin.

One way to do this would be to increase the width of the template. This is easily done as you can see in the left box on the sandbox (click here) page. I've included the {{Selectskin}} template, so you can check all three versions across all nine skins. (Remember, the only skin this template looks bad in is the Cologne Blue skin using Internet Explorer.) Looks like "width:22.0em;" would do the duty. Another way to make the template look good in the Cologne Blue skin without changing the width of the template is to align all the titles to the left. The middle box on the sandbox page illustrates this remedy. I have made no "live" changes yet, because I really have no idea how important it is for this template to look good in the Cologne Blue skin.

How important could it be?  —  Paine's Climax  11:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Leo Tolstoy

A Libertarian? He was a Christian Anarchist but by no means a libertarian. Secondat of Orange (talk) 14:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Just made changes

Not sure what I think about the just made changes, but they were not decided at the libertarianism article as indicated in the edit summary. North8000 (talk) 10:10, 22 September 2011 (UTC)