Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:36, 5 September 2010

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Libertarianism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42Auto-archiving period: 7 days

	Libertarianism is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 25, 2005.
Article milestones Date Process Result January 19, 2004 Refreshing brilliant prose Not kept March 20, 2005 Peer review Reviewed May 11, 2005 Featured article candidate Promoted August 16, 2005 Featured article review Kept January 15, 2007 Featured article review Demoted October 24, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed Current status: Former featured article

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Sociology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Philosophy: Social and political Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Social and political philosophy Template:WPLibertarianism Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:FixBunching

Template:FixBunching

Software: Computing

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Template:FixBunching Template:V0.5 Template:FixBunching

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42

Talk:Libertarian, discussion for a page which has been merged with this article. Talk:Libertarianism/Alfrem, discussion prior to the ArbCom decision banning User:Alfrem from this article. Talk:Libertarianism/Page move, a July 2005 vote on a proposal to make libertarianism a disambiguation page and move this to Libertarianism (capitalist).

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

Template:FixBunching

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Libertarianism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42Auto-archiving period: 7 days

Template:FixBunching

Request we go to formal mediation

Given the problems that have been identified not only in the short term, but in the long term, with different views of libertarianism, I request of other editors we request formal mediation, with the request to be made on September 1st if, despite a cooperative editing environment, we cannot resolve differences. If there is continued soapboxing with no attempt to discuss sources, and various hostile behaviors, then we will request it sooner. Any thoughts? CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

agree, i suggest the request be moved up to the earliest possible date. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. Sooner is even better. BigK HeX (talk) 17:11, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Good. One of you can request it if you want it right now. Just remember to use NPOV language in describing the issues. Sometimes it does take a few weeks. Meanwhile WP:RS editing should continue. I'm doing some right now on a related article which I will then integrate here. :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:29, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

bigK hex, it is up to you, my monitor cracked after seeing the 3 of us agree on something. 17:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Alrighty .... I'll try to put something together by Friday night. I've never entered into mediation, so I'll have to do a bit of research. BigK HeX (talk) 17:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Informal mediation is the first step... Misplaced Pages:Mediation_Cabal. As you can see, I requested informal mediation over a week ago. I had no idea that it would take so long for somebody to take up our case...otherwise I would have mentioned it before now. That's interesting though that the rest of you eventually came to the same conclusion. --Xerographica (talk) 22:20, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, please add my name to the list of those involved. I guess the next step is to wait until it's accepted by a mediator? --Born2cycle (talk) 23:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Informal mediation is best first step since it can take longer to get formal mediation. Best to wait to see what proceeds. However, as I know from experience on wikipedia, not all mediators are very skilled at dealing with either behavioral or content problems, which can be frustrating. But at least we are giving it a shot, which is a good sign. And we might get lucky with a good mediator. 207.172.88.133 (talk) 12:59, 12 August 2010 (UTC) CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:53, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

UPDATE: A very biased (and rather dull sounding) requestion was put in here. Misplaced Pages:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2010-08-02/Libertarianism. I gave my view on the talk page of the request being biased and disruption of editing being a major problem. I'm not sure how to change requests so for now will leave my commenting at that. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I just edited the request to give both sides of the story, since the request was biased to support idea of breaking up the article and/or making it reflect one variety of libertarianism. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I've added myself to the list of participants. I was in the discussion of Libertarian Socialism but decided to drop out until the ball got rolling on mediation. I'd also like to say I don't agree with the logic of searching for Libertarianism/Libertarian on NPR/CNN. If we were to repeat such a such with Liberalism/Liberal we'd overwhelmingly find reference to Social Liberalism or American Liberalism. This would hardly be a justification for focusing the Liberalism article solely on those modern developments and in turn ignoring the far most historically significant accomplishments and origins of the term. Anatoly-Rex (talk) 17:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

<Backdent>Update: One month since mediation requested and no result. FYI. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

There is an admin that stated that s/he would be available to take up the case (although I think that was supposed to begin yesterday). But, there is a small bit of action. BigK HeX (talk) 16:31, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

RFC: Should this page discuss only right-libertarianism?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The consensus was:

"Libertarianism" should be broadly construed to include all significant viewpoints from reliable sources.

There are two broad camps evident in those who have responded to this RfC:

Firstly there are those who believe that Libertarianism should be construed narrowly. Specifically, they feel that left-libertarian and associated views are not libertarianism, and should not be mentioned on this page.
Editors who hold this viewpoint include: Xerographica, BlueRobe, Darkstar1st, Toa Nidhiki05 Arguments made by this camp include:

• The terms right-libertarian and left-libertarian are invalid, there is only one libertarianism, that is the view , labeled by some, as right-libertarianism.
• 'Right-libertarian' (not withstanding the validity of this term) is the more common, and better known concept, and is the concept meant whenever one sees the term libertarian in the news or popular media (at least in the English-speaking world).
• 'Left-libertarians' are not really libertarians, and are merely co-opting the term 'libertarian' to describe themselves so as to 'muddy the waters'. They may better be described as anarchists.
• Per the disambiguation guideline, this page should only treat the most commonly used meaning of the term 'Libertarianism', and other conceptions should be disambiguated.

Secondly, there is another larger group of editors who believe that Libertarianism should be construed broadly.
Editors who hold this viewpoint include: BigK HeX, Carolmooredc, Jrtayloriv, Iota, NickCT, Zazaban, N6n, FOo, TFD. Notably, all uninvolved editors who came to this page in response to this RfC and who have voted, have voted in this group. Arguments made include:

• Almost all scholarly sources describe libertarianism as having variants, and these variants include 'left-libertarism'.
• Notable people have self-identified as left-libertarian, and have been identified as such by reliable sources.
• All concepts that have been described as 'libertarian' by reliable sources should be represented on this page.
• According to WP:NPV, all significant (as shown by reliable sources) viewpoints should also be represented on the page, more common viewpoints should be given more weight, but significant-minority viewpoints should also be included.
• Other pages on contentious multifaceted ideas include discussion of all concepts encompassed by the term. e.g. Liberalism, Christianity, Conservatism. This page should be no different.

Ultimately, for the purposes of Misplaced Pages policy, the question comes down to this:
Are the various conceptions of libertarianism currently expressed on the page aspects of the same thing; that is, there is a valid concept 'Libertarianism' that encompasses all of these ideas – just like the idea of Christianity includes Roman Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, etc.
Or,
Is 'right-libertarianism' so different from 'left-libertarianism' and other concepts (e.g. 'geo-libertarianism'), that they are essentially different ideas that should be disambiguated to different pages. That is, the terms represent ideas as different as goldfish (fish) and Goldfish crackers, Queen and Queen (band), and inflation (a rise in prices) and inflation (the early expansion of the universe). In that case, as laid out by the disambiguation guideline, right-libertarianism as the primary topic, should occupy the page.

Misplaced Pages answers such questions using reliable sources, and in this case, editors who hold the 'libertarianism should be construed broadly' viewpoint have offered multiple reliable sources that attest to the first interpretation. Reliable sources treat, on the same page, multiple variants of libertarianism – treating them as aspects of the same idea. (Unlike, for instance, goldfish and goldfish crackers, which no reliable source treats as aspects of the same thing.)

Editors who hold the 'libertarianism should be construed narrowly' viewpoint have offered reliable sources that use the term libertarian to mean only 'right-libertarian'. They have also argued that this is the primary meaning of the term. However, the fact that some regard the word to mean only one variant of an idea, does not negate the fact that an idea can properly include various variants. I.e. if some reliable sources have used the term Christian to mean only Roman Catholics, this does not mean that the concept of Christianity cannot properly include other Christian denominations, and that the page on Christianity should be restricted to only Roman Catholics.

This still leaves open the question of due and undue weight. Altough all variants should properly be described on this page, the weight given to various viewpoints should depend on their weight in reliable sources. This includes the weight in the lead, which should summurise the article, and reflect the weight given to various ideas in the article. Concepts that are only briefly mentioned in the article need not be mentioned in the lead.

--LK (talk) 07:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Should this page discuss only right-libertarianism, or should it also include other conceptions of libertarianism such as left-libertarianism? LK (talk) 07:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

neither, it should focus on the most widely understood definition of libertarianism which is neither left nor right. Modern libertarians most closely resemble the man who coined the term, Belsham. a free individual being most free within the context of a state which provides stability of the laws. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

To elaborate on the question, there are editors who have been fervently suggesting the the article should be stripped down to only grant coverage of a narrowly construed right-libertarian view that idealizes some form of capitalistic Night watchman state. There is the small chance that I'm misreading the desire of these editors as I'm gathering this from rather vague personal soapbox rants, as opposed to the quotations of any WP:RS. BigK HeX (talk) 10:32, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• I think you should re-write the question. The sources indicate a concept of libertarianism that has different strands in the same sense that liberalism has different strands (e.g., classical liberalism, social liberalism). The dispute is whether we should use the definition in the literature or the article should be about right-libertarianism only, because some writers mean that when they use the term libertarian. TFD (talk) 08:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Comments by current participants

"Libertarianism" should be construed narrowly

of the unchallenged reliable sources that actually link to text: Liberalism: old and new, Part 1, p 187, Peter Vallentyne, the best known form of libertarianism - right-libertarianism. So if this is the best known form, shouldn't it be here, and the rest on the disambiguation page? Darkstar1st (talk) 09:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

No. Your question itself defies any logical application of policy. There is NO policy which suggests that "an article with multiple prominent viewpoints must only cover the one that may be more popular than the others." If anything, this is the exact opposite of what policy actually tells us to do. BigK HeX (talk) 09:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

According to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC..."it is often the case that one of these topics is highly likely – much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined – to be the subject being sought when a reader enters that term in the Search box." Left-libertarianism and Anarcho-capitalism have absolutely no political prominence (relevance). We all know that the only politically relevant libertarian viewpoint is the one that supports private property and acknowledges the necessity of the state. Given its political relevance, that viewpoint is more likely than all the other viewpoints combined to be the subject that people are searching for. Therefore, it should be the primary topic of this article. --Xerographica (talk) 17:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Narrow (comment amended)

I am no fan of the left-right distinction regarding Libertarianism. However, it appears that some editors are pushing to retain a left-wing version of Libertarianism - namely, "left-Libertarianism" - within this article. As a result, the predominant version of Libertarianism has been relabeled "right-Libertarianism", (at least, it has for the purpose of this Wikipaedia talk page).

Right-Libertarianism is the predominant version of Libertarianism. Right-Libertarianism entails a minimalist State that limits its interference into the lives of its citizens to the protection of private property rights (including the enforcement of economic contracts) and the protection of its citizens from physical harm by crime and by war. Ultimately, right-Libertarianism seeks to maximise each person's Negative Liberty (see Isaiah Berlin's "Two Concepts of Liberty"). Right-Libertarianism is a fundamentally individualistic political philosophy that rejects paternalism and Welfarism out of hand. Indeed, it is a fundamental philosophical principle of right-Libertarianism that all conduct by the State be constrained by adherence to the Harm Principle (see John Stuart Mill.) Some philosophers would suggest that one of the distinctive flavours of right-Libertarianism is respect for the principle embodied by Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative, (however, many Libertarians - including many Ayn Rand Objectivists - would dispute this.)

The various forms of so-called left-Libertarianism are akin to variations of Anarchism, Socialism and Communism. Indeed, there is no left version of Libertarianism - there is only Libertarianism (being labeled "right-Libertarianism" here) and a cluster of Anarchist, Socialist and Communist ideologies that have appropriated the name "left-Libertarian" for their collective identity. Examples include:

Libertarian Socialism This is a ridiculously oxymoronic label. Further more, the group of political philosophies it is said to represent appears to have virtually nothing in common with Libertarianism (or Socialism). Indeed, Libertarian Socialism appears to be founded upon a deliberate and conscious opposition to Libertarianism and Socialism. In Particular, Libertarian Socialism prohibits "private property in the means of production", which is entirely inconsistent with one of the core principles of Libertarianism. To be clear, aside from the use of the word "Libertarian" in it's label, Libertarian Socialism has nothing to do with Libertarianism.

Anarcho-Capitalism While this philosophy has much in common with right-Libertarianism, it is, ultimately, a distinct form of Anarchism with a Wikipaedia page of its own. Personally, I do see enough shared commonalities between right-Libertarianism and Anarcho-capitalism to support the inclusion of some discussion of Anarcho-capitalism in the Libertarianism article. That said, Anarcho-capitalism has no place in the lede for the Libertarianism article.

For all practical purposes, it is beyond dispute that right-Libertarianism is clearly the predominant version of Libertarianism. A look at the references in this talk page make it abundantly clear that almost all the noteworthy generic reference tomes describe "Libertarianism" in terms akin to right-Libertarianism. The Encyclopædia Britannica is the world's foremost reliable source. Left-Libertarianism is notable for its absence from the article on Libertarianism in the Encyclopædia Britannica, which observes that:

"Libertarians are classical liberals who strongly emphasize the individual right to liberty. They contend that the scope and powers of government should be constrained so as to allow each individual as much freedom of action as is consistent with a like freedom for everyone else. Thus, they believe that individuals should be free to behave and to dispose of their property as they see fit, provided that their actions do not infringe on the equal freedom of others."

Significantly, the Encyclopædia Britannica's comprehensive article on Libertarianism contains no reference to left-Libertarianism, whatsoever. Meanwhile, while the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy does acknowledge the existence of left-Libertarianism, it recognises that left-Libertarianism is little more than an also-ran ideology: "in addition to the better-known version of libertarianism—right-libertarianism—there is also a version known as "left-libertarianism"."

Similarly, Peter Vallentyne and Hillel Steiner, two of the most recognisable left-Libertarians, have acknowledged that left-Libertarianism has significantly less prominence than "the more familiar right-libertarianism". (Peter Vallentyne and Hillel Steiner (2000). Left-Libertarianism and Its Critics: The Contemporary Debate. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 1).

Meanwhile, the so-called reliable sources of those advocating the inclusion of left-Libertarianism are little more than a collection of rhetoric by a self-congratulatory band of self-important left-wing academics who have made careers out of swapping their mutual endorsements as rewards for their deliberate obfuscation of the concept of "Libertarianism" in the minds of the ignorant. At best, many of the advocates of left-Libertarianism are simply Anarchists and/or Socialists who have tried to squeeze under the moral umbrella of "defenders of liberty/freedom", that is presented by the favoured "Libertarian" label, by misusing the contrivance of Isiaiah Berlin's Positive Liberty.

Right-libertarianism is entirely incompatible with left-Libertarianism to the extent that left-Libertarianism: endorses the Positive Liberty concept of "freedom", opposes private property rights, supports taxation (to support Welfarism etc), endorses the Machiavellian exploitation or sacrifice of the individual for the collective good, supports a sizable State apparatus that goes beyond that required to perform the functions of a Minarchist role for government, endorses coercion and paternalism in violation of the Harm Principle, endorses needs-based distributive justice (Marxism) and endorses egalitarian-based distributive justice. Any commonalities that left and right Libertarianism do share are trivial, at best. They are, to coin a phrase, as different as chalk and cheese. Indeed, the "liberty" endorsed by left-Libertarianism, such as it is, is virtually incommensurable with the "liberty" endorsed by right-Libertarianism - each embraces their own distinct flavour of freedom. Thus, any attempt to merge left and right Libertarianism into a single article Libertarianism article, where terms like "liberty" entail contradictory - nigh incommensurable - meanings, can only lead to confusion for the readers.

Further more, in practice, almost all the self-styled "Libertarian" political parties and political activist groups around the world advocate variations of right-Libertarianism, including the Libertarianz (sic) Party of New Zealand, the Libertarian Party of Canada, the Libertarian Party of the United Kingdom, the Russian Libertarian Movement and the Libertarian Party of the United States.

There is also an interesting statistical observation. It's is clear that the ideology of Libertarianism has widespread recognition. Indeed, the Libertarian candidates in US Presidential elections routinely gain hundreds of thousands of votes (Ed Clark won 921,128 votes in 1980 and Bob Barr won 523,686 votes in 2008). Further more, Google shows 3.4 million hits for "Libertarianism". But, for all this popular recognition of Libertarianism, Google shows only 32,700 hits for "left-Libertarianism", (that's less than 1%!). Evidently, left-Libertarianism is such a fringe ideology that even the Libertarians haven't noticed it.

Right-Libertarianism is the predominant version of Libertarianism. The variations of so-called left-Libertarianism belong on a separate disambiguation page. Indeed, the cynic in me would respectfully suggest that the so-called "left-Libertarianism" is little more than an exercise in Orwellian doublespeak designed to sabotage the Libertarianism article with pointless tangents that are designed to confuse and obstruct the curious reader. BlueRobe (talk) 11:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't how imagine the mainstream view of Libertarianism could be called "right". Don't know if you've ever seen the "square" used to explain / define it, but the social / behavior half it is the same as the left. North8000 (talk) 17:51, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

North8000, (I have assumed that you are responding to my post and have indented your post for the sake of appearances - please correct this if my assumption is mistaken, with my apologies.)

I don't have a strong belief that Libertarianism is right wing. Indeed, it's one of the great ironies of a simplistically linear left-right political spectrum that right-Libertarianism is regularly branded as extremely right-wing, alongside Nazism, while Socialism - the basic foundation for all authoritarian and totalitarian ideologies - is popularly labeled left-wing. Clearly, right-Libertarianism transcends the simplistic approach of a linear political spectrum, while left-Libertarianism is just a generic label for a cluster of Anarchist, Socialist and Communist ideologies.

I am familiar with the "square". As I have noted, the labels of "left-Libertarianism" and "right-Libertarianism" are being used in this discussion for the sake of mere convenience. Frankly, the vast majority of Libertarians would reject the labels of "left-Libertarianism" and "right-Libertarianism" because, quite simply, there is no left version of Libertarianism - there is only Libertarianism (being labeled "right-Libertarianism" here) and a cluster of Anarchist, Socialist and Communist ideologies that have appropriated the name "left-Libertarian". BlueRobe (talk) 23:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The link to Encyclopedia Britannica provided by Blue Robe says in the lead, "Libertarianism’s distrust of government is rooted in 19th-century anarchism." TFD (talk) 17:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Narrow

Even though libertarianism is socially liberal and economically conservative you would not say that it is a form of liberalism or a form of conservatism. Libertarianism is half liberalism and half conservatism. Anarcho-capitalism is half classical liberalism and half anarchism. It is not a form of libertarianism. Libertarian socialism is half socialism and half anarchism. It is not a form of libertarianism.

The distinctions are clear yet anarchists want to use this page to advertise their ideologies. They've gotten away with it for the past three years citing sources that give no indication to proper weight or relevance. The anarchists' views should solely be represented on the disambiguation page.

If people are interested in learning about Libertarian socialism or Anarcho-capitalism they would just google for those terms and find the wikipedia articles on those subjects. Why google for "libertarianism" if you are interested in learning about Anarcho-capitalism or Libertarian socialism? In mainstream media "libertarianism" is commonly understood to mean robust property rights, capitalism, social liberalism, free-markets and minimal government. This article should solely reflect mainstream usage. To do otherwise would give undue weight to extreme views. --Xerographica (talk) 13:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

They actually support economic liberalism not economic conservatism. TFD (talk) 14:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

You should have at least looked at the 2 references on the economic conservatism page before using that definition to support your "correction". Fiscal conservatism is synonymous with economic conservatism which is very similar to if not synonymous with economic liberalism and classical liberalism. The title of the economic liberalism article is misleading enough for some "less educated" person to think that economic conservatism had to mean the complete opposite...which you bought despite there not being a single reference supporting that definition. Liberals do not support classical liberalism while conservatives mostly do and libertarians certainly do. We have to say "economically conservative" because "economically liberal" implies the modern liberal approach to the economy which is state interventionism. --Xerographica (talk) 00:15, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

TFD, isn't it clear that Xerographica (and the Wikipaedia articles linked to) used the terms "liberal" and "conservative" as nouns, not as adjectives? I guess yours is just one more example of how vague terms like "liberal", "conservative", "left" and "right" just lead to more confusion. BlueRobe (talk) 00:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• Narrow

BlueRob is absolutely correct here; 'Libertarian socialism' is little more than anarchists trying to rebrand themselves. The predominant, almost universal libertarian ideology is 'Right-libertarianism'. Toa Nidhiki05 20:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

'Who is trying to do what' is not relevant. Do talk about it? The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy divides l. into right- and left-. The Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Thought divides l. into anarcho-capitalism and minarchism. Yet some people here want the article to only cover minarchism. This has been pointed out tens of times already! It is quite frustrating. (links: and ) N6n (talk) 10:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

"Libertarianism" should be construed broadly

• Broad. Because unchallenged reliable sources indicate that there exists a view that the anarchist and egalitarian understandings are merely variants encompassed by a more basic concept of "libertarianism", the article should discuss this understanding. Additionally, those wishing to strip this viewpoint have made no serious effort to show that people choosing to seek information on libertarianism would wish only right-libertarianism, and so much so that a censored right-libertarian article is "much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined – to be the subject being sought when a reader clicks the "Go" button for that term." Even further, having the wiki article encompass broad variations seems to be the convention pursued on basically every other article on political ideology having variants, even when the varying implementations may -- in some areas -- be in conflict with one another.

1. See Socialism which incorporates variations as conflicting as Marxist completely government-planned economies and anarchist completely government-less decentralized societies.
2. See Conservatism which has to incorporate material on both fiscal conservatives and social conservatives.
3. See Monarchy which has to give coverage to absolutist and constitutionally limited variants.

Given the commonplace treatment of this issue throughout Misplaced Pages, the reliable sources presented to indicate prominence, and the lack of strong reasons to censor the material, I think the matter was never really worthy of debate. BigK HeX (talk) 08:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Broad. WP:NPOV reads: All Misplaced Pages articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors. While some good issues have been raised re: sourcing, etc., the constant barage of soapbox and threats to gut the article have had disruptive effect of discouraging editing of whole article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:59, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Broad -- per TFD and CarolMooreDC. There are plenty of reliable sources that discuss left libertarianism, libertarian socialism, etc. Per WP:NPOV we should discuss those. All of the !voting, original research, and debate not backed by reliable sources above is irrelevant. Just take a look at left libertarianism or libertarian socialism and you can see that there are plenty of reliable sources talking about each. We will represent these views here per WP:NPOV, whether people who don't agree with these terms (or who think they are ridiculous, stupid, oxymoronic, etc.) like it or not. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 14:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Broad-- Libertarianism is a vague term with a long and complex history. It far pre-dates the adoption of the term by certain classical liberals in the 1950s. In the contemporary world many understand "libertarianism" as a socialist philosophy, especially outside of the United States. The only common thread is that libertarianism means advocacy of individual freedom. This article shouldn't adopt a narrow or partisan definition.

On a side note, it's disappointing that many of the comments under this heading are devoted to bickering about the phrasing of the question, rather than addressing the substantive problem. Everyone recognises that free-market "libertarianism" contains both right- and left-wing ideas. The term "right libertarianism" arises from the fact that free-market "libertarianism" is obviously to the right of "left libertarianism".

On this talkpage we clearly need some sort of neutral terms to distinguish the different philosophies that call themselves libertarian. If you don't like "right libertarianism" please suggest a better alternative. Iota (talk) 19:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

• Broad-- All WP:NOTABLE political ideologies that grouped by reliable sources under the unmbrella term libertarianism ought to be included. NickCT (talk) 19:52, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
• Broad-- All versions are notable, all are grouped together by reliable sources. No NPOV reason has yet been given for the narrow approach. Zazaban (talk) 01:02, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

While the provided left-Libertarian sources are relevant to the proposition that left-Libertarianism exists, they are not reliable sources for the proposition that left-Libertarianism is a prominent (let alone, the predominant) version of Libertarianism. Indeed, most of them do not even appear to address the issue of left-Libertarianism's prominence as a form of Libertarianism at all. Further more, as has been shown by myself (above), even the Vallentyne and Steiner source suggests that, when compared with right-Libertarianism, left-Libertarianism is, at best, an obscure version of Libertarianism, (even if one accepts the dubious proposition that left-Libertarianism truly is a version of Libertarianism). The advocates of the broad construction of the Libertarianism article, who are endlessly repeating their mantra about reliable sources, need to recognise that their so-called reliable sources have missed the mark by a wide margin.

Seriously, how many of you have even examined the so-called reliable sources you keep referring to? BlueRobe (talk) 05:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe anyone here has ever claimed that left-libertarianism is the predominant form of libertarianism, which would be incorrect. Zazaban (talk) 05:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

TFD, BigK HeX, Carolmooredc, Jrtayloriv, Iota, NickCT and Zazaban, please show us where your so-called "reliable sources" indicate that left-Libertarianism is a prominent version of Libertarianism.

From my examination of them, they do little more than merely refer to left-Libertarianism. As such, they are not reliable sources for the proposition that left-Libertarianism is a prominent version of Libertarianism. BlueRobe (talk) 06:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Evidence alone is enough to reasonably support the idea of left-libertarianism being prominent. Otsuka's book on left-libertarianism has over 100 citations. IMO, only unreasonable POV pushing editors would disregard such evidence of a viewpoint's prominence. BigK HeX (talk) 14:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Here is a link to a book about British left-libertarians: William Morris, Oscar Wilde]], George Orwell, Aldous Huxley and others - all prominent and arguably more so than David Nolan and Harry Browne. TFD (talk) 15:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

So which are you saying?:

1. Left-Libertarianism should be covered.
2. The overall article wording and coverage should accept the premise that tha "right" and "left" classifications are legit, useful or accepted by practitioners with respect to the most prevalent forms of Libertarianism?

North8000 (talk) 15:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Not to speak for TFD, but we've been pretty consistent in saying:

1. Reliable sources show Left-Libertarianism as a prominent view, and thus policy demands that it should be covered.
2. The overall article wording and coverage should discuss the "right" and "left" classifications, since it is prominent in reliable source. Whether they are legit, useful or accepted by practitioners with respect to the most prevalent forms of Libertarianism is immaterial to whether the classifications get discussed at all. With reliable sources, we can make sure to even cover whether the classifications are "legit, useful, or accepted" . But, this is mostly irrelevant to the fact that the article should give coverage to the classification in some manner or another. BigK HeX (talk) 15:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Left and right are used, even if we don't like it. So it is up to us to find and integrate WP:RS for other descriptions used by self-described libertarians, be they spectrums of statist to anti-statist, pro and anti-property, more individualist to more collectivist, or other categories I'll add as I think of them. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

The last two commenters said that #1 should happen. But both evaded directly answering the question #2. I think that a straight answer to #2 would help sort this out. North8000 (talk) 22:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

North8000, as even most self-declared Libertarians had never even heard of left-Libertarianism before seeing Wikipaedia's Libertarianism article, I don't see how the TFD and BigK HeX (etc.) could possibly claim that the ""right" and "left" classifications are legit, useful or accepted by practitioners". BlueRobe (talk) 00:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

That may be because we read books rather than polling people who think they are libertarians. A lot of people call themselves liberals and conservatives too without knowing what those terms mean. TFD (talk) 00:21, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, right...because nobody at CNN or NPR reads books. Or maybe they read books, poll people and have common sense. --Xerographica (talk) 01:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

• Broad -- Our goal is not to look good or coherent or sensible. Our goal is to represent whatever 'libertarianism' means. If RS talk about contradictory views, then we talk about contradictory views. If RS confuse the issue, then we confuse the issue. N6n (talk) 11:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• Broad -- Because the history of the libertarian movement itself is broad. Because libertarianism is not just a narrow ideological doctrine, but a movement with a history and a rich variety of views. Because the mid-20th-century libertarian revival came out of a productive ideological exchange between minarchists, individualist anarchists, disaffected conservatives, and the New Left: i.e. because Murray Rothbard, Karl Hess, and Samuel Konkin worked together. Because you can't tell the early history of libertarianism without Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker, who were not rightists. Because defining the agorists, the geolibertarians, the individualist anarchists as "not libertarian" merely because they aren't rightists (or propertarians) is mere factionalism. Because those who seek to exclude left-libertarianism generally don't even know what it is. Oh ... and because reliable sources, scholars of the subject, talk about all this. --FOo (talk) 18:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Fubar, do you agree we should merge this article with the disambiguation page which has the exact same terms listed? Darkstar1st (talk) 18:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't object to the existence of a dab page listing various senses of the term, but it doesn't really seem necessary -- the only sense that really needs disambiguating is the metaphysical free-will one (antonym of "determinist"). My point is that this article should not adopt the viewpoint of a particular faction of the diverse libertarian movement, but should deal with the whole zucchini. --FOo (talk) 22:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

• Broad, as it is described in sources. TFD (talk) 11:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Support for Neither/Other

Comments by uninvolved outsiders

What do you mean by "uninvolved"? Anybody who looks enough at this to make an intelligent comment is no longer "uninvolved". North8000 (talk) 09:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Usually, it means editors who haven't actually been changing the article to reflect one view or the other -- even better, if you've had little previous interaction with the editors who have been editing the article recently. BigK HeX (talk) 09:57, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Well I guess that's me.

Faulty question The question presumes a (IMHO wrong) answer to the biggest open question. By most frameworks, Libertarianism is DEFINED by being neither "left" nor "right". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:05, 27 August 2010 (UTC) Lifelong avid party-less libertarian

I think you've answered a bit too quickly. Whether libertarianism "properly" resides on the left/right/neither end of the spectrum is not really the question here. Whether the labels are misleading or not, there actually are understandings called Left libertarianism and Right libertarianism. Editors on this page have been pushing to have the article narrowed to include only information about libertarianism which would likely be classified a some implementation of Right libertarianism. The question here is how the views of reliable sources should be treated. How would stripping the article down to a much narrower discussion of Libertarianism affect the article's compliance with the Due/Undue Weight policy.

I didn't get into coverage or non-coverage of all significant viewpoints, if only as such. I, in essence said that the wording of the question presupposes invalidity of widest held viewpoint, that Libertarianism is by definition neither left nor right. North8000 (talk) 10:56, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Excellent point I've stuck in the article myself, but it needs to be more of a lead concept. Getting some similar quotes from lefty libs would help (Greens are only ones who also have used that concept and some of them a libertarian socialists.) More on the statist - anti-statist spectrum would help and there doubtless are some WP:RS on that if we look. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:02, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I hope to read all three of the articles over the next few days in order to give a thoughtful informed answer. But here's my quick thoughts at the moment. Our mission should be to provide an informative article, and a part of that is to explore and inform on all significant meanings of the term that are somewhat related. And so all of these things that everybody is talking about here should be covered. That said, since the terms "right" and "left" are fundamentally faulty with respect to the most common meanings of the term "Libertarian" you've got to get away from such classifications and purge them from the main coverage. Just cover what those who significantly use those terms mean by them. I've been an avid Libertarian for many decades, and I never heard of of "right libertarian" and "left libertarian" until a few days ago when I jumped down the rabbit hole of this trio of articles. North8000 (talk) 18:14, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The labels you speak of are largely the result of partisan bickering of the kind seen here. Zazaban (talk) 20:58, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

North8000, I'd never heard of those labels either before reading this article a month or so ago. Let me get you up to speed. We're talking about two different left/right concepts. As you've mentioned, the common left/right concept does not apply to libertarianism. What's referred to in this article is the uncommon left/right concept which refers to social anarchism {Libertarian socialism} on the left, libertarianism in the middle and capitalist anarchism {Anarcho-capitalism} on the right. Carolmooredc is an anarchist, BigK HeX can't distinguish between reliable and relevant sources and TFD doesn't believe that libertarians are economically conservative. --Xerographica (talk) 23:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Libertarians are not economically conservative or conservative in any way. Right-libertarians for example are economically liberal. TFD (talk) 18:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

North8000, you're not alone. I'd never heard of left-Libertarianism before seeing the Wikipaedia Libertarianism article, either. Most Libertarians are in the same boat. Interestingly, while Google shows 3.4 million hits for "Libertarianism", it shows only 32,700 hits for "left-Libertarianism". Evidently, left-Libertarianism is such a fringe ideology that even the Libertarians haven't noticed it. BlueRobe (talk) 00:17, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Writers use terms in order to describe different takes of ideologies. for example, the competing ideologies in the U. S. are called Whig/democrat, Girondin/Jacobin, conservative/liberal, liberal/radical, right/left, right liberal/left liberal, conservative liberal/social liberal, constitutional/civic, etc. But no one disputes that there are ideological differences between the two camps. TFD (talk) 04:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Your comment contains an implied premise that the various opinions can be described as "two camps". This premise is unestablished at best, and IMHO, wrong. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:24, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Wrong or not, that is how these topics are treated in the literature. TFD (talk) 14:43, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you you are blending two different questions....."suitable to be covered" vs. accepting your implied "division" premise. By "treated in literature" are you saying that

1. There is significant coverage in literature of "right-libertarian" and "left libertarian"
2. That literature pervasively says that mainstream Libertarianism divides itself into those 2 camps.

Your premise relies on #2 being the case, which IMHO is certainly not the case. North8000 (talk) 15:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

"I'd never heard of left-Libertarianism" And this proves something? Hail the omniscient beings! N6n (talk) 16:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Obviously a single statement like that does not "prove" anything so that's sort of a straw man statement. But it does reinforce that such a term or categorization has nothing to do with the common meanings / practices of the term. North8000 (talk) 16:47, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) To me this appears to be a case of determining, if left/right libertarianism are forms of libertarianism. In that case, treating them in the same article would make sense (if they're independently notable, they might additionally have articles of their own). If on the other hand e.g. left-libertarianism would be an ideology that isn't a sub-unit of libertarianism, then it would IMO make sense to have a disambiguation link here/elsewhere pointing to that article. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 20:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Dailycare, left-Libertarianism is certainly not a "sub-unit of libertarianism". If anything, it is a hybrid/sub-unit of Anarchism, Communism and Socialism. The only reason that left-Libertarianism (aka Libertarian Socialism) even has the word "Libertarian" in its title is because of an archaic use of that word by some revolutionary Anarchist groups in the 19th century. BlueRobe (talk) 03:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

@North8000: Only statements of the form "I have studied libertarianism diligently, and I never heard of left-libertarianism" makes sense. Yet such a statement would be false, a simple www search proves that. The motives or the intelligence of those talking about 'left-libertarian' doesn't concern us. N6n (talk) 04:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

N6n, as i have noted previously: Google shows 3.4 million hits for "Libertarianism". But, Google shows only 32,700 hits for "left-Libertarianism", (that's less than 1%!). BlueRobe (talk) 06:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Your use of those numbers is quite illogical. BigK HeX (talk) 06:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The Kakapo is a native bird of New Zealand (an insignificant country with a population of only 4 million). The Kakapo gets 1,330,000 hits on Google. "Left-Libertarianism" gets only 32,700 hits. Clearly, left-Libertarianism is a fringe ideology. BlueRobe (talk) 06:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

What is your point? Let's just get to the heart of it. What will it take for you to stop incessantly harping on this subject? If I take the Google logic, and personally use it to make sure that left-libertarianism is not getting more weight than it's supposed to -- relative to "common US libertarianism" as you called it above (or right-libertarianism, as you also called it) -- would you just start harping on something else ... or actually give the article a rest for a few months? BigK HeX (talk) 06:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

BigK HeX, I am making constructive commentary in an effort to remedy the utter absurdity of Libertarianism sharing equal prominence with left-Libertarianism (etc) on the Wikipaedia Libertarianism page. Here's my solution: left-Libertarianism goes on the "left-Libertarianism" Wikipaedia page (which already exists, along with separate Libertarian Socialism and Social anarchism pages); and Libertarianism occupies the "Libertarianism" Wikipaedia page.

It is absolutely astounding that Libertarianism has been relegated to the status of an also-ran ideology, on its own Wikipaedia page, just so it can share the page with an ideology that already has multiple Wikipaedia pages of its own. BlueRobe (talk) 07:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

And you're telling us that left-libertarianism is an "also-ran ideology" based on ... what? The Google hits thing? BigK HeX (talk) 07:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Based on the reliable sources that I have provided in my extensive post that I atttached to my "narrow" vote (above). For goodness sake, the Encyclopædia Britannica doesn't even recognise it. My references to Google are just a little spice to inject some common sense where reasoned argument has failed.

Seriously, what is so wrong with the idea that left-Libertarianism goes on the "left-Libertarianism" Wikipaedia page while Libertarianism goes on the "Libertarianism" page? BlueRobe (talk) 07:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Libertarian socialism is not an ideology, it is an umbrella term used to describe, among other things, Anarchism, socialism, and communism. Since it is not an ideology, it has no place on an ideology page; I would understand adding it if this were a disambiguation page, but it is not. This deserves little more than a trivia note and a link, if anything.

On another note, expecting equal coverage of it on this page is absurd, seeing as it is neither an ideology, nor is it even a common term. If someone walked up to you and said 'I'm a Libertarian', would you not automatically assume they are what this website calls 'Right-libertarian'? Unless stated otherwise, the word 'Libertarian' is almost always used to refer to the 'Right-Libertarian' ideology. Toa Nidhiki05 17:19, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The issue is not giving "left libertarianism/libertarian socialism" as much weight, since it's pretty much agreed per WP:RS that they are less well known world wide. The issue is whether to completely eliminate them from the article, which is against NPOV policy. FYI. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

arbitrary break

This looks like a tertiary source on the subject, and it says that left- and right-libertarianism are versions of libertarianism. Now if left-libertarianism is a minority view (this depends on the weights in WP:RS, in fact that source seems to say that it is a minority view) then it can have a relatively short passage in this article, with a link to the left-libertarianism article. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 07:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Dailycare, that sounds agreeable to me. A small section, (with a link and a few sentences over 2 or 3 paragraphs) where left-Libertarianism is defined and juxtaposed against Libertarianism with regards to its key differences (such as communal versus individual property rights and the differences regarding the role and size of government), sounds very reasonable to me. Obviously, left-Libertarianism has no place in the lede. BlueRobe (talk) 07:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It already has a short passage in the article. I don't see it reasonably needing to be cut further. BigK HeX (talk) 07:53, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It currently has a lot more than that. Indeed, the term "left-Libertarianism" occurs equally as often as "right-Libertarianism" on the Libertarianism page. BlueRobe (talk) 08:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

My point stands. Its passage is ALREADY SHORT. BigK HeX (talk) 14:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Your point fails. "Left-Libertarianism" is not limited to the small passage you refer to. It is expressly referred to all through the Libertarianism page, including the lede. BlueRobe (talk) 22:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh.. you're referring to the portions of the article discussing the broad swath of libertarian history and the part that is supposed to summarize the contents of the article??? My point stands. BigK HeX (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

<backdent>While earlier versions of the lead did have too much about left libertarianism, currently it is more proportional. The bigger issue is that anarchism vs. minarchism should come first and economic issues that separate "left-right" or whatever you want to call the divisions over property should come second. That is what would be logical in an anti-state philosophy article. My flooded cellar is almost clean and I've finished resodding the yard, so I may yet get there with certain changes I'm half way finished with throughout article that will clarify all points. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

My experience on these kind of discussions is that it's sometimes easier to discuss a specific edit than to agree that "viewpoint x" should have less weight in the article. --Dailycare (talk) 21:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Trend of RfC

Not sure how long this is supposed to go on, but I do think it is significant that after 2 whole days we have 8 explicitly signed on in bold for broad and 2 for narrow, with a few who may having problems with the definitions of terms and thus did not explicitly sign on. Can we at least start to think about dropping the constant demands that most forms of libertarianism be dropped from the article? If the disambiguation page is redundant to this article, that's a topic for its talk page, not this one. It has been a very lean disambiguation page in the past and could be again, if people insisted. (I myself did in the past, but now don't really care.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:34, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

disagree, instead we should proceed to arbitration, as it is obvious no consensus, and mediation would yield little result. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:41, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Carolmooredc, I count 5 people supporting the narrow construction and 8 people supporting the broad construction. BlueRobe (talk) 02:45, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Then, perhaps count better...? BigK HeX (talk) 03:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I now see 3 boldly declaring narrow; 8 boldly declaring broad, and 1 without the bold declaring "Broad." And still a few who haven't explicitly declared. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Is there anybody who can clarify the core issue of this dispute? (CORE ISSUE, not talking points) Is it:

1. Folks who want to have / not have coverage of what some folks mean by "left / right Libertarianism?"
2. Folks who want to / not to continue to categorize / name mainstream Libertarianism as left/right Libertarianism? (IMHO a conflict with reality)
3. Some people-dynamics issue not driven by any fundamental dispute?
4. Some right or left or liberal or conservative persons wishing to further their causes via how this article or trio of articles is written?
5. Something else

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration does not consider content dispute and since only a few editors reject the overwhelming consensus that the article should be about libertarianism as it is described in reliable sources, the issue would seem to have been decided. TFD (talk) 22:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Anyone care to provide an answer? North8000 (talk) 22:55, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

5. Whether to define the topic based on how it is normally described in academic sources or to use the definition used in popular U. S. sources. The second approach would exclude some of the theories in academic sources but may include other theories that academic sources exclude. However, the "narrow" supporters have not presented a source for what the limits of libertarianism are. TFD (talk) 23:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

North8000, the basic issue is this: Should the Libertarianism Wikipaedia article include both right-Libertarianism (where this term does not enjoy popular usage and is used here solely to distinguish Libertarianism from left-Libertarianism in this talk page) and left-Libertarianism, or should discussion of left-Libertarianism be removed from the main Wikipaedia article and listed on the Libertarianism disambiguation page? Note that left-Libertarianism already has at least three separate Wikipaedia articles: Libertarian Socialism, left-Libertarianism and Social anarchism). I hope this helps. BlueRobe (talk) 00:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you to both of you.

1. So I assume that there is nobody specifically arguing for calling the common US Libertarianism "right" Libertarianism?
2. Is somebody arguing that common US Libertarianism be given a specialty name so as downplay or avoid the concept that it is the "main" form?

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

No. 5: People who want only minimal state pro-property views mentioned at all in the article for any country, despite WP:NPOV policy calling for mentioning "all significant views that have been published by reliable sources." They don't want to call it "right" they just want it to be the only form mentioned at all. They have been soapboxing about it disruptively for 8 months, including through personal attacks and as Anon IPs, new editors (once anonymous IPs banned) and a couple of sock puppets. People who want their way and think badgering other editors, even when they are in a small minority, is the way to go. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:59, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

North8000, the common US Libertarianism is right-Libertarianism and is the predominant version of Libertarianism. Indeed, if common US Libertarianism is not representative of Libertarianism, then I don't know what is (unless I have completely misunderstodd what you mean by "common US Libertarianism"). BlueRobe (talk) 02:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I think that we are saying the same thing. The only slight difference is that I was pointing out that adding an adjective ( e.g. "right") makes is sound less like the main one. North8000 (talk) 10:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

We have the same problem with the term Liberalism which in the U. S. typically refers to one type of liberalism. The other type is usually called "Conservatism". But that does not mean we re-write those articles to reflect what the average American thinks they mean. TFD (talk) 16:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

North8000, I completely agree. I don't like the use of "right-Libertarianism" at all. But, sometimes we do so in the Libertarianism talk pages (only) simply to distinguish it from left-Libertarianism during discussions/threads about left-Libertarianism. Otherwise, I would never think of using that term. BlueRobe (talk) 22:32, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Which just makes the point that their are sufficient WP:RS for both variants to be included in this article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

North8000, note there is an article called Libertarianism in the United States. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

LK, no one is denying that left-Libertarianism exists. What is at issue is the excessive weight given to left-Libertarianism in the Libertarianism page.

While we have used terms like "right-Libertarianism" for the clarification of discussions in this talk page, that term has no relevance in the real world. And frankly, even referring to left-Libertarianism as being a "version" of Libertarianism is absurd. It is not a version of Libertarianism - it's a completely separate Anarchist/Socialist/Communist ideology that has nothing in to do with the predominant concept of Libertarianism.

I have absolutely no doubt, whatsoever, that Libertarians around the world will be shocked and appalled at the prominence of left-Libertarianism on the Libertarianism page, and that can only bring Wikipaedia into disrepute. BlueRobe (talk) 03:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

BlueRobe: The issue is not weight (except here and there in lead for me anyway when it got to weighty) as much as whether these topics should ever be mentioned at all. That's what the last 8 months of soapboxing and harassment have been about. If it was just weight, the issue would have been resolved long ago. So LK's characterization in original RfC was correct. As was his merely pointing out both terms are used widely. (The new smoke screen of "neither left nor right" is just another ploy to get an "left" or socialist libertarianism out of the article. I'm the one who keeps putting in the refs for neither left nor right; got a new one in fact.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The weight issue is incredibly relevant. "Left-Libertarianism" is mentioned equally as often as right-Libertarianism. This is utterly absurd! It's akin to referring to "God" equally as often as "the big bang" on The Big Bang Wikipaedia page. Lord knows, it would have enough reliable sources to justify putting God on the page. BlueRobe (talk) 01:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Weight would be judged by total number of words and on that score pro-property free market libertarianism is mentioned far more in whole article. After all that's the way I wrote a lot of it to be. (Others have put in some more lefty stuff, but not much. And some marketeers have even demanded that the box requesting more info on collectivists be left in. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

RFC conclusion

Looks like things are winding down for the RfC with involved editors going off onto different threads and topics, so let's go through the RfC.

Of those supporting some form of narrow writing of the libertarianism article, we have:

1. Darkstar1st suggests that anything other than the best-known form of libertarianism should be on a disambiguation page.
2. BlueRobe's original response looked like nothing but a huge Wall-O'-Soapboxing, and after the constant barrage of that over the last few weeks, I certainly am not motivated to go through his amended (i.e., expanded) comments.
3. Xerographica introduced some sort of unsourced philosophizing about links to classical liberalism. He tells us (without sources) that "In mainstream media 'libertarianism' is commonly understood to mean robust property rights, capitalism, social liberalism, free-markets and minimal government." Taking a less-objectionable meaning, that "the mainstream media in the United States uses the term libertarianism to describe 'robust property rights, capitalism, social liberalism, free-markets and minimal government'", only leaves us with a faulty argument for support of Xerographica's wishes, since nothing about that assertion would demand exclusivity. (Similarly, one could say "the mainstream media in the United States uses the term 'minorities' to refer to certain non-Whites," but trying to argue that "minorities" almost always means non-Whites (or even most often means non-Whites) is clearly fallacious. So, in the end, I'm not sure we can glean a productive suggestion from Xerographica's comment.
4. We have Toa_Nidhiki05 who gives us his personal assurances that the "almost universal libertarian ideology is 'Right-libertarianism'".

From the comments I went through, the theme of arguments for a narrow writing of the article seems to be varying arguments that hope to invoke WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.

Twice as many editors support a "broad" writing of the libertarianism article, many citing the presence of such understandings in multiple RS's. The arguments for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC have been rejected as editors have failed to show why the understandings of reliable sources on the topic of Libertarianism should be dismissed in the article on Libertarianism, and certainly no actual evidence has been presented to support the contention that only minarchist right-libertarianism is the topic that "is highly likely – much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined – to be the subject being sought when a reader enters that term in the Search box."

My conclusion from the RfC is that editors understand WP:DUE to be part of Misplaced Pages's policy pillars and applicable here. Obviously, there's no overriding consensus here to overturn the application of that policy on this matter. Indeed, consensus seems to recognize non-minarchist right-libertarianism as philosophies described in various WP:RS's. We are deciding a binary question here, so we can either have a very narrow article focused solely on minarchist right-libertarianism or not. Editors who have commented seem to overwhelmingly oppose the narrow view. The RfC should be closed as "Broad" and all of the soapboxing in reaction to the braod understanding should cease immediately upon closure. BigK HeX (talk) 22:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Good summary. And I'll become a vegan and lose 50 lbs if last sentence happens :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 22:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

While we're at it, I'd like a million dollars, a castle in France, and for Oscar Wilde to turn up alive and well. Zazaban (talk) 23:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Reliable sources all indicate that right-libertarianism is the best known version. How well known? It is the only version found when searching CNN/NPR. The wikipedia policy of undue weight clearly indicates that proportion of coverage should reflect prominence. The prominence of the right-libertarianism viewpoint eclipses left-libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism to such an extent that it should be the primary topic for this article. Political relevance is the equivalent of prominence when the topic is a political ideology.

The burden of proof is a two way street. Please provide reliable evidence that indicates the prominence of left-libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism within libertarianism in order to justify the proportion of coverage you feel that they should receive in this article. The only evidence you have supplied thus far is that Chomsky has 100,000 plus fans on facebook. That is only evidence of his prominence within left-libertarianism but does not indicate in any way how prominent left-libertarianism is within libertarianism.

Many reliable sources compare modern liberalism with libertarianism. That in no way indicates that libertarianism is as prominent as modern liberalism. Who do left-libertarians vote for? They vote for the democratic party if anybody. Who do anarcho-capitalists vote for? They don't vote, they sit at home fantasizing over a hypothetical button that when pushed would abolish government in one fell swoop. --Xerographica (talk) 23:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

RE: "It is the only version found when searching CNN/NPR"

No one believed this blatant OR last time, and that is unlikely to change. In any case, you've already stated your case. I'm unsure why you're trying to do so again. BigK HeX (talk) 00:11, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Nobody believed that right-libertarianism is the only version found when searching CNN/NPR? The undue weight policy clearly states that viewpoints should be covered in proportion to their prominence. Since you want to include the left-libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism viewpoints then the burden of proof is on you to provide sufficient evidence justifying the proportion of coverage that they receive in this article. --Xerographica (talk) 00:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Already done! The multitude of RS's provided show that the proportion is significantly GREATER THAN ZERO. Thus, this libertarianism article will include it. The community overwhelmingly agrees with this. BigK HeX (talk) 00:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, so would you be willing to add equal weight to the Flat Earth psuedoscience theory on the 'Earth ' page, or add equal coverage to the 20% of people that think NASA faked the moon landings, or add equal weight on the Obama page to those that think he is a Muslim, communist non-citizen? Of course not; the WP:Due Weight Policy is designed to prevent this type of junk from happening. Toa Nidhiki05 00:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Comparing the minority viewpoint of libertarianism to the nearly unanimous, scientific understanding of geophysics is a stretch beyond any utility. Trying to complain about a viewpoint being minority within an already minority topic is fairly useless. So, to answer a more appropriate question ... YES, I think that the Square Flat Earther's might deserve coverage alongside the Oval Flat Earther's viewpoints in the Flat Earth article.

More seriously, your analogy to Flat Earth did not persuade most of the community whose input we've received. BigK HeX (talk) 00:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

For goodness sake, BigK HeX, the number of editors polled barely reached double figures and half of the "broad" voters were one-off contributors who had never commented before, or since, and only entered the discussion because they were conscripted for the purpose of throwing a couple of Molotov cocktail's for their left-wing causes. Let's not pretend that the poll results were statistically significant.

Further more, it is absurd to suggest that, with regard to the number of people/RS who think left-Libertarianism is a prominent form of Libertarianism, "the proportion is significantly GREATER THAN ZERO". A handful of crackpots misrepresenting themselves, and Libertarianism, may amount to "GREATER THAN ZERO", but that is not nearly enough to make them reliable or give their views equal weight within the Libertarianism article. Frankly, your claims are so utterly ridiculous that I get the distinct impression that the true Libertarians contributing to this talk page are being "punked". Where's Ashton Kutcher? BlueRobe (talk) 01:19, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, read WP:No personal attacks. Warnings and sanctions can result if it continues. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:45, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Without the personal attacks and other amusing histrionics, please do state specifically which "crackpots" you are referring to. Name some names and associated publications. Go. BigK HeX (talk) 02:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Just a clarifying note, outside opinions are valued specifically because they are outside the debate, and can see and comment on issues without bias. The opinions of established editors uninvolved in the debate are not to be disparaged as 'fly by night'. See WP:30 and WP:RFC, for how Misplaced Pages uses outside opinions to establish consensus in a debate. The only time this is not true is if there has been canvassing to stack the debate. I have been (quietly) policing the debate, and as far as I can see, this has not occurred. The only troubling thing so far is the appearance of new editors on this page, who edit daily and are apparently experienced with Misplaced Pages. LK (talk) 05:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

• Xerograpica, BlueRobe, Darkstar1st, Tao_Nidhiki05 -- Narrow.
• BigK HeX, CarolMooreDC, Jrtayloriv, lota, NickCT, Zazaban, N6n, FOo & TFD -- Broad.

The only argument offered for the 'narrow' viewpoint is that this is what (according to the people supporting 'narrow') the mass-media talk about.

This settles the Rfc for me. I wont enter this debate again. N6n (talk) 14:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

N6n, that is a singularly dishonest representation of the discussion. Shame on you. BlueRobe (talk) 15:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

"RfCs are not votes. Discussion controls the outcome; it is not a matter of counting up the number of votes." Actual discussion is still evenly split. Half of those engaged in actual discussion want this page to cover numerous ideologies (anarchism, anarcho-capitalism, left-libertarianism, libertarian socialism, etc) and the other half only want this page to cover a single ideology...libertarianism. Based on the name of this page, it's amazing that this is even a topic of debate. --Xerographica (talk) 15:15, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you get the impression that this is all part of some really elaborate bad joke and someone is about to jump in with the punchline? BlueRobe (talk) 15:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, when I read your Ashton Kutcher comment I'm glad I wasn't drinking anything or else I would have spewed it everywhere. --Xerographica (talk) 15:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be under the misimpression that endless soapboxing on a topic is equivalent to editors listing their views in a short and sweet version consistent with policy. Why not just work on Libertarianism in the United States and promote that all over the internet. (Of course, don't forget Murray Rothbard and the legions of anarcho-capitalists.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Undo weight in the lede

undo weight in the lede most of the lede is spent on an identity crisis over left/right, minarchist/anarchist, terms most libertarians have never heard. no one denies they exist, but rather if the majority of people searching libertarian on wp are looking for a form of socialism, anarchy, or a limited government and lower taxes. Darkstar1st (talk) 04:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I think at least one sentence on each topic belongs in the lead, perhaps more. I've repeatedly asked you to just put up a draft of how you think it should look, but don't remember you having done so/ Nor doing I remember your making any such substantive edits. Refresh my memory if you have. I just remember constant unrelenting soapboxing about how neither anarchism nor left libertarianism belong in the article at all. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

carol, for the record, we have all heard you on soapboxing, in an effort to save time, i will consider all of your future comments to imply this when speaking to me. my initial draft would simply be to remove the last 3 sentences. the lede appears to be arguing with itself over the very definition. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

First, to address another issue you wonder if if the majority of people searching libertarian on wp are looking for a form of socialism, anarchy, or a limited government and lower taxes. Misplaced Pages is not here to confirm people's pre-judgements, but to teach them about a subject. That's my interest.

Second, soapboxing is just opining. Providing a draft means proposing language with references. I just don't remember seeing any of that, unless it got lost in the soapboxing. Feel free to provide a link. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:40, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

1st, actually, wp is here to provide the mainstream view most people expect when they search a term, wp is not here to teach people to think differently about the term they searched. 2nd, my draft uses the exist source, Websters. again, we heard you on soapboxing the 1st 437 times you used the term since 2008. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

1. WP may teach people to think differently if they are thinking from one narrow viewpoint because they are ignorant of other existing views. 2. Where is your draft?? Article diff or talk page?? I have no idea. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

wp is not here to cure ignorance of terms related to libertarian, rather provide the definition the most people are trying to find when searching the term. my draft: "Libertarianism is advocacy of individual liberty; libertarians generally share a distinct regard for individual freedom of thought and action, as well as a strong opposition to coercive authority, such as that of the state." Darkstar1st (talk) 05:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

With regard to the lede, only one sentence addresses Libertarianism, and the remaining 3 sentences harp on about alleged divisions within Libertarianism. Meanwhile, the lede makes no mention of the sanctity of private property rights, the Harm Principle or Negative liberty - the three main features that define Libertarianism. How is that representative of Libertarianism? This is simply ridiculous. BlueRobe (talk) 09:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

(added later) I agree 100% North8000 (talk) 13:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Darkstar1st and the lead, I think it's appropriate to note that it was initially Darkstar1st's idea to gut the lead. If anyone has a problem with the lead being so short, well .... BigK HeX (talk) 13:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

After all of above (which really is concrete editing stuff so I gave it own section) I'll agree that There are also broad areas of disagreement among libertarians. can be eliminated as being unnecessarily editorial and somewhat redundant. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Carolmooredc, in that case, I'll draft a new lede, and ask for feedback, sometime in the next few days. Although, to be quite frank, I'll be stunned if you don't object to a lede that isn't rife with Anarchism and left-Libertarianism. BlueRobe (talk) 06:35, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I agreed with removing one sentence from yesterday's lead, not anything you might write in the future. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Surely, even you lefties can't be happy with such an impoverished lede...? As it stands, it would barely rate a passing grade for the essay of a 14 year old student. BlueRobe (talk) 10:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Prominence of Viewpoints

According to WP:UNDUE..."Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint, giving them "due weight". It is important to clarify that articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held views; generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all."

Reliable sources clearly indicate the various definitions of Libertarianism are not equally prominent. Yet, the lead and body of this article gives equal coverage to less prominent definitions. When confronted with this problem BigK HeX responded..."Thanks, we've got it covered in the article with, "Right-libertarianism is thought to be better known than left-libertarianism"".

It seems that BigK HeX and others do not understand the concept of proportion. The easiest way to think of proportion is to think of a pie. If reliable sources indicate that one definition is the best known definition then that definition is the largest slice of pie. In other words, it should receive the most coverage in this article. Given that reliable sources and the results for CNN/NPR support the prominence of a single definition (a widely held view) then the other definitions should not be covered in the lead and should only receive proportional coverage in the article.

Libertarianism is founded on classical liberalism. From Omnipotent Government By Ludwig Von Mises...here is the classical liberal view on Anarcho-capitalism and Left-libertarianism / Libertarian socialism...

Liberalism differs radically from anarchism. It has nothing in common with the absurd illusions of the anarchists. We must emphasize this point because etatists sometimes try to discover a similarity. Liberalism is not so foolish as to aim at the abolition of the state. Liberals fully recognize that no social coöperation and no civilization could exist without some amount of compulsion and coercion. It is the task of government to protect the social system against the attacks of those who plan actions detrimental to its maintenance and operation.

The essential teaching of liberalism is that social coöperation and the division of labor can be achieved only in a system of private ownership of the means of production, i.e., within a market society, or capitalism. All the other principles of liberalism - democracy, personal freedom of the individual, freedom of speech and of the press, religious tolerance, peace among the nations - are consequences of this basic postulate. They can be realized only within a society based on private property.

The necessity of the state, private property, capitalism and free markets are all tenets that Libertarians hold dear. Those tenets combined constitute a widely held and very prominent view. It is so widely held that dedicating any less than 95% of this article to those views would be giving undue weight to very minority views. That means that no more than 5 out of every 100 sentences should be dedicated to minority views. Currently this article gives equal weight (coverage) to minority views in blatant and deliberate disregard for the NPOV policy.

Given the overwhelming prominence of the widely held view, based on Primary Topic, this article should be dedicated to that view. Doing so will help prevent future abuse from editors trying to deliberately promote and advertise their very minority views. For the past several years this article has suffered from such abuse and will continue to suffer from such abuse unless the scope of this article is narrowed and clearly delineated. If a viewpoint is clearly contrary to classical liberalism then it should be considered beyond the scope of this article. --Xerographica (talk) 01:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you 100%. The prominence of left-Libertarianism (etc), in the Wikipaedia article on Libertarianism, is absurdly out of proportion to the prominence of left-Libertarianism, vis-à-vis Libertarianism, in the real world. BlueRobe (talk) 01:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is shaping up pretty clearly. You can rage against the machine if you like, but it's looking pretty certain that "dedicating the article" to a single narrow view will be editing against consensus, and I give my assurances that I will personally seek blocks for disruption if any of that type of tendentious WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is attempted. The constant revisiting of this topic with 2 dozen threads in 2 months has gone way beyond tedious -- let the issue go. We edit by collaboration of the community. If the general understanding of the community lines up in a way that you don't like, please get over it and move onto something else. Soapboxing because you don't like community consensus is disruptive, as well. THIS IS NOT A FORUM! BigK HeX (talk) 02:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure I'm not the only editor who would back you up on any complaint. CarolMooreDC (talk) 02:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

BigK HeX, the points made by Xerographica were clear, concise and extremely relevant. In response, you launched into a random soapbox full of hypocritical threats and allegations that have no bearing on the important points raised by Xerographica. STOP TROLLING OR YOU WILL BE REPORTED. BlueRobe (talk) 02:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I heartily welcome scrutiny of the actions here, and believe a report that gets action could vastly improve the productivity of this page. Please, by all means --- begin a notice. Something with the power to have people blocked, if you would. Thanks! BigK HeX (talk) 02:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

BigK HeX, Xerographica's post was a clear, concise, accurate and extremely relevant critique of the so-called reliable sources referred to by those supporting the so-called "broad" construction of the Libertarianism page. His critique was, quite rightly, made vis-à-vis Wikipaedia's own express rules. You failed to address his extremely relevant concerns. Quite frankly, Xerographica post is probably the most significant and relevant post on this entire talk page. But, instead of responding to Xerographica's damning allegations, you launched into tirade where you threatened to seek Blocks for users (Xerographica?) who disagree with your position. This is appalling behaviour on your part. Stop it. BlueRobe (talk) 03:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

From Xerographica's comment:"Yet, the lead and body of this article gives equal coverage to less prominent definitions." According to you, there are only two option: equal or only one. Since it is obvious that they are not equal (for no two things can be equal), you conclude that it should be only one.

It would be much better if you come up with a proposal as to how to proportion the coverage, instead of promoting the absurd idea that only the 'most prominent' view should be talked about. Following your idea, I would argue for removing minarchism, as, as far as I know, Rothbard's views are the most prominent form according to the literature. (Check my earlier post ) Yet I am not arguing for it, because your idea is absurd. Earlier you were campaigning for removing 'anarcho-capitalism', now you are campaigning for removing 'left-libertarianism'. If this is not POV pushing, I don't know what is. Your favourite form of libertarianism is not the only form, and as such all have to be covered.

"Liberalism differs radically from anarchism. ..."-- We are talking about libertarianism not liberalism. (That libertarianism arose from classical liberalism, doesn't make liberalism relevant. Also, von Mises definition is 'european' and not the same as that of the English world. Check the quotes from Liberalism: In the Classical Tradition (von Mises) here: and ) N6n (talk) 04:17, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Anarcho-capitalism = classical liberalism + anarchism. According to von Mises, anarchism = absurdity. Therefore, Anarcho-capitalism = classical liberalism + absurdity. According to anarchist literature..."Within Libertarianism, Rothbard represents a minority perspective that actually argues for the total elimination of the state." Libertarianism: Bogus Anarchy How minor? Less then 1% of the CNN/NPR results define Libertarianism as wanting to abolish government/private property. That's a fairly good indication of how coverage should be proportioned. That this article gives equal coverage to Anarcho-capitalism and Libertarian socialism clearly indicates how much it has been vandalized and how susceptible it is to being vandalized. --Xerographica (talk) 05:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

News media not RS for political theory

Popular news media ("CNN/NPR") are not reliable sources for claims about political or economic theory. News media are reliable sources for facts about current events. In some circumstances, articles published in news media can be reliable sources for facts that a reporter has researched. But generally, for political theory, we go to academic works in the field, political philosophers, historians of politics, and other reputed authors. For economics, we go to economists.

And we certainly should not use popular news media as sources for the definitions of terms of political or economic theory ... or any other scholarly field. Popular media frequently use terms in ways that diverge widely from their scholarly use: consider the difference between the psychological definitions of "schizophrenia" (or worse, "pedophilia") and the notions of these disorders used by popular media.

If someone (not you or me -- that would be original research) does a study of the various uses of the word "libertarian" in popular media, that study could be an interesting thing to mention in the article. But we wouldn't use it to decide what the article is about. That decision depends on reliable sources within the field -- not polls, or media studies. --FOo (talk) 06:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately the wp:rs standard does not include objectivity and expertise criteria. NPR and CNN, (both acting significantly as political operatives) would certainly not pass the objectivity test, although once NPR has chosen their biased angle/focus of coverage, NPR usually does an accurate job of covering that chosen angle. North8000 (talk) 11:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

FOo, you're missing the point. The problem with this article is lack of proportion based on prominence of the various definitions (viewpoints). Looking at CNN/NPR results is one method of identifying which definitions are most prominent (widely held). In academic circles, left versus right libertarianism is a very popular debate. Counting all the reliable references that mention the debate is not an objective way of deciding how widely held the left-libertarianism viewpoint is. It's like dedicating half the Christianity article to atheism because it's a popular debate. If a political ideology has no political relevance then academic debate is not sufficient justification for inclusion. In any case, left-libertarianism and Anarcho-capitalism combined should not receive more coverage than Ayn Rand. --Xerographica (talk) 16:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

News media cannot be ruled out and have their uses. On the other hand they can trump multiple WP:RS from academics and scholars, since with limited news budgets today, probably 20% of what we read in the news the defines terms or discusses history comes from Misplaced Pages! CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky

Why is Noam Chomsky given such prominence in the Libertarianism Wikipaedia page? Leaving aside the on-going discussion about the prominence of left-Libertarianism on the page, Noam Chomsky is an Anarcho-syndicalist. Indeed, he's probably the most famous Anarcho-syndicalist in the world. BlueRobe (talk) 08:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

The person != the label. 'Anarcho-syndicalist' is only a label. A label is only an approximation, used because we wish to organize our knowledge. A thousand labels, which may contradict each other, can be valid for one person. Chomsky may call himself 'anarchist', 'socialist', 'libertarian', etc, and there is nothing wrong with that. I made this point a month back too. N6n (talk) 11:04, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

A number of editors concentrate on the differences between the various types of libertarianism rather than their similarities. The right of individuals to deny the holocaust and organize is not accepted by the Left. While the Left may sometimes oppose prosecuting victimless crimes, they do not argue that people have the right to do whatever they want so long as they do not harm others. And the Left is class conscious. It seeks to empower the working class not the community. TFD (talk) 12:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

minimize Noam i am actually a fan of his and have a book in my car, but even Noam acknowledges "left" is a very very small faction in the libertarianism, therefore we should reduce his weight here per his own words. Darkstar1st (talk) 13:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Source, please. TFD (talk) 13:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

if i provide the source, will it change your mind, if so how? Darkstar1st (talk) 15:56, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

When claims are made in reliable sources we then examine the subsequent literature in order to determine their degree of acceptance. Please become familiar with WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Obviously we accept consensus that is found in the literature. TFD (talk) 16:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

just a yes or no, if Noam said it in a rs, will you support minimizing Noam, if not, is a waste of your/my time. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:52, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Chomsky is not given much prominence in the wiki article. BigK HeX (talk) 17:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

but i think he and left libertarian should both have less, certainly not a debate in the lede as to the definition. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:08, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

We know you think that. Consensus appears to think differently about how the article should treat "the definition." You can safely let that issue go, IMO. BigK HeX (talk) 17:27, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

BigK HeX, I'm not sure you know what the word "consensus" means. Regardless, Chomsky is given way too much prominence in the Libertarianism page. Like Darkstar1st, I'm quite partial to Chomsky. Indeed, I suspect many other Libertarians respect Chomsky's criticisms of the political elite of Western countries. However, Chomsky is not a left-Libertarian (he's an anarcho-syndicalist) and, as such, he is given way too much prominence in the Libertarianism page. Indeed, it strikes me as utterly absurd that Chomsky is given such prominence while Ayn Rand is virtually ignored. BlueRobe (talk) 00:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I know very well what consensus means. The only thing I'm unsure about is whether you respect it. Time will tell... BigK HeX (talk) 02:30, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Murray Bookchin and his friends probably have greater influence on self-identified libertarian socialist activists. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

BigK HeX and Carolmooredc, is this your special way of finally admitting that left-Libertarianism is, basically, just another a version of Anarchism? BlueRobe (talk) 09:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

They self identify as some sort of libertarian and have lots of WP:RS. That's all that matters under Misplaced Pages policies. Feel free to find WP:RS that briefly deny they are libertarians and add them. No problema. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

So, basically, you all want to violate WP:Undue Weight? Noam Chomsky, along with so-called 'Left-libertarianism', should be given proportional coverage. Almost no political parties identify as libertarian socialist and popular recognition among libertarians (The group this article is about) is next to none. Adding equal (or 'broad') information for it would be like adding as much coverage for the 'Flat Earth' theory as the correct 'Round Earth' theory; the 'Flat Earth' people are a very small minority, just like self-proclaimed 'Libertarian socialists' (which I would argue is an umbrella term for Anarchism, as well as anti-state Communism and Socialism) are a very small minority. Toa Nidhiki05 15:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Since almost no political parties identify as "Right-libertarian", maybe we shouldn't have any information about right-libertarianism in this article...? Is that how this logic works? BigK HeX (talk) 15:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

That is because 'Right-libertarianism' is a superficial label used only on Misplaced Pages to justify the existence of 'Left-libertarian' articles. It is commonly and broadly understood that the primary, if not universal, form of libertarianism is what is called 'Right-libertarianism' on this website. Reexamine your logic. Toa Nidhiki05 16:18, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

"...used only on Misplaced Pages"? It's silly hysterical hyperbole like that which ends up having editors' opinions disregarded. BigK HeX (talk) 16:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Really. Real libertarians wouldn't hate it so much if it wasn't used so widely!!! Bleah. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

<backdent>FYI, "righties," one reason I fight to keep this in is to educate people to the facts (with lots of WP:RS which I'm accumulating) that in left/socialist libertarians there are issues of how much property current property holders will be "allowed" to hold. There are some left/socialist "libertarians" who would use various forms of organized libertarian action (nonviolent and probably violent, esp. vs. law enforcement protecting private property). There are others that only want redistribution through nonviolent voluntary means. This needs to be in all relevant articles and this one. But only in an NPOV way, which takes a while to put together. Plus, when you get to libertarian decentralism you see a lot more overlap between libetarian groups, another complicated issue I'm sifting through all sorts of WP:RS to document. In the meantime, feel free to look at the amusing quote from Lore Sjöberg on BigK HeX's main user page about those who don't think research or WP:RS are terribly important. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Carolmooredc and BigK HeX, you're being ridiculous. I don't know any right-Libertarians who describe themselves as "right-Libertarians". They call themselves "Libertarians", because, quite obviously, Libertarianism is right-Libertarianism, and we're only using the label "right-Libertarianism" for the purpose of clarification of discussion on this WP talk page. This isn't "silly hysterical hyperbole". This is how these terms are used. As you well know. Your lack of integrity on this bloody obvious point is disappointing. BlueRobe (talk) 01:33, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's cool the personal attacks on other integrity, especially against those who refer to WP:RS as opposed to "bloody obvious points." CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:38, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Carolmooredc, personal attack or otherwise, (it's otherwise), your use of so-called reliable sources are clearly in breach of Wikipaedia:Undue Weight. Or, are you seriously claiming that left-Libertarianism deserves equal weighting with Libertarianism on the Libertarianism page? BlueRobe (talk) 06:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Rothbard on 'left' and 'right' libertarianism

• Several libertarian thinkers, from “left-” and “right”-wing ends of the libertarian spectrum, have delivered trenchant critiques of the totalitarian nature of compulsory public schooling. Thus, left-libertarian British critic Herbert Read: ....

• Left-wing anarchists, for example, will oppose equally government and private organizations such as corporations on the ground that each is equally “elitist” and “coercive.” But the “rightist” libertarian is not opposed to inequality, and his concept of “coercion” applies only to the use of violence.

• In current terminology again, the libertarian position on property and economics would be called “extreme right wing.” But the libertarian sees no inconsistency in being “leftist” on some issues and “rightist” on others. On the contrary, he sees his own position as virtually the only consistent one, consistent on behalf of the liberty of every individual. ...

• Empirically, Rothbard did not tire to explain, the left-libertarians failed to recognize that the restoration of private-property rights and laissez-faire economics implied a sharp and drastic increase in social "discrimination."

• Libertarians, Rothbard stressed in this connection, must be opposed, as are traditional conservatives (but unlike social democrats, neo-conservatives, and left-libertarians),on principled grounds to any and all centralization of state power, even and especially if such centralization involves a correct judgment (such as that abortion should be legal, or that taxes should be abolished).

• Symbolic of this change in direction was Rothbard's dissociation, in 1989, from the Libertarian Party. Rothbard's action did not, as some prominent left-libertarians vainly proclaimed at the time, mark the end of his association with libertarianism or his role as the libertarian movement's guiding star. Rather, it marked the beginning of a systematic ideological realignment ....

All this to say: 'left-libertarian' is acknowledged even by Rothbard, so there is no question about its 'legitimacy'. N6n (talk) 15:30, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

That you inadvertently included a reference to the common left/right political concept to justify the uncommon left/right libertarianism concept is a perfect practical example of why we should exclude left-libertarianism. In other words, you can't even distinguish between the two concepts. Incidentally, nobody is denying that left-libertarianism exists...anymore than we would deny that socialism exists. Rather, it is a very minor view within libertarianism and should only receive proportional coverage. However, because of present and past abuses providing it with equal coverage the only logical solution is to exclude it, and Anarcho-capitalism, from the scope of this article in order to prevent future abuse. You folks greedily pushed your extremist views into the lead of this article and will continue to do so unless the scope of this article is narrowed. --Xerographica (talk) 16:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, if you need a hint figuring out which reference I was referring to...it's the one that indicates that libertarianism is synonymous with robust property rights. That should give you an idea how much coverage left-libertarianism should receive in this article. --Xerographica (talk) 16:12, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh.. if you need a hint figuring out why your soapboxing is less-than--useful, it is because the simple phrase "robust property rights" is not necessarily exclusive of left-libertarians who very strongly advocate theories of self-ownership. Moreover, the phrase "robust property rights" most certainly does NOT -- by itself -- just automatically translate into "the right-libertarian conception of appropriation of natural resources." The only thing I was able to gather from your "finding" of an "inadvertant" reference above is your POV.

But, here's a final hint for you ... believing that a person can't take for himself, what 'rightfully' belongs to others can still be understood as a belief in strong property rights. BigK HeX (talk) 17:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Based on the reference in question using the phrase "extreme right wing", the libertarian position on property would obviously have to include "private ownership of the means of production"...which is the total opposite of left-libertarianism. Therefore, in that instance (and most), "libertarianism" was synonymous with robust property rights. So no, it's not my point of view...it's a matter of being able to differentiate between the common/uncommon left/right concepts. That you've been editing this article for so long now and yet you failed to grasp the point despite my blatant "hint" is even more practical evidence why left-libertarianism should not be included in this article. --Xerographica (talk) 18:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Or ... more likely, the fact that I (and many others) have failed to support your POV is better viewed as an indicator that it is you who fails to get the point. But, feel free to get that push for your POV out of your system ... I expect that this will be one of the last few weeks the community will have to bear it. BigK HeX (talk) 19:06, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I've not really been involved with this much, but it might be a good idea to stop trolling Xerographica, BigK HeX, or the community might not have to bear you much longer. Toa Nidhiki05 19:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

As I've stated before, I gladly welcome scrutiny of the actions here, and believe a notice that receives action will do much to vastly improve productivity on this article. Please do begin a notice, if you see cause. BigK HeX (talk) 21:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

"All this to say: 'left-libertarian' is acknowledged even by Rothbard, so there is no question about its 'legitimacy'." -- thats all. The validity of the term has little or no relevance for our discussion.

@BigKHex: "The appropriation of natural resources" is certainly a very contentious issue! This is where the left/right discussion becomes useful, the left- (I suppose) asking for some sort of "benefit to all", while the right- arguing for granting full property-rights to those homesteading. While Rothbard supports homesteading, he does not seem to have a plan on how this will proceed.

@Nidhiki05, BigKHex is not trolling. N6n (talk) 09:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Removal of ""Libertarian Socialism" section without discussion

I see that "Libertarian Socialism" section was removed at this August 6th diff by Seven days seven night -a two week registered essentially WP:Single purpose account editor who has since disappeared after multiple complaints of edit warring on his talk page. One of the new editors after AnonIps banned. Then someone made some changes to Left libertarianism discussion to include it.

There was no explicit discussion of this and I missed it because I haven’t looked carefully at whole article lately since waiting til totally focused on it. So I hereby object. There are differences and if the existing articles on both don't sufficiently reflect that I'll fix that and put back the section at some point, sooner rather than later.

While it might be possible to put both in one section, that section would have to have another title which I'll propose should I come up with one. So heads up. CarolMooreDC (talk)

Both should be included in one small section, in order to comply with WP:Undue Weight; neither is notable enough to have a separate section. Toa Nidhiki05 15:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Please provide reliable evidence indicating the prominence of the Libertarian socialism viewpoint within Libertarianism. --Xerographica (talk) 00:05, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

See recent talk archives for various links. And see my future edits. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

You know that none of those links indicate the prominence of the libertarian socialism viewpoint within libertarianism. The links would have to say something like most/some/few libertarians are libertarian socialists...or many/some/few libertarians subscribe to the libertarian socialism viewpoint. The amount of coverage that this article on libertarianism provides libertarian socialism should reflect how widely held the libertarian socialism viewpoint is within libertarianism. It's Misplaced Pages policy. --Xerographica (talk) 03:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

If you want to argue that the viewpoint is not given any significant prominence in reliable sources, then feel free to take it to the NPOV noticeboard, as that case has already been made on the talk page, so I doubt repeating for the Nth time in this thread will change anything. BigK HeX (talk) 03:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Just want to be sure that the the editor is well aware that her actions would be in deliberate violation of Misplaced Pages policy. First evidence should be provided, then the material should be discussed. If and only if consensus is reached should the material in question be added to the article. You and Carolmooredc have continually made edits to this article without any attempt to first reach consensus on your edits. --Xerographica (talk) 04:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up, then. I stand by my actions, though. (FYI: I've been here quite a while... I'm not sure if you've experienced enough here on Misplaced Pages to adequately lecture me on policy. Maybe you have ... In any case, thanks all the same.) BigK HeX (talk) 04:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

BigK HeX, spare us the argumentum ad hominem. You (and Carolmooredc) have repeatedly edited the Libertarian page without adhering to Wikipaedia protocols, (which is bloody ironic, given how often you two are both going on about Wikipaedia guidelines).

And now, subsequent to making your inappropriate changes to the Libertarianism page, you've both consistently misrepresented Misplaced Pages:Reliable Sources in your efforts to block correction by the rest of us. In particular, you, with your misrepresentation of your so-called reliable sources and the prominence you've attached to left-Libertarianism and Noam Chomsky (etc.), have completely disregarded Wikipaedia:Undue Weight, in violation of Wikipaedia protocols.

As if all that wasn't bad enough, you've threatened to take action to seek blocks on any user (especially Xerographica) who points out these short-comings. BlueRobe (talk) 05:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

no consensus on re-adding libertarian socialism, further discussion is required Darkstar1st (talk) 06:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Even by plain English the noun of "Libertarian Socialism" says that it is a form of Socialism, not Libertarianism. North8000 (talk) 10:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I claim that the Rfc has settled that the coverage be broad. Lets only talk about how to proportion the coverage. N6n (talk) 13:40, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I claim rfc has not settled the coverage, the discussion will continue. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:55, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed we will. Further more, N6n's remark that the editorial community has "settled" on the broad solution is bloody condescending, at best, and very inaccurate. It's my understanding that we're heading to some form of Wikipaedian dispute resolution over the issue. BlueRobe (talk) 23:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

We have gone through dispute resolution, that is what an RfC is. Ironically, although you, Darkstar1st and Karmaisking have objected to the article, none of you have explained what you think libertarianism is or provided any reliable sources for a definition. Editors must choose between a sourced definition and WP:IDONTLIKEIT. TFD (talk) 23:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you taking the piss? If the explanation attached to my "narrow" vote was any longer, I'd publish it in paper-back. BlueRobe (talk) 00:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it was a long time ago. Your thesis of libertarianism seems to include the beliefs of John Stuart Mill, Immanuel Kant, Isaiah Berlin, Ayn Rand, Bob Barr and the Libertarian Party of Canada. You also mentioned no paternalism and no welfare. Can you please point to a source that ties all of this together? It is not obvious to me that either the no harm or the categorical imperative would exclude welfare, and even more confusing how we can consider European rationalism and English empiricism to be promoting the same thing. And was Mill not influenced by Fichte? TFD (talk) 01:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

TFD, you're misrepresenting my post. My reference to Bob Barr was solely as a recent (2008) Presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party of the USA. My reference to Immanuel Kant was solely with regard to his Categorical Imperative (always treat people as ends', and never as merely a means to an end's). My reference to Isaiah Berlin was with regard to his distinction between Positive and Negative conceptions of liberty (required reading for all political philosophers - his "Two Concepts of Liberty" is easily one of the top 5 most significant pieces of writing on political philosophy). I said no "Welfarism", (privately funded welfare (charity) is, of course, entirely consistent with Libertarianism). Ayn Rand's political philosophy is (whether the Objectivists like it or not - most do not) a subset of Libertarianism. John Stuart Mill's Harm Principle (another example of one of the top 5 most significant pieces of writing on political philosophy) is the natural caveat to the (negative) liberty endorsed by Libertarians. As for the Harm Principle and/or the Categorical Imperative prohibiting Welfarism (as distinct from voluntary welfare), welfarism is funded by breaching those two principles (tax = theft by coercion. As for "European rationalism and English empiricism", there's no need to make a mountain out of a molehill. The Libertarians' endorsement of Kant's Categorical Imperative alone does not amount to a blanket endorsement of everything Kant, (most Ayn Rand Objectivists HATE Kant) and the same applies to the works of any other philosophers. BlueRobe (talk) 01:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It is not obvious that welfare violates either Mill's or Kant's moral theories and I do not remember that these works contained any reference to state welfare. You really need a source that ties together these disparate theories and calls them libertarianism. It seems unusual too that a political philosophy could be based on three separate and conflicting theories of ethics. TFD (talk) 01:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

To be perfectly blunt, it is so incredibly obvious that tax-payer funded Walfarism violates the Harm Principle and Kant's Categorical Imperative that it never occurred to me that anyone would challenge this. Indeed, it still doesn't. How is the coercive taxation of one person (the means), to pay for improving the welfare of another person (the ends), not a violation of the Categorical Imperative? BlueRobe (talk) 01:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Did you make this stuff up, or would you like to actually point us to a single reliable source that you've drawn all of this from? BigK HeX (talk) 01:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

You need a reliable source to show how the coercive taxation of one person (the means), to pay for improving the welfare of another person (the ends), is a violation of the Categorical Imperative? Okay, that does it. Now I KNOW I'm being punk'd. BlueRobe (talk) 02:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It appears the term "Right Libertarian" does not exist outside of Misplaced Pages. Such seems nearly also the case with "Left Libertarian". I think that any artificial terms, (including those that seem to exist only in the writing of one or two authors) should be purged from these three articles, which might include deleting or renaming one or two articles.

Where there is an unusual form of Libertarianism, I'd like to see it briefly covered. The article should be informative on Libertarianism, including clearing up confusion on offbeat terms and sects with "Libertarian" in their names. But right now this article is so flooded with disproportionate coverage of these tiny-minority groups and schools of thought that it fails to cover and is an incoherent choppy mess regarding the main topic, which should be per the overwhelmingly mainstream meaning of "Libertarian". North8000 (talk) 02:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

North8000, agreed. The suggestion (by Carol etc) that so-called right-Libertarianism has it's own page is disingenuous, at best, given that the term "right-Libertarianism" is all but non-existent outside these talk pages. And as you say, the incredible weight given to some fringe non-Libertarian ideologies, that just happen to have the word "Libertarian" in their labels, is both ridiculous and a breach of Wikipaedia's rules regarding Undue Weight. BlueRobe (talk) 02:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

@BlueRobe: No I don't need a source for that....I've requested a reliable source for the WHOLE THING. I've requested the single reliable source from which you've drawn this sprawling libertarian thesis from. Personally, it looks strikingly like WP:OR to me. Provide a single reliable source containing all of these gems or, if you do not have one source that all of this comes from, then quit polluting the talk page with your personal theses. Misplaced Pages talk pages are NOT A FORUM. BigK HeX (talk) 02:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

How about, any text on Libertarianism that is worth a damn? The reason I am being so flippant is that, quite frankly, I suspect that you are very aware of countless sources that spell out the "thesis" I have provided on Libertarianism. Aside from some discussion on the periphery, I cannot imagine that many right-Libertarians would challenge the claims I made (except for the reference to Kant, because some of them have hang-ups about him, lol). Certainly, none of the right-Libertarians contributing to this talk page have challenged anything I stated in that "thesis", (although, for all I know, they may well disagree on a few points). BlueRobe (talk) 02:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

So, you did NOT actually draw this from a source, and only offer us your conjecture that it must appear in a reliable source somewhere. Until such time that you actually have found that source, please keep your unsourced theses off of the article talk pages. Use your personal talk page for that kind of stuff. BigK HeX (talk) 03:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

These guy(s) couldn't even source the obvious point that some libertarians don't like being called anarchists. Geez. CarolMooreDC (talk) 03:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that they can't source things ... but a few of the participating editors seem to think sourcing is unimportant if they explain it in a long-winded enough manner. As if their "thorough" explanation should suffice as a substitute for reliable sources. Or maybe they just like the idea that they are "spreading WP:TRUTH" on the talk pages. Meh.... BigK HeX (talk) 03:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

carol i have sourced that point at least 6 times, you have ask me for the link to the source 4 times and i will continue to provide it, each time you forget. all of the current anarchists are irrational collectivists, and therefore at opposite poles from our position. We must therefore conclude that we are not anarchists, and that those who call us anarchists are not on firm etymological ground, and are being completely unhistorical, MURRAY ROTHBARD http://mises.org/daily/2801 Darkstar1st (talk) 04:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It is really a primary source and we need secondary sources for articles. I notice Rothbard wrote, "The individualist anarchists have contributed a great deal to libertarian thought. They have provided some of the best statements of individualism and antistatism that have ever been penned. In the political sphere, the individualist anarchists were generally sound libertarians. They favored private property, extolled free competition, and battled all forms of governmental intervention." TFD (talk) 04:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

no, you may not ask for a source, then deny it when the same source is used many other times in this article. most vegetarians are good vegans, but vegans get sick when they eat cheese. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

BigK HeX and Carol, I'm pretty sure that most Libertarians don't like being called vampires. But, I don't have any reliable sources for this fact, so this remains mere conjecture. Would you like some reliable sources to prove that the Moon is not made of green cheese, or is that mere conjecture, also? BlueRobe (talk) 05:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

There is very little in the article sourced to Rothbard, it is uncontroversial, and it certainly does not justify the source you provided. I would ask you to provide a reliable secondary source, but I fear that none exist. TFD (talk) 05:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

TFD, how the hell can Rothbard be a Primary Source for the Libertarianism page? To quote the great wizard-philosopher, Ron Weasley, "that's just mental." BlueRobe (talk) 05:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

An article that explains the author's beliefs and his personal recollections is a primary source for his beliefs and personal recollections. They must be used with care in order to avoid original research. The best sources to use are peer-reviewed articles in academic journals and books published by the academic press. TFD (talk) 05:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

wow, your right, it was his "Aubrey Herbert," his pseudonym, i guess we cant use it. would the enlightenment free-thinkers who coined the term suffice? liberty: a free individual being most free within the context of a state which provides stability of the laws Darkstar1st (talk) 05:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

When we write articles about political movements we do not use sources that were written before the movements even began. TFD (talk) 06:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

So, we'll remove references to the Old Testament from the Christianity page, shall we? *facepalm* BlueRobe (talk) 06:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

@tfd incorrect, source was not written before the movement began Darkstar1st (talk) 08:17, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

BlueRobe, Chrisitianity and the Old Testament is a good analogy. One cannot use the Old Testament (or the New Testament) and provide your own interpretations of them to explain what Christianity is. That would be original research. Otherwise the article might say that Christians believe in the death penalty for witches. If you want to make such claims you would need a reliable secondary source that says that this is the consensus of the interpretation of Christianity. Also, you could not find that there is no mention of purgatory in the New Testament and determine that Catholics are not Christians. You should read and understand Misplaced Pages policies for writing articles.

Darkstar1st, yes it was written before the movement began.

TFD (talk) 14:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

@tfd wp:proveit

support for a new rfc, the previous rfc has been closed without consensus or conclusion.

suggestions for title of the new rfc here: Darkstar1st (talk) 08:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Yet, LK is claiming that there is a consensus of opinion (see below). This is extraordinary. BlueRobe (talk) 08:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

the wording was flawed from the beginning. right-libertarian isn't even recognized as a term to be included below libertarian-trans-humanism Darkstar1st (talk) 08:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

For the binary question of whether to solely write about minarchist right-libertarianism, the consensus was to disregard the weak arguments that desired to have us ignore an understanding found in a multitude of reliable sources, and to follow WP:NPOV, as clearly followed on a range of Wiki articles with a similar topic. That you don't like this consensus may be one thing, but we have it all the same. The matter of completely stripping viewpoints from the article is closed. Please respect that. Also note: Tendentious editing is considered disruptive and blocks may be sought against editors choosing to tendentiously oppose a decision, as if they didn't hear it. If editors choose to continue harping on whether viewpoints should be stripped from the article or soapboxing about how a narrow writing is the way "it should be", I will be forced to proceed to the WP:ANI. BigK HeX (talk) 08:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

this section is for discussing the title of the new rfc only, please move your comments. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, no. BigK HeX (talk) 08:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh, BigK HeX, I'm tired of you acting like you are an admin, which you are not. You are just as important as the rest of us, so stop making threats to us. Toa Nidhiki05

Revisionist definition of "consensus"?

With regard to the RFC: "Should this page discuss only right-libertarianism?", the conclusion has been stated thus: "The consensus was: "Libertarianism" should be broadly construed to include all significant viewpoints from reliable sources."

The definition of Consensus "is defined in English as, firstly - general agreement and, secondly - group solidarity of belief or sentiment."

Wikipaedia's own definition goes on to declare that,

"The formal process of achieving consensus ideally requires serious treatment of the considered opinion of each group member: those advocating the adoption, say, of a particular course of action, genuinely wish to hear those who may be against the proposal, since discussion, it is supposed, can only enhance ultimate consensus. The hope is that in such circumstances action, or the adoption of group opinion, without resolution of dissent will be rare."

The dispute has not been resolved in any way. There has been little (read: no) compromise by the parties on either side of the dispute. The parties on both sides of the dispute remain as intransigent as ever. NO consensus has been achieve on this issue.

Why has consensus been claimed, in regards to such a polemic issue, when no such consensus exists? BlueRobe (talk) 08:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Please do NOT start anymore talk page threads on this same issue. If you have an objection to the RfC, please find an appropriate noticeboard and file a report. Input from the broader community was sought and we received it. Any editors that hope to contribute to the project for a length of time must learn to accept that editing here is a collaborative effort. NO article is going to end up looking "just the way we want," which is exactly why we shouldn't try to WP:OWN any articles. As this is a community project, we should show respect for the community. Of course, consensus not falling your way on this issue isn't the end of the world, and I'm sure there's much that you can contribute on other issues. BigK HeX (talk) 08:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

You have no idea what the word "consensus" means. Stop using it, you're just looking foolish. BlueRobe (talk) 08:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I know what it means. In the face of intransigence, we have no problems defaulting to "rough consensus". It's pretty clear that your opinion was given due consideration. In any case, let the matter be. It's over. BigK HeX (talk) 08:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no "rough consensus". There is the usual round of Wikipaedian petty politics (blatant threats, constant harassment and rhetorical doublespeak) where a gang of ideologues have sabotaged the Libertarianism page and substituted their own revisionist agenda. Much of the information that is on the page is misrepresentative, at best, and outright wrong, at worst, (for instance, that sheer nonsense about Noam Chomsky being a Libertarian). Further more, the Libertarianism page has been gutted of right-Libertarianism so effectively that it is essentially useless to those readers trying to learn about Libertarianism. And the lede is utterly ridiculous, (the bloody dictionary contains more information on Libertarianism!)

BigK HeX, do you get a thrill out of trashing the Libertarianism page to the point where there is NO point in anyone reading it?

Is it any wonder that Wikipaedia is falling into such disrepute? BlueRobe (talk) 09:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

This article has been trashed by flooding it with over representation of off-beat stuff. The answer is probably two pronged. More coverage of mainstream stuff (e.g. where are the largest scale practices of Libertarianism, and what's happening there?) and reducing coverage of the small minority views.North8000 (talk) 09:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

North8000, I completely agree. But, lets face it, we're not going to see any common sense around here any time soon. It is patently obvious that the Libertarianism page is complete gibberish. The page lacks a real lede, it doesn't have a complete account of the predominant version of Libertarianism (aka right-Libertarianism) or its main features, it has gross misrepresentations (Noam Chomsky labeled a Libertarian?!) and the Undue Weight given to fringe ideologies is beyond absurd. But, there's nothing we can do about it while half a dozen revisionistic ideologues and saboteurs are deemed to represent the "consensus".

Either the lefties are deliberately sabotaging the Libertarianism page as a way of censoring Libertarianism out of Wikipaedia, or this is all some elaborate Wikipaedian version of Punk'd. Either way, this whole process disgusts me.

I'm giving serious consideration to creating an alternative Libertarianism page. The petty politics behind the scenes of this page have shown me just how little integrity our opponents across the floor really have. BlueRobe (talk) 10:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm too new here to know the folks involved so I'm just commenting on the content. There's gotta be a way to get to a better article. North8000 (talk) 10:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

One "three birds with one stone" thing that should help is to start a section on Libertarian organizations, including links to the main articles elsewhere. North8000 (talk) 10:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Lawrencekhoo should read up on RfC policy before declaring a specific outcome. "RfCs are not votes. Discussion controls the outcome; it is not a matter of counting up the number of votes." --Xerographica (talk) 11:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It is exceedingly obvious that Lawrencekhoo gave consideration to each comment. Heck, that is one the most thorough RfC closures I've seen for quite some time. BigK HeX (talk) 12:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Xerographica, I'm still trying to explain the definition of the word "consensus" to them, (<-- lefties, please click on this bloody link). At this point, I'm just thankful they weren't compelled to take their shoes and socks off if the "broad" vote had passed 10.

Requests that they accord due weight to our arguments and sources would seem to be in vain, given that they've barely acknowledged the fatal blow you delivered with your WP:Undue Weight argument (which was left as little more than an inconclusive after-thought at the end of LK's conclusion.) They still maintain that, because a handful of random Secondary Sources use the term "left-Libertarianism", then left-Libertarianism deserves equal weight with right-Libertarianism in the Libertarianism page. *facepalm*

BigK HeX, it is "exceedingly obvious" that LK has no more idea what "consensus" means than you do. There is more of a consensus in New Zealand's Parliament (that is to say, there is no consensus) than there was on that rfc, but that hasn't stopped LK (and you) claiming consensus for the "broad" view. BlueRobe (talk) 12:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

To tell you the truth I don't see how the RFC question relates to the current issue of the article. It essentially asked whether or not to completely exclude coverage of less common forms of Libertarianism. However, I did find the end summary thoughtful and useful, especially since it avoided using the flawed "broadly/narrowly" wording of the question. If you take the summary in terms of the current state of the article, it says that the space in the article devoted to unusual but RS-covered variants of Libertarianism should be reduced, and that variants and terms with no RS coverage should be eliminated. North8000 (talk) 13:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Since I am mentioned by name, I should clarify that the standard to use when closing discussions and determining consensus on Misplaced Pages is 'rough consensus'. This concept of rough consensus does not imply unanimity. See WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS for a discussion of this process. I would also like to remind all to refrain from any further comments about editors, as such personal attacks are against policy, and can lead to an editor being blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. If anyone here feels that I have closed the discussion improperly, please raise the issue at the appropriate forum, otherwise, please refrain from further disparaging my efforts here. LK (talk) 13:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that you did a good job. I also think that some are misinterpreting what you wrote. See my comment one post up which I think was simultaneous with yours. North8000 (talk) 13:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

LK, I am so bloody sick of left-wingers threatening anyone who challenges them. Never a day goes by when BigK HeX doesn't threaten someone who challenges him, (usually for doing precisely what he does with great frequency), and now you're doing it. Do your worst. I'm done with the ridiculous sham that Wikipaedia has become. In recent weeks I have discovered why fellow academics roll their eyes when the topic of Wikipaedia comes up during discussion. Now I know why one of my colleages has declared that ANY reference to Wikipaedia in a student's work will result in an a course-fail.

In every Wikipaedia page where I have deep knowledge on the subject I have seen petty politics undermining the integrity of Wikipaedia pages. The Libertarianism page isn't even the worst example, despite being so thoroughly broken that it has become nothing more than an incoherent shambles that is full of lies, half-truths and an absurd apportionment of Undue Weight based on the ridiculous justifications of random-secondary-source-used-that-word. The lede is a schizo shell of an introduction and the main article barely even touches on mainstream US Libertarianism. And the fact that 99% of self-identified Libertarians will immediately recognise that the Libertarianism page is full of utter NONSENSE doesn't phase you dishonest saboteurs one bit. Are you PROUD of the worthless sham that you have turned this page into? YOU DISGUST ME. BlueRobe (talk) 14:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

@BlueRobe: You don't understand the importance of references. You have made significant statements here too, but with no reference. Some of them: "full of lies...", "absurd apportionment of Undue Weight", "99% of self-identified", "full of utter nonsense"--WHO says so? All the "lies" are properly sourced. On what basis do you say that the weight is undue? Where do you get the number '99' from? Almost everytime others have pointed out WP:OR to you. N6n (talk) 14:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

N6n, you don't seem to appreciate the level of dishonesty that is at work in here. The criticism by the right are ignored. The criticism by the left are exaggerated. The Libertarianism page is a ridiculous sham, and so is the "debate" *cough* in these talk pages. The right-Libertarians HAVE provided reliable sources (which are immediately ignored and forgotten). Meanwhile, the left-Libertarian RSs aren't even on point! They insist that random-secondary-source-used-that-word is enough to justify devoting half the Libertarianism page to left-Libertarianism. This is absurd. I'm done with it. The fact that I have banged my head against such an extraordinary level of dishonesty and irrationality in this tower of Babel for so long is probably grounds for my expulsion from Mensa. Good luck working on a Libertarianism page that has been rendered completely WORTHLESS to anyone who wants an accurate appreciation of Libertarianism, (most of it is f**king Anarchism!) BlueRobe (talk) 15:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

<back>I haven't bothered to read the non-WP:RS related bla blah blah above, but I think MY cleaned up version of the lead should solve problems for now. Remember a lot of things happen through pure drift followed by massive fights over some position no one really strongly holds. Invest less ego and more RATIONALITY and maybe we could get more done. Who ever added the ref about the nonagression principle to end of the paragraph, please move it to the nonaggression sentence. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

New Issue: How relevant is the popular media?

This has been a common theme:

North8000: "I've been an active Libertarian for decades, as a matter of politics rather than academics. The common theme of all contacts has been simply smaller and less intrusive government, and Freedom. 2/3 of this article is Greek to me, with the various forms I've never heard of, and the thoughts of all of the various intellectuals and philosophers. I don't know whether that means I know less than or more than (forest for the trees situation) what's here."

How valid is this line of thought? To what degree should the popular media guide the coverage? If not the popular media, on what basis do we decide how to proportion the coverage? (e.g., citations?) N6n (talk) 12:55, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't equate my point with the type of media. But either way, a good starting point would be to start adding coverage of the larger scale instances of people practicing Libertarianism such as organizations. North8000 (talk) 13:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

That's an interesting point. Most of us will be quite reluctant to give much credence to popular media (because most popular media sources talk a lot of crap). But, popular media is also a strong indicator of how terms and concepts are understood or appreciated by the general population, and this can sometimes be strikingly different from how academics (living in their Ivory Towers) understand the terms and concepts.

While popular beliefs are not the "be-all and end-all" of the true nature of a term or concept, they can constitute useful guides in relation to WP:Undue Weight issues. Personally, I think the significance of such popular beliefs, as reported by the popular media, is dependent upon the complexity of the terms or concepts being discussed. For instance, popular beliefs are largely irrelevant to issues of Cosmology (Stephen Hawking et al don't give a toss what most of the population think about Big Bang Theory). But, popular beliefs are very relevant to issues related to popular sports.

In relation to Libertarianism, that sub-section of popular media that identifies itself (correctly, rather than flippantly) as being Libertarian would provide a strong indication of the prominence of competing beliefs within Libertarian discourse. BlueRobe (talk) 13:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

@North8000: Perhaps "popular perception" would be more accurate, but there is no way to measure it! So, we better stick to "popular media". —Preceding unsigned comment added by N6n (talk • contribs) 14:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

@BlueRobe: Those "ivory tower" 'academics' are who originate ideas. Anyway, concrete suggestions please. N6n (talk) 14:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

BlueRobe, there is a difference between an encyclopedia and a dictionary. TFD (talk) 14:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

TFD, why don't you just state your point instead of insulting people? North8000 (talk) 15:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It was not my intention to insult BlueRobe, but I have revised my comment anyway. Incidentally you may wish to comment on BlueRobe's comments above - do you think that they represent the model of civility we should follow? There is however a difference between an encyclopedia that describes topics and a dictionary that describes popular usage. One would not expect for example an article about royalty to include JFK and Elvis or an article about liberalism to exclude laissez-faire economics, despite how these terms may be used in the media. TFD (talk) 16:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

But there are many "term" type topics where the main and useful meaning of the term is defined by mainstream/popular practice and usage. Determining and conveying that in an un-obfuscated manner is an important task for the article. I think that this is one of those cases.North8000 (talk) 17:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Please take philosophical debates to talk pages. If there's a question on particular popular media source for this article, discuss it here. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

IMHO a discussion such as this is germane to and important for the article. There are infinite possibilities for source shopping out there....plenty to make a chopped up incoherent mess out of the article, as has happened to this one. North8000 (talk) 17:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

So if the popular media uses the term libertarian to refer to the mainstream of the Republican Party, do we ignore academic writing? Do we call NAFTA libertarian? TFD (talk) 17:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that this section is getting confused, probably starting with the title. I think that the useful topic is info from RS's (whatever they may be) regarding prevalence of practice of these variants. North8000 (talk) 19:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

<bac>Just list the refs you have a problem with and why. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

@North8000: You are right, my topic is bad. It should be something like: "on what basis do we decide the proportion of coverage". Sorry for the confusion. Please start a new thread (if you think it is relevant, etc.) N6n (talk) 08:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

A new thread, "This article may be inaccurate..." is relevant.() N6n (talk) 08:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Please no unsourced WP:OR and Non-English, non quoted sources in lead

As I just had to remove here. Get some English or easily translated sources and quote them if no online link. In a sensitive editing environment, why try people's patience?? CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

take it up with the left-libertarian wp page, it is on the 3rd line, and check the source again, it actually does include an english source as well. Hans-Georg Betz, Radical Right-Wing Populism in Western Europe (London: Palgrave-Macmillan 1994) 180-1. Darkstar1st (talk) 21:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

So ... have you actually read this source?? BigK HeX (talk) 22:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

One way or the other

TFD you just undid someone's edit with no reason stated except "need consensus first". Then minutes later you did big edits of your own without consensus, and then asserted that they should stay until there is a consensus to remove them! North8000 (talk) 22:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It has already been made clear to Darkstar1st that the edit was contentious, with reasons already given. BigK HeX (talk) 22:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

This page is to discuss article content. If you have any reason to support the inclusion of the text I deleted, could you please explain it. TFD (talk) 23:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the double standard was hypocritical and undid TFD's removal of the tags. --Xerographica (talk) 00:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Please avoid personal attacks. You need to provide a reason for the tags. Whatever reason there was has been long forgotten. TFD (talk) 01:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Criticizing behavior is not a personal attack. I saw that you took the tags down a second time. I'd put them back up except that I don't like top level tags plus we need to look for a more appropriate one like "this article is a jumbled, uninformative mess". Or else put our energies into fixing it. North8000 (talk) 01:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Hypocritical means professing feelings or virtues one does not have. It refers to intention not behavior and therefore is a personal attack. TFD (talk) 01:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The term is extensively applied to behavior which exhibits a double standard, and I think that that was clearly the usage here. North8000 (talk) 01:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Saying that someone exhibits a double standard is a comment on their intentions. For example when you say something that is wrong, I assume you are mistaken rather than that you are lying. TFD (talk) 05:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

TFD, the reasons for the tags have not been long forgotten. This article clearly violates Misplaced Pages policy by giving undue weight to minor and highly irrelevant definitions of libertarianism. Until the proportion of coverage reflects the prominence of the various viewpoints this article should have those disclaimers.

Right now the only evidence that has been supplied to support inclusion of the minor viewpoints is that a handful of authors debate the various viewpoints. Academics debating viewpoints in no way indicates how widely held those viewpoints are. Just because this talk page primarily consists of left-libertarianism versus libertarianism in no way indicates how many of us editors hold the left-libertarianism viewpoint.

This article should reflect political relevance. Libertarianism is tons more politically relevant than left-libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism combined. It's so much more politically relevant that it meets Misplaced Pages's criteria for primary topic. You don't realize that because you still have difficulties with the basics...such as whether libertarianism follows economic conservatism or not. BigK HeX is incapable of recognizing the organizational, practical, theoretical and policy value of giving each definition of "libertarianism" its own dedicated article. Carolmooredc, an anarchist, is well aware how irrelevant anarchist varieties are and has been trying to increase their relevance by advertising them in the lead of this article. With you three editors controlling this article...saying that this article requires a disclaimer is a huge understatement. --Xerographica (talk) 03:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Strike the personal attacks. BigK HeX (talk) 03:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Just statements of facts...

• TFD said of libertarians..."They actually support economic liberalism not economic conservatism."
• Carolmooredc said..."I'm more a Rothbard libertarian who became a decentralist libertarian since I don't care if people live in anarchist or minarchist communities as long as there's no central govt and communities don't aggress on each other and work out their differences peaceably."
• Your response to the issue of undue weight was, "Thanks, we've got it covered in the article with, "Right-libertarianism is thought to be better known than left-libertarianism""

Let's review...TFD doesn't grasp the basics, Carolmooredc just wants to promote anarcho-capitalism (Rothbard) and you think ONE SENTENCE solves the fundamental problem of undue weight. Yup...with you three in charge of this article a huge disclaimer is definitely necessary. --Xerographica (talk) 03:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Strike the personal attacks. And moreover, do NOT put words in my mouth or take them out-of-context. BigK HeX (talk) 03:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Since you're not familiar with the undue weight policy I guess it's no surprise you're not familiar with the personal attack policy. According to Misplaced Pages policy, "pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest and its relevance to the discussion at hand is not considered a personal attack". Put words in your mouth? Out of context? Seriously? It was a direct quote regarding undue weight. --Xerographica (talk) 04:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

It was a direct quote in the context of your continuing tendentious soapboxing about stripping viewpoints from the article. In any case, you blatantly misrepresent my position on the matter, so don't presume to know me. And actually, your speculation of my familiarity with policy is laughable. I've asked you to strike your personal attacks and to cease the WP:IDHT "primary topic" ranting -- that discussion has been closed, even though you may not have liked the outcome. Still, you choose to push forward, though many editors hold the opinion that it is disruptive. But, good luck with that attitude. BigK HeX (talk) 04:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

"Soapboxing" is the word that you and Carolmooredc use with great frequency to indicate that somebody's point is totally and utterly frivolous and barely worth responding to. We have valid points and we've presented sufficient supporting evidence. But because of the reasons I've already mentioned...you three continue doing whatever the hell you like. When I arrived on the scene you three were completely ignoring Darkstar1st and even trying to get him block/banned even though he was patiently trying to explain to you the problem of undue weight. And you're still trying to get him blocked. To block me and others from editing the article you "protected" it from IP editors. Born2cycle expended a lot of energy trying to correct the problem of undue weight but who knows what happened to him. BlueRobe seems to have burnt out trying to correct the very same problem. So no, it's not me. It's you three. --Xerographica (talk) 05:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

(out) Xerographic, this is getting off topic, but right-libertarians support an economic theory called economic liberalism. This theory was based on the economic theories of Adam Smith and developed in the 19th century by liberal economists including Bastiat and Ricardo. In the 20th century liberal economists, including Hayek, Mises and Friedman, tried to revive liberal economics. Libertarians of all stripes have always rejected conservative economics, also called mercantilism, which relied on high tariffs. If you believe that libertarians support mercantilism and reject liberal economics, then you should provide a source. TFD (talk) 05:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

One more time...Modern liberalism and classical liberalism are two completely different things. Modern liberals are all about state intervention into the economy. They want a big government. The word "liberal" is synonymous with the Democratic Party. On the other hand are the conservatives...aka the Republicans. They do not want government intervention into the economy...and they want a smaller government than Democrats. "Conservative" doesn't mean going all the way back to mercantilism! For goodness sake. It means going back to classical liberalism.

Socially liberal and economically conservative means taking social freedoms from the left and fiscal responsibility from the right. We can't say socially liberal AND economically liberal because that would make us liberals. However, if everybody used "liberal" in the sense you did then we wouldn't have to go around saying classical liberal or libertarian. --Xerographica (talk) 05:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

We come back to the problem of explaining right libertarianism. If it is a revival of classical liberalism, well classical liberalism was never as extreme - they supported welfare, health and safety laws, free education and public works. Even Herbert Spencer turned against them in his article "The New Toryism". On the other hand, they were not very socially liberal either, bringing in blue laws etc. And their 20th century turn to the welfare state can be seen as a way of breaking up traditional social arrangements - family, church, gentry, just a continuation. TFD (talk) 06:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

This might help. Watch this c-span video...Tea Party Movement and Government. Take notes on the use of the word "libertarianism". Also, pay especially close attention to Jeffrey Bell's portion. Count how many times he uses some combination of economically/socially conservative/liberal. Here's a cheat sheet...

* conservatives = socially conservative and economically conservative

* modern liberals = socially liberal and economically liberal

* libertarians = socially liberal and economically conservative

While you're at it...search through the c-span video archives for "libertarianism" to get an idea of how prominent the various definitions are. --Xerographica (talk) 17:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Carol removed the sourced and accepted text, Left-Libertarians support growing the welfare state, how is that anti-statist?

the reason given was non-english OR, but the material has been on the left-libertarian page for some time, and includes an english source. please undo your erroneous revert or give a better reason why the source is invalid. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Have YOU read the source? BigK HeX (talk) 05:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

i have added sep as a source confirming left libertarian is actually statist, which contradicts the lede. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/libertarianism/#4, paragraph 3, line 2, most left-libertarian views, individuals have an enforceable duty to pay others Darkstar1st (talk) 06:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Since you don't give a diff, I'm not sure what you are talking about. (If it's what I think, I moved it to the left libertarian section for reasons explained elsewhere. I don't know why this thread is so far away from those explanations. But maybe it's something else. Without a diff, who can remember two days later? CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

carol the fact that you can't remember deleting the follow accepted and tested source left-libertarians support growing the welfare state is a good reason why you should not edit here anymore. Darkstar1st (talk) 04:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

maybe the reason you cant remember is because i have supplied several wp:rs already in use on this page. each time, you delete, discount, or move my source. here is the diff to help you remember: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Libertarianism&action=historysubmit&diff=382527222&oldid=382520187 Darkstar1st (talk) 05:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

anarcho-capitalism, normally known as individual anarchism, by definition unable to protect authentic libertarian principles

why was this removed? the existing source was already accepted by those who removed the new material, yet the old material was left on the page? how can one page of a source be valid, and not the next? Anarchy and the law: the political economy of choice By Edward Stringham page 504, line 21. 517, line 20. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

For a useful experiment, quote the EXACT text from the book, and then quote your exact edit. BigK HeX (talk) 05:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

page 504 line 20, "the term individual anarchist will therefore be used to refer to those who oppose government entirely and advocate the market as the primary..." my words: anarcho-capitalism, normally known as individual anarchism Darkstar1st (talk) 05:51, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

So, you got "normally" from ... where? BigK HeX (talk) 07:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

page 504 line 20, i left it out to prove you do not ever read the sources you revert. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

lol ... you "proved" that I "do not ever read the sources" when I'm clearly asking YOU to quote the source. And you also "proved" that I just go straight into a "revert" when we're discussing an edit that I never touched. Amazing proofs, I guess. BigK HeX (talk) 07:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

How this Darkstar1st's edit misrepresents the source

But now .. let's do the ACTUAL experiment. BigK HeX (talk) 07:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The source opens by explaining that,

There are two distinct strains of libertarian thought: minarchism and anarchism... While this study focuses on the anarchist branch of libertarianism, the sole, although crucial, difference between the two factions resides in their views regarding government provision of police and proper function of court services...Because the anarchists propose that a definite economic institution, the market, replace the political institution of government, they have been referred to as "free market anarchists", "anarcho-capitalists", and "individual anarchists". Since libertarianism is compatible with any voluntary non-coercive institutional arrangement, of which the market is only one...of such arrangements, terms such as "free market anarchism" or "anarcho-capitalism" are overly restrictive. The term "individual anarchists" will therefore be the term normally used to refer to those who oppose government entirely and advocate the market as the primary...

And from this author's opening where he is describing only how he will employ terminology for this one paper, you get the following edit:

...anarcho-capitalism, normally known as individual anarchism...

As usual, I find your edit problematic. BigK HeX (talk) 07:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

would it be ok if i said, "anarcho-capitalism is overly restrictive, and not compatible with libertarian" Darkstar1st (talk) 08:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

That's even worse. I'm not sure how you don't see that such an edit would wholly misrepresent the source.... Out of curiosity (and you do NOT have to answer), is English your first language? BigK HeX (talk) 08:02, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

ok, is there any words i could use from that passage that would be ok referring to anarcho-capitalist, if so, which? Darkstar1st (talk) 08:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of "words" you could use ... unfortunately, the problem is with how you are putting those words together. If you're soliciting my advice, I'm not sure if you should do anything with this source. Even with there no doubt about whether you reading the thing, it seems you're not understanding it yet. I might hold off, if I were you. BigK HeX (talk) 08:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

but i ask you which, as you have denied every noun on the passage, so which word may i use? Darkstar1st (talk) 08:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't give you permission to use any of the words -- you already have the permission to try. But note -- due to this being a common problem that I encounter with your edits -- that I will scrutinize and immediately revert any of your edits that misrepresent the source (or appear to be borne of unfounded speculation). You have my apologies in advance for this. BigK HeX (talk) 08:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

no, i am trying to paraphrase a rs to add material about a term which directly contradicts the claims made in the lede, either deny the source, or provide your version of how to add it. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Why was what removed? New editors who want to review archives will be very confused if even those of us who have been paying some attention are, a few days later. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

very funny carol, why was anarcho-capitalism, normally known as individual anarchism, by definition unable to protect authentic libertarian principle removed, relevant, as you were the editor who deleted this wp:rs, which contradicts your claim anarcho-capitalism is libertarian. Darkstar1st (talk) 04:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Had CarolMoore not removed it, I would have done so, as it is WP:OR that misrepresents the source. Why are you still worrying over this edit, when you've already been shown above how it's not an acceptable edit? BigK HeX (talk) 04:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

misrepresents the source how? page 504 and 517 clearly say such. Darkstar1st (talk) 04:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't remember seeing or removing that, though it sounds pretty fishy. But if Darkstar provided a diff I could look at it. Since he hasn't and I don't know context or if I really removed it, I really can't respond. Why does Darkstar keep harassing us about old issues he doesn't even bother to identify? See Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

you cant remember deleting this from the lede 2 days ago? http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Libertarianism&action=historysubmit&diff=382527222&oldid=382520187 Darkstar1st (talk) 05:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

"misrepresents the source how?" ... It misrepresents the source in exactly the way I explained in the top half of this thread. BigK HeX (talk) 05:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The diff having been provided, I'd forgotten the earlier version with some absurd WP:OR content. It was so bad it didn't even warrant a discussion section, just an edit summary reading rem pov wp;or; please put in individualist anarchist or libertarianism section if want in lead; spelling; put back questionable sentence allegedly ref'd by Frenchman when get actual language So why are you suddenly now deciding it's such a great edit. Please read WP:Original research if you don't get it. CarolMooreDC (talk) 05:16, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

carol the fact that you cant remember speaks volumes. bigk no, you simply reposted my edit and the source. i have ask you before, what you thought was misrepresented, and how you would add text from that paragraph, you answered neither. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:22, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I very clearly lay out what was misrepresented and described precisely how, and then even put a section header on it so that there was no doubt where you could find my comments. I can do no more for you on this issue, and won't waste my time trying. BigK HeX (talk) 07:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

no, all you did was repost my work, and say you didn't like it. now mention of how, or what specifically was word misrepresented. you did highlight the part where the source explains the correct term is individual anarchist, not anarcho-capitalist. you seem to be making my case, then at the end, saying, "see OR" Darkstar1st (talk) 08:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

"This article may be inaccurate in or unbalanced towards certain viewpoints"

Could someone please provide a contemporary (i.e., within the last 60 years) source that provides a viewpoint of the subject that represents the viewpoint that they wish the article to reflect. TFD (talk) 06:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Not sure I understand your question. Personally I'd like to see proportionate coverage of all of the belief sets with the word "Libertarian" in them. And do this with respect to each of two areas: 1. Preponderance of viewpoints in prominent leaders and "thinkers" (philosophers, academics )in this area, and 2. preponderance in the number of people currently practicing Libertarianism, who self-identify primarily as such. And, speaking of the latter, a massive "hole" in this article is coverage of practice of Libertarianism.

I think that everybody here knows that the above would naturally lead to reduced coverage of the rarer or small minority forms of Libertarianism. North8000 (talk) 12:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

In the context of WP policies/guidelines,it's inaccuracy and tilt is over-representation of small minority forms of Libertarianism.North8000 (talk) 12:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Can you please provide a source that discusses the "preponderance of viewpoints". Which of 1. or 2. do you suggest we use? do we use the beliefs of self-declared libertarians or what the individuals/parties they support believe? How do we treat historical libertarianism or the development of modern libertarianism? Could someone please provide an example of an article (rs or not) that illustrates the balance you would find acceptable. TFD (talk) 13:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

If the idea sounds good, lets work toward it (find sources with info on this) rather than what appears to be searching for roadblocks like implying that we need to have all of the details from later steps in place before we take the first step, which is finding sources to guide this. On your last question, I'm not knowledgeable enough on the changes to answer the question. Perhaps I could find out from this article if it wasn't such a mess. :-) North8000 (talk) 14:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

finally a compromise, 2 articles, both branched in the disambiguation page, modern libertarian, historical libertarian. ty tfd Darkstar1st (talk) 13:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

"Personally I'd like to see proportionate coverage of all of the belief sets with the word "Libertarian" in them. ". Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary. Every WP article should be about a separate topic, not a summary of every topic that might be referred to by the term that happens to be the article title. --Born2cycle (talk) 14:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. That statement of mine represented an attempted compromise or interpretation of that. The issues is that with ALL of the terms in dispute / being discussed here, there are some people saying that they should be in this article = none are soooooo different that nobody wants them here. That is the core of this zillion word dispute. North8000 (talk) 14:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Advice from the community was sought on that matter, and we resolved that the article is not merely covering "every topic that might be referred to by the term", but rather, that reliable sources discuss the topics as related aspects of a single concept. BigK HeX (talk) 14:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

not resolved several editors agreed with born2cycle saying a narrow focus was preferred. Darkstar1st (talk) 14:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Preferred isn't the same as respecting reliable sources and Misplaced Pages Policy. BigK HeX (talk) 15:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Let me pose a HYPOTHETICAL question. Let's say that we (collectively) found out that Libertarian Socialism has absolutely nothing to do with Libertarianism. Could / should we, as a compromise (and possibly to help inform readers) put two sentences on it in this article that say that? North8000 (talk) 15:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC

Hmmm ... I'm not sure. I suppose it's likely that some articles mention their homonyms, in order to educate on the fact that homonyms exist for the term discussed by a Wiki article. BigK HeX (talk) 15:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

North8000, I remember when I thought it was even remotely possible for some sort of compromise to be reached with BigK HeX, TFD and CarolMooreDC (et al). It's not. They're dedicated to their cause of sabotaging the Libertarianism page with revisionist doublespeak and nonsense, thereby making the Libertarianism page essentially worthless for any viewer who wishes to learn about Libertarianism, and no amount of rational argument will lead them to a reasonable compromise of any kind. Indeed, the stronger your arguments, the more likely you are to receive threats and intimidation (it is a rare day that one of us doesn't receive a threat from BigK HeX or CarolMooreDC). BlueRobe (talk) 03:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

RFC revisited

I just saw that RFC and it is an abomination, completely misses the point, and was closed WAY too quickly. The issue is presented in a very biased manner (narrow vs. broad). There is no discussion about separate uses of the term, and relative popularity of the uses, much less discussion of which use (if any) is primary. NOBODY even attempts to argue that the "broad usage" is primary, which the current article clearly violates. The issues of coherency is practically ignored (and so I just restored the tag). Not even a hint about WP:NAD, which the current article also violates (being about all the uses of the word rather than about a single clear/coherent concept). Ridiculous. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

As noted in other complaints from editors prefering the narrow writing of the article, please file a report in an appropriate venue if you believe the RfC to be inappropriately done. I don't see any possible way that rehashing it out with another simple thread on the talk page can resolve anything about the RfC. BigK HeX (talk) 15:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The question "narrow vs. broad" was never decided, presumably because it was so badly chosen and worded. Instead, there was IMHO a well written conclusion which the "broad" folks have been ignoring. In the context of this article, it says reduce the coverage of the off-beat forms. North8000 (talk) 15:18, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Pretty clearly, the question of "narrow" vs "broad" was very explicitly decided. To quote from the RfC closure, "'Libertarianism' should be broadly construed to include all significant viewpoints from reliable sources." But, it still stands that us having a discussion amongst ourselves in this talk page thread can serve no useful purpose about "rectifying" any possible improprieties of the RfC. BigK HeX (talk) 15:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

What I meant was that that the result is defined by the what was written by the person who closed it, not by the question. North8000 (talk) 15:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I still do not know what Darkstar & co. think the article should be about. Once mention of anarchist influences on libertarianism what is left? Could someone pleased find a source that describes the ideology that they believe this article should be about. TFD (talk) 15:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

a good start would be removing the conflicting terms in the lede, left-libertarian, which is committed to expanding the welfare state, and sourced, is listed as anti-statist Darkstar1st (talk) 15:52, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I think a better start would be to provide an RS, of the type that TFD has requested at least 3 times already. It's always better to actually have some RS to work from. BigK HeX (talk) 16:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

here are 2 that have been on the left-libertarian page for some time: Herbert P. Kitschelt, “La gauche libertaire et les écologistes français,” Revue Française de Science Politique 40.3 (June 1990): 339-365, ctd. Hans-Georg Betz, Radical Right-Wing Populism in Western Europe (London: Palgrave-Macmillan 1994) 180-1. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Have you read La gauche libertaire et les écologistes français? BigK HeX (talk) 16:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

bigk, if you have an objection to the source, we would all like to hear what it may be. forget about the french, mon ami, and focus on the english source. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I've mentioned no objection to anything in that last comment. I asked a question. Have you read that source, yes or no? BigK HeX (talk) 16:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

<backdent>First, can we stick to the subject?
Second, If people didn't like the form of the question, they shouldn't have participated at all and just agreed that the question was no good in the relevant section. But they chimed in and went along with the "broad" vs. "narrow" designations through a long discussion, so I think the matter is settled. Please read carefully Misplaced Pages:Disruptive editing and especially it's subsection on Refusal to get the point. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

great, i will re add the material clarifying the left-libertarian is NOT anti-statist, but actually supports growing the welfare state as the source verified. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Better idea for ya. Quote the passage from the source, and your proposed edit for us, please. BigK HeX (talk) 16:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: left libertarianism: Other sources can be found for left libertarians and libertarian socialists who are against the welfare state. Obviously you won't provide those but they will be provided soon enough in the interest of NPOV. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Way too complex. Choose two definitions of libertarianism, e.g., one from Vallentine and one that represents one you think should be used and ask readers to choose. TFD (talk) 16:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Lets have an RFC every week. A few suggestions:

1. Should the article only cover minarchism?
2. Should references to anarcho-capitalism and left-libertarianism be deleted?
3. Should the article only cover minarchism?
4. Should references to left-libertariansm and anarcho-capitalism be deleted?

And finally,

1. Should the article only cover minarchism?

Devil finds work for empty hands. Keep busy! N6n (talk) 16:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

In my limited knowledge in this area, when I read the whole Left Libertarian article, I only saw one sentence about one person's pro-welfare opinion (with an off line reference) which seems to conflict with mainstream Libertarianism. Further I found verylittle saying that the term is really used, and when it WAS used, it seemed more to refer to instances of people who (presumably vaguely) consider them left leaning but also call themselves Libertarians. This would seem to be about a confluence of attributes (e.g. brown haired Libertarians) rather than "left Libertarian" being a distinct set of beliefs. So I guess what I'm implying / asking puts me in conflict with folks from both "sides". Is there even such a thing as "left Libertarian" as somehing defining a set of beliefs? And if so, what is it, and, other than that (weak) one sentence about one person's, opinion, where is the info about the conflict? North8000 (talk) 16:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

From my reading libertarians are big on freedom and some of them in the 1950s decided that the right to own private property was the only effective way to guarantee freedom. Since then some defenders of private property rights have been called libertarian, even though their ideology derives from liberalism, not libertarianism. TFD (talk) 17:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

User:North8000: You pretty much have it right. Some leftys do think a temporary measure to protect people is various welfare state programs, environmental laws (and ones that allegedly control abuses of big corporations) until they can be replaced by voluntary means, but that is controversial and many don't agree and it is not part of the ideology. It should be noted that gradualist pro-property libertarians also sometimes say that the really bad programs like big military/drug laws/corporate welfare/etc. should go before welfare state type programs, at least until we can sell off the feds land and redistribute money to social security recipients, the general populace, or who ever. It would be nice to move these non RfC discussions to another dedicated section - Darkstar, feel free?CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:22, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll do that. North8000 (talk) 17:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

carol, which left-libertarians do not believe welfare programs are part of their ideology? it has been the edit on their page for quite some time, doesn't that put the burden of proof on you? Darkstar1st (talk) 20:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

@tfd, his name is actually peter vallentyne, and he is used as a wp:rs several times in this article, his presentation Left-Libertarianism and the Welfare State, Centre for Socio-Legal Studies, Oxford University (2007), should end the debate on whether left-libertarian is anti-statist. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The fact that Vallentyne wrote an article called "Left-libertarianism and the welfare state" does not support the statement that it "actually supports the welfare state according to Peter Vallentyne". 23:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Warning on Sock and Meat puppets

Which of course are banned under WP:Sock puppetry. See User_talk:Darkstar1st#Warning_on_Meat_Puppetry.2FCozying_up_to_known_sock_puppets for details. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Is there something currently at issue regarding this, or is this warfare by innuendo? North8000 (talk) 15:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Darkstar1st should not be communicating with banned editors on his talk page and should apply for semi-protection to stop this. Looking through the stats, the no. 2 contributor to this article was User:RJII, User:Irgendwer was 4th and Anarcho-capitalism (a sock of User:Billy Ego) came in at no. 14. I cannot find any evidence that User:Hogeye, the other main sockmaster, on this type of article edited. TFD (talk) 16:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

To North8000: Read the link to the talk page. FYI, the "more troops are on the way" paragraph - plus Darkstar1st's repeated requests I provide full relevant evidence - necessitated this. But it's best discussed there where there is full info. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

my comment was reference to the success of the rfc, and my section asking for support for a new rfc, does that make me a meatpuppetier? Darkstar1st (talk) 16:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if you are talking about recruiting people all over wikipedia and the internet and your comments were sufficiently vague that they suggested that. Plus there is the sock puppetry and other questionable history with AnonIPs/new editors to make your comment raise eyebrows. Full details at the link above. CarolMooreDC (talk) 16:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

no carol, i was not talking about "all over", rather a new rfc, they seem to work pretty well. there is not sock puppetry in my history, you incorrectly accused me and it was declined. my history in wp is longer than yours, question whatever you like, when you accuse, at least cite your evidence. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, Carolmooredc has resorted to yet another round of threats against an editor she disagrees with - Darkstar1st - in an effort to silence him. In this instance, she is basing her claim on a flippant remark about "troops" that was made on his own talk page. However, she has not been able to provide ANY examples of sock puppets or meat puppets that have entered the Libertarian discussions to fight at Darkstar1st's side.

Indeed, the only examples of new users who look suspiciously like sock puppets or meat puppets are a few one-off contributions by random editors who entered "broad" votes alongside Carolmooredc (et al) in the recent rfc. Predictably, the consideration that LK gave to the vacuous contributions of those sock/meat puppets in his conclusions was equal to that given to the contributions of the regular editors to the page. BlueRobe (talk) 03:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems suspicious that after relatively little activity for 2.5 years, and that mostly from lefties who want to purge pro-property libs, that suddenly there's an influx of editors with the opposite POV. One of them has been proven to be the infamous Aussie sock User:Karmaisking who probably is the sock puppet who boasts about all the edits he's gotten away with

We'll need more than the merest suspicion of the page's most delusional saboteur. (Oh no! People are talking in the Libertarianism page, the puppets must be coming to get Carol! rofl) BlueRobe (talk) 06:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Update: Users:114.73.173.184, 125.7.71.6 and User:ShadowMan4444 - who all edited on the topic of libertarianism on Darkstar1st’s talk page (and one on BlueRobe’s talk page) - today were banned as socks of User:Karmaisking. In July User:BarbaricSocialistZealots who edited here also was banned as one of his socks. User:Ddd1600, after being blocked for a few days, also was caught using a sock and hasn’t been back since. So alertness on this issue in this article remains necessary. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The amount of time you spend in the talk pages of other users is truly disturbing. BlueRobe (talk) 03:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Exploring "Left Libertarian" Term

(Continuation of a discussion that started in "RFC Revisited")

I understood Carol's answer but not TFD's. Carol and all, does that not then mean that "Left Libertarian" is not a real term? And that the material in the "Left Libertarian" article is just "Libertarian" material? North8000 (talk) 17:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course, that goes even more so for right Libertarian, but one thing at a time.North8000 (talk) 17:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by a "real term"? Numerous RS's have been supplied that touch on the breakdown of libertarianism into left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism. If you want comprehensive coverage of contemporary left-lib, then there's a book by Otsuka that might help you. (You may hear a rumor that Otsuka is "wrong", but let's assume that the cited RS is more credible than a random Wikipedian.) BigK HeX (talk) 18:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

That question could be complicated, but probably a quick test would be: Is there a reasonably sized group of people who would identify themselves as practicing "left Libertarianism". This requires that they believe "left Libertarian" identifies a distinct school of thought. (not just lefties with some Libertarian tendencies or vica versa). North8000 (talk) 18:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

If we're looking at authors, (e.g. Otsuka) did they make up the term for writing clarity purposes, or are did they say that it in actual use?

I'm not really understanding what difference an answer to this chicken/egg question would make. The term is in use. I believe you've asked previously if people self-identify as "left-libertarian" and the answer is "yes". I'm not sure if it is the "first" term to come to mind for these people, just as most US citizens might not be prone to offer the self-label of "Earthling" before just calling themselves "American", even though both are accurate and both terms are well-known among Americans. BigK HeX (talk) 18:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I meant with respect to their political beliefs. North8000 (talk) 18:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Libertarianism broke into two strands in the 1950s, creating a problem because both claimed to be libertarian. For convenience the older form of libertarianism is called left-libertarianism, while the newer version is called right-libertarianism. Liberalism also split into two groups creating naming problems, which in the U. S. was resolved by calling the older group "conservatives". In fact most ideologies have similar splits and similar naming problems. Albert Jay Nock is an example of a transitional figure between left and right libertarianism, a follower of Henry George who became an important influence on Murray Rothbard, Frank Chodorov, Leonard Read and William F. Buckley, Jr.. TFD (talk) 18:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Not that everything is there / clear, but I think I learned more on this topic from your one paragraph than from reading all three articles.

Just a quick "gut feel" answer, what comes to mind as 1 or 2 things where these right and left libertarian philosophies would disagree? North8000 (talk) 18:55, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The main thing they disagree on is ownership of property. But left libertarians differ among themselves about what types of property should be excluded from private owership. To the Georgists, land could not be transferred to private ownership and so they advocated taxing only land, removing the tax burden from businesses and individuals that created wealth. Other left libertarians considered businesses to be property, and opposed their private ownership. I cannot think of any other defining difference. TFD (talk) 19:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. North8000 (talk) 02:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Exploring a term usually means at least one example from a WP:RS . Fyi. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Incoherent-topic tag

The incoherent-topic tag was removed with this comment: purported "incoherence" decided upon in talk. Removing tag.

I see no discussion about the tag on this page, much less a decision to remove it. Therefore, I restored the tag, with this comment: Article remains incoherent. Issue not resolved on talk page, and will not be resolved as long as this article is about the word than some distinct topic.

This restoration was reverted, without further elaboration; only a repeat of the previous unfounded claim: rv tag. Issue discussed and resolved on talk. Please respect the community's input)

What input about the incoherency of this article, much less the tag itself? Removing tags without basis is unacceptable, especially when the removal is disputed. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

If as you say there is no discussion about the tag on the talk page then there is no reason to keep the tag. If you believe that the tag is warranted then please provide explanations so that we can improve the article to reach the level of coherence that you would find acceptable. At present no one has any idea why you find the article incoherent. TFD (talk) 23:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The discussion for original placement of the tag has been archived. I see no point in duplicating that here now; that defeats the purpose of having archives. The issue now is whether there has been discussion, much less consensus developed, for removal of the tag. I see none of that. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Here, by the way, is the discussion about adding the tag (from the archives). --Born2cycle (talk) 23:24, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Darkstar1st wrote, "I've added the {{incoherent-topic}} maintenance tag to this article to bring attention to the root problem - the attempt to cover all (some widely disparate) topics referred to by the term "libertarianism", rather than just one, leading to the incoherent topic problem." Please read how wikipedia defines "Stay on topic". Darkstar1st's comments seem to show that he disagrees with the scope of the topic, not that the article does not support the topic as defined. Also, could you please not place templates on my talk page, which is totally unneccessary and abusive. TFD (talk) 23:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The quoted comment above attributed to someone else was made by yours truly. This has nothing to do with Darkstar1st or his/her views. The topic of an article should never be a word and all of its uses. That's a violation of WP:NAD. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

This is typical of the sort of dishonest behaviour that we've learned to expect from certain (left-wing) editors on this page. They arbitrarily remove/add tags and content on the main page, without any consultation on this talk page, and then they demand that you establish a consensus within the community before you remove/add tags or content (even when it is regarding the restoration of a tag they removed without justification in the first place). Their hypocrisy is beyond absurd.

Carol, in particular, makes unilateral changes to the Libertarianism page on a regular basis, without notification or consultation, and issues threats against anyone who even hints at doing the same. BlueRobe (talk) 03:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

<backdent>The RfC finding a broad interpretation of the word is preferred would seem to clear up the alleged coherence problem described by Darkstar1st's quote which is really a "let's make it narrow" POV problem. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

We have an RfC that has concluded that the article's discussion of anarchism, left-libertarianism, etc is the most appropriate route. If any editor replaces this tag, I will have little choice other than to pursue action for disruptive and tendentious editing. For the time being, we have the recently closed RfC, and such community input should be respected until a new consensus is proven. BigK HeX (talk) 05:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

It is patently obvious that NO CONSENSUS EXISTS regarding the in/appropriateness of the inclusion of "anarchism, left-libertarianism, etc". You are fully aware that there exists a clear discord among the editors. Stop claim a consensus on an issue when it is clear that there is nothing but intractable division. BlueRobe (talk) 02:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Is this tag appropriate?

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following lists: Politics, government, and law Society, sports, and culture Economy, trade, and companies When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

.

Is this tag appropriate: "This article may lack a single coherent topic"? The template links to "Stay on topic": "The most readable articles contain no irrelevant (nor only loosely relevant) information". The posting editor justifies the tag, ""I've added the {{incoherent-topic}} maintenance tag to this article to bring attention to the root problem - the attempt to cover all (some widely disparate) topics referred to by the term "libertarianism", rather than just one, leading to the incoherent topic problem." TFD (talk) 23:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• Inappropriate. Given that the tag originally was added by an editor who does not like the article including discussion of "left-libertarianism" and anarcho-capitalism, and given that a very recent RfC settled that those topics ARE appropriate, the tag is no longer warranted, even despite any lingering concerns of the editor. Moreover, the continuing push for this tag, in the face of the previous RfC can be viewed as tendentious. That we're forced to need a 2nd RfC on the heels of the last one -- when the last one already concluded that inclusion of the topics IS appropriate -- is pretty disruptive, IMO. BigK HeX (talk) 00:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

What definition of the word "settled" are you using to claim that any of the significant disputes have been settled? If anything, the irrational and dishonest conclusion to the recent rfc demonstrated the extent to which the parties on one side (the left) of the divide will use any means to defeat their ideological adversaries, without so much as a hint of compromise. Nothing has been settled and the parties are as entrenched and intractable as ever. BlueRobe (talk) 02:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• Appropriate and needed at the moment I don't like top level tags. I've only been involved on this article for a about a couple of weeks. This article (actually trio of articles) is a confusing mess. The last RFC was misworded, making for an even more confusing mess. But the closer's comments and findings were good, but everybody is looking to "spin" and misinterpret them rather than following them. Even the battles here seem incoherent. I really don't see underlying differences, or POV differences at the root of the disputes, or see underlying differences being discussed, it seems like the editors have caught themselves in a trap of arguing for the sake of arguing. There are many VERY intelligent, active editors here on both sides of the issue who I have had the privilege of learning things from. They just need to get their heads conked together and say "get together, work it out, and make a really good article (or trio of articles) and have some fun doing it". And, speaking directly to the topic of a "single coherent topic" there certainly isn't one, or even real discussion on what it is. And more decisions by briefly involved persons in an RFC are likely to make the problem worse. And so. despite my dislike for top level tags, I think that this article needs them (and that these are appropriate) and an impetus for getting this worked out. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

So .... to make sure there's not any "misinterpreting" of the RfC closing, I ask you if the RfC concludes that the article should be written with Libertarianism construed broadly? (Yes/no?) BigK HeX (talk) 01:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully, your question is worded so as to spin the closer's comments rather than follow them. But, my interpreatation of their comments in the context of this article is (please excuse my oversimplification-for-the-sake-of-clarity):

- For the viewpoints / terminology which are minority but still significant /significantly held, keep them, but keep their coverage in proportion, which means reduce them (or give them wording that identifies them as such)

- For the viewpoints / terminology where RS does not indicate they are significant or significantly held, remove them.

And I agree with the closer.

If I had to pick literally amongst the badly worded choices in the RFC, I guess I'm in the "broadly" category, but such would do more harm than good in this environment, so I do not officially pick that.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

So, concluding that the closing comment which explicitly says, ""Libertarianism" should be broadly construed to include all significant viewpoints from reliable sources" is somehow "spinning" the comment that the article be written with a broad understanding? Calling that some kind of "spin" is not even a plausible interpretation, IMO. Worse, I'd have to respectfully conclude that refusing to acknowledge that the closing was concluded as support for a broad writing borders on WP:IDHT. BigK HeX (talk) 04:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

No, what I said is that the closing is as it it worded, not something that you are trying to take out of context from it. North8000 (talk) 12:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• Appropriate. The claim above that this tag was added "by an editor who does not like the article including discussion of 'left-libertarianism' and anarcho-capitalism" is false and would be irrelevant if true anyway (I added the tag and those are not my views). It doesn't matter who adds any tag or what their views are. All that matters is whether there is justification for the tag.

  There are several people who find the article content to be incoherent since it attempts to describe multiple uses of the word libertarianism. The above RFC was active so briefly I (and who knows how many others?) didn't even get a chance to participate. My primary objections to the current content -- incoherency, violation of primary topic, violation of WP:NAD, years of evidence in the article and talk page history of people objecting to the topic of this article being the relatively obscure (certainly not primary) use of the term referred to exclusively in Misplaced Pages (as far as I know, and thus verging on violation WP:NOR as well) as "Libertarianism construed broadly" -- were not even mentioned, much less raised, discussed and evaluated. --Born2cycle (talk) 01:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The fact that there are a few determined editors who refuse to respect the community's input on the matter is irrelevant. BigK HeX (talk) 04:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• Appropriate. The phrase "nor only loosely relevant" is key. In terms of ideological similarities...modern liberalism, conservatism and libertarianism share two very important features. They recognize the necessity of the state and they support private ownership of the means of production. Anarcho-capitalism advocates abolishing the state and left-libertarianism advocates public ownership of the means of production. Any topic that is broad enough to include both left-libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism would also have to include modern liberalism and conservatism in order to maintain coherency. --Xerographica (talk) 02:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• Appropriate. Given the clear divisions between the editors on this talk page, and the on-going ideological war that is being fought on the Libertarianism page itself, I don't see how anyone with even an ounce of integrity could deem the tag inappropriate. Even the lede reflects the polemic nature of the Libertarianism page's incoherent content that has resulted from the inconsistency of its editorial contributions (read: blatant sabotage by certain unscrupulous editors). BlueRobe (talk) 02:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• Inappropriate looks like an attempt to impose a particular position on the article --Snowded 04:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

No. You look like a puppet who has been conscripted in to make up the numbers. BlueRobe (talk) 06:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• Inappropriate This article has been attacked for months by people who claim the article is "incoherent" because they refuse to recognize WP:NPOV's policy: All Misplaced Pages articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. They also have poo poo'd the result of the recent RfC where twice as many editors opined that the article should have this broad viewpoint. And don't get me started on the behavioral misdeeds that have disrupted editing so that any attempt to deal with any legitimate issues could be resolved in the article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:51, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• Appropriate Left and right, pro property and anti-property, statist and anti-statist. what is coherent about the article? Darkstar1st (talk) 05:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• Inappropriate -- It seems WP defines coherence as containing "no irrelevant (nor only loosely relevant) information". (link in the initial post) It is not the usual definition of the term, but it makes sense. A tag's "reason for being" is to lead to improvement of the article. In this case, does this article mention "irrelevant or loosely relevant information", which can be removed? No. N6n (talk) 05:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Although I hope the editors will keep the dictionary meaning of 'coherence' an a (perhaps unreachable) goal! N6n (talk) 06:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

N6n, the references to left-Libertarianism, Libertarian Socialism and Noam Chomsky are all only "loosely relevant", at best. BlueRobe (talk) 06:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• No, it's inappropriate -- I'm reluctant to cast a vote because this is in effect a repeat of the RfC that was only concluded two days ago. (I don't think that outcome should be ignored and everyone forced to vote a second time in the hope of a different result.) The argument that the article is incoherent seems to be based on the claim that there is "one true libertarianism"; that has already been rejected by a rough consensus.

I know that some on here don't agree that that "rough consensus" is valid, but can I make a suggestion?: There appears to be broad agreement, from both sides, that the different forms of libertarianism should be represented in accordance with their relative importance. We might actually make some progress if we build on that agreement. It would be constructive to move to a civil discussion of how much weight should be given to each subtopic. That discussion should be based on keeping an open mind, seeking to persuade others, and being open to persuasion, rather than trying to insult to other side and "win" the argument (which both sides have been guilty of).

No-one here is infallible. Perhaps the right-libertarian advocates have truth and justice on their side. But the reality is that the current campaign to remove certain subtopics entirely from the article is unlikely to be successful, no matter how many votes are held and how many pages of this talkpage are filled with angry posts. In the meantime that campaign is causing a lot of acrimony and is harmful to the article. Iota (talk) 12:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• Inappropriate The article follows a definition found in external sources. TFD (talk) 13:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

• Inappropriate. (Resp. to RfC). Broad subject, broad article. Figureofnine (talk) 15:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

A four-word explanation on a rfc vote by a user who has never been seen before = prima facie case of meat-puppetry. BlueRobe (talk) 01:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

You SERIOUSLY need to review WP:AGF. Your baseless accusations are tiring... BigK HeX (talk) 01:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Yet more hypocrisy from the red corner. You and carol have been endlessly hounding people (especially darkstar) with allegations of puppetry. BlueRobe (talk) 02:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

And, between the two of us, only one of us has a clear basis. There is ZERO "hypocrisy" in pointing out your baseless claims. BigK HeX (talk) 02:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

No. My claim is not baseless. Random people come in to post votes, void of any real commentary (or simply post a random-revisionist-source-backs-me-up claim), for the causes of the left-wingers in the RFCs. And they're never heard from again. Yet, miraculously, this doesn't happen in any of the other threads/sections of the talk page. This begs suspicion of meat-puppetry. BlueRobe (talk) 03:13, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Comments

These are the results if you google for "Libertarianism construed broadly": No results found for "Libertarianism construed broadly". We can't just make up topics and write articles about them.

And, no, I'm not saying there are no sources that use the term broadly; I'm saying that the sources that use the term in that (broad) sense are a relative minority among all sources that use the term.... which means that broad sense is not the primary topic. By having an article on that (broad) topic at Libertarianism, we are incorrectly implying that the primary topic of the term Libertarianism is this broad usage. That's way off. I'm pretty sure that there is NO topic that has a legitimate claim for being the primary use of the term. Of course, there is no need to reinvent the wheel here. We already have a clear directive for what to do: If there is no primary topic, the term should be the title of a disambiguation page . --Born2cycle (talk) 01:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

As I have mentioned earlier, Google shows 3.4 million hits for "Libertarianism". But, for all the popular recognition of Libertarianism, Google shows only 32,700 hits for "left-Libertarianism", (that's less than 1%!). When they argue for the "broad" concept of Libertarianism, they're arguing for equal weight to be accorded to ridiculously fringe ideologies. BlueRobe (talk) 02:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but I still think the more compelling argument is that use of the term "libertarianism" to refer to "left-libertarianism" is a fundamentally different use of the term and should not be covered in the same article for basically the same reason that Orange (fruit) and Orange (colour) are separate. The topic of this article, like the topic of any Misplaced Pages article, should be a single use of the relevant term. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. We have repeatedly pointed out that about the only thing that Libertarian Socialism and left-Libertarianism (often used as synonyms) have in common with Libertarianism is the word "Libertarian" in their labels. Indeed, Libertarian Socialism and left-Libertarianism are defined in terms that directly conflict with Libertarianism, despite their "Libertarian" labels. Left-Libertarianism and Libertarian Socialism are versions of Anarchism, not Libertarianism. They've turned deaf ears to that discussion. BlueRobe (talk) 03:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, you have tendentiously repeatedly harped on this topic even disregarding the community input we've received. BigK HeX (talk) 04:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a three day weekend in the USA, so the full volume of responses from various editors looking at RfC lists probably won't be coming in til Wednesday. FYI. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

BigK HeX, we can all see through your special rhetorical misuse of terms like "community" (anyone who agrees with you, to hell with the rest), "consensus" (contrived by ignoring the numbers and commentary of everyone who disagrees with you) and "settled" (you claiming victory by ignoring the people and arguments that challenge your position). BlueRobe (talk) 06:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

NPOV argument is begging the question

I also want to add the whole WP:NPOV argument is based on the logical fallacy of begging the question. That is, it presupposes that the topic is "Libertarianism construed broadly" (whether that should be the topic is the question at issue), and then says any legitimate views about that broad topic should not be excluded per WP:DUE. --Born2cycle (talk) 02:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

As an example of what I'm talking about, in the RFC above that was closed so quickly I was not able to participate, the following statement was made as part of a conclusion: "The arguments for WP:PRIMARYTOPIC have been rejected as editors have failed to show why the understandings of reliable sources on the topic of Libertarianism should be dismissed in the article on Libertarianism, and certainly no actual evidence has been presented to support the contention that only minarchist right-libertarianism is the topic that "is highly likely – much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined – to be the subject being sought when a reader enters that term in the Search box."

See how the usage of "Libertarianism" in this statement presupposes the broad interpretation? When Big writes, "the understandings of reliable sources on the topic of Libertarianism", he means, "the understandings of reliable sources on the BROAD topic of Libertarianism"!

Look, there are many uses of the term among reliable sources. This article, like all article, should be about only one of those uses. It doesn't make sense to put an article about a relatively minor use of the term ("Libertarianism construed broadly") at Libertarianism itself.

Even if minarchist right-libertarianism has not been shown to be the primary topic, that's no reason to put an even more obscure use at this article! That's an argument to put the dab page here. --Born2cycle (talk) 03:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

There is NO begging the question here. Reliable sources were examined and THEN we concluded that they are relevant to the article. The argument of this thread is erroneous. BigK HeX (talk) 04:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

BigK HeX, L2colon. BlueRobe (talk) 06:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

BigK, of course sources for the use of X are going to suggest X is relevant! That's begging the question! Unless you were looking at preponderance of use for each meaning of the term among reliable sources, including the preponderance of the use of the "libertarianism construed broadly" meaning, that tells us nothing about which topic should be at this title. --Born2cycle (talk) 07:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

WE DID NOT FIND A "DIFFERENT" MEANING. We examined the sources and determined that THEY DISCUSS THE SAME meaning. We are NOT presuming anything, so to try to cite begging the question is quite dubious. BigK HeX (talk) 07:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

The bottom line is it doesn't matter if the varieties are somewhat different, as long as lots of WP:RS describe them as libertarian. If "Anti-immigration anti-abortion libertarianism" became it's own philosophy with lots of WP:RS for that exact phrase, guess what, we'd have to put that horrific malformation of libertarianism in the article. CarolMooreDC (talk) 14:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

BigK, are you seriously suggesting that every use of "libertarianism" in reliable sources refers to the same meaning? Do you really not see different meanings in even the various uses cited in the article? How about, (1) "Libertarians are committed to the belief ... that robust property rights and the economic liberty that follows from their consistent recognition are of central importance in respecting individual liberty" IEP, and (2) any use of the term which includes opposition to property rights.

Carol, do you not understand what "begging the question" means? When you say "varieties " and "malformation of libertarianism", you are presupposing the "libertarianism construed broadly" meaning of "libertarianism" in your statements. That's begging the question, since the question at issue is whether this article should be about that meaning. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

It is like other terms for ideology - conservatism, liberalism and socialism. Each has different varieties and terminology to describe the different varieties may differ. However each merits its own article as they share certain core beliefs and history. Of course socialism as practiced by Tony Blair and Pol Pot may differ even more than left and right libertarians may differ. TFD (talk) 18:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

But that's a totally different argument (follow precedent set by other articles about political philosophy), and a much better one in my view, from the NPOV/DUE argument being discussed here. --Born2cycle (talk) 22:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

While you are correct that other articles need not be our guide, we may have articles about subjects that are recognized in academic literature. Some conservatives are strong supporters of the welfare state while others oppose it. Same with liberals and socialists. But we do not arbitrarily exclude huge sections of these topics based on our decision on who are the true believers. TFD (talk) 22:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Verify minutiae in lead - WP:OR????

You wrote in lead: "which is not actually anti-statist, as individuals have an enforceable duty to pay others." using this ref. Where does this ref say that? Please quote it. I must have missed it, what with having to squash sock puppets wasting so much of my energies. And if you are going to throw in minutae, why not let me throw in "Anarcho-capitalism (also known as “libertarian anarchy” or “market anarchism” or “free market anarchism”)"??? I'd like to see that personal buggaboo of mine in there too. But I have respect for not imposing my pov in a short lead. CarolMooreDC (talk) 06:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Have you found any sock puppets yet? Have you tried looking under your bed?

Regardless, your own personal POV is all over the Libertarianism page. Indeed, you are the primary reason that it is such an ideologically-biased incoherent shambles. BlueRobe (talk) 06:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

carol, i said it was in paragraph 3, line 2, if you missed it, you didn't both looking. if "enforceable payment" isn't statist, i will eat my hat Darkstar1st (talk) 06:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Quote the precise text for us, and paste it here please. BigK HeX (talk) 06:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, much as I read paragraph 3, line 2 [your ref I couldn't find it, only:

Libertarianism can be understood as a basic moral principle or as a derivative one. It might, for example, be advocated as a basic natural rights doctrine. Alternatively, it might be defended on the basis of rule consequentialism or teleology (e.g., Epstein 1995, 1998; Rasmussen and Den Uyl 2005; or Shapiro 2007) or rule contractarianism (e.g., Narveson 1988 and roughly Lomasky 1987).

And enforceable is not used to modify payments. But the other issue, of course, is why that minutiae belongs there and mine doesn't. CarolMooreDC (talk) 07:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

because you are in the wrong section, notice the link takes you to section 4, para 3, line 2. next time, at least read the source before you revert, please Darkstar1st (talk) 07:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Quote the precise text for us, and paste it here please. BigK HeX (talk) 07:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Lazy formatting like you did makes it easy to confuse a section when you are reading/cutting/pasting a reverted diff, as I was. Anyway, feel free to stick it in the Left Libertarianism section (and article for that matter) as their opinion and we'll see what left libertarians and libertarian socialists disagree. I get impression all three authors could be pushing their own statist POV but more research will tell. In mean time it's one of many factoids about libertarianism that don't belong in a short lead. CarolMooreDC (talk) 07:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

maybe you should read the entire sep article anyway carol. For on most left-libertarian views, individuals have an enforceable duty to pay others for the value of the rights that they claim over natural resources. statist, not anti-statist as in the lede. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

carol, sep is considered a rs, not an opinion. left-libertarians do agree, welfare sate is in the lede on their article. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

There's quite a paradox at work here. If left-Libertarianism entails no State apparatus or coercive mechanisms (which would, for instance, enforce economic contracts or the Harm Principle at criminal law), then surely left-Libertarianism must be a form of Anarchism. BlueRobe (talk) 08:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

mountain of evidence ignored left-libertarian is statist Most left libertarians support some form of income redistribution on the grounds of a claim by each individual to be entitled to an equal share of natural resources. A number of left-libertarians of this school argue for the desirability of some state social welfare programs.

I will ask for a THIRD TIME. QUOTE THE PRECISE TEXT FROM THE SOURCE AND PASTE IT HERE FOR US. Why is it taking so long for this to be done??? BigK HeX (talk) 11:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

see above, i have already, next time, please review the source yourself, it was linked in the article: For on most left-libertarian views, individuals have an enforceable duty to pay others for the value of the rights that they claim over natural resources. statist, not anti-statist as in the lede. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC) Darkstar1st (talk) 11:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

You have NOT quoted text from the source. For the 4th time, please do go into the ACTUAL SOURCE and paste the text here for us. Thanks. BigK HeX (talk) 12:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

To end the impasse, here it is from Stanford Section 4, para 3:

The above objections to the modern welfare state would be made both by right-libertarians and left-libertarians. Left-libertarians, however, can endorse certain “state-like” activities that right-libertarians reject. For on most left-libertarian views, individuals have an enforceable duty to pay others for the value of the rights that they claim over natural resources. Individuals seeking economic justice could form organizations that, under certain conditions, could force individuals to give them the payment they owe for their rights over natural resources, and could then transfer the payments to the individuals who are owed payments (after deducting a fee for the service, if the person agrees). The organization could also provide various public goods such as basic police services, national defense, roads, parks, and so on. By providing such public goods, the value of the rights claimed over natural resources by individuals will increase (e.g., rights over land for which police protection is provided are more valuable than rights over that land without police protection). Such public goods could be provided when and only when they would be self-financing based on the increased rents that they generate. CarolMooreDC (talk) 13:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

bigk i told you i did, you have just proved for the 2nd time in 2 days, you do not both to follow the sources you oppose. perhaps your pov would be different if you actually read what i have. carol, are you now convinced Left-libertarian is statist, if so, would you restore my edit, or at least not revert it this time? Darkstar1st (talk) 15:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Libertarians opposed the establishment of the welfare state, which was pioneered by Conservatives in Germany and introduced into the UK and US by liberals. To them the welfare state was designed to meet the needs of the establishment and to destroy non-government institutions controlled by the people that already delivered many of those services. Now that the state has taken over these functions the debate is how can they be transitioned back to the people or is that even possible. TFD (talk) 15:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

agree libertarians oppose the welfare state, left-libertarians support such as per their wp article and a mountain of evidence, see above. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

There was no left-right distinction among Libertarians when the welfare state was established. TFD (talk) 16:56, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

@tfd, please see source, the left libertarian page has the words, "grow the welfare state", so it is an ongoing process, and statist, which contradicts the lede. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone is against using the info in the Left Libertarian section, just in the lead. Am I incorrect. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

then dont put left libertarian in the lede as anti-statist, the sep clearly says, enforceable duty , that means some form of state. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Your WP:OR will not dictate the article text. (see my post below, since apparently you haven't read it yet) BigK HeX (talk) 19:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

1. Darkstar1st says, "bigk i told you i did, you have just proved for the 2nd time in 2 days, you do not both to follow the sources you oppose."

   The only thing proven so far is that you refuse to provide quotes when requested.

2. Darkstar1st says, "carol, are you now convinced Left-libertarian is statist"

   The irony of you telling someone else that they supposedly don't read sources, WHEN THAT SAME SECTION OF YOUR STANFORD SOURCE which supposedly supports text about "statism" actually has the text below that is highlighted :

   Libertarianism is committed to full self-ownership. A distinction can be made, however, between right-libertarianism and left-libertarianism, depending on the stance taken on how natural resources can be owned.... objections to the modern welfare state would be made both by right-libertarians and left-libertarians.....Individuals seeking economic justice could form organizations that, under certain conditions, could force individuals to give them the payment they owe for their rights over natural resources, and could then transfer the payments to the individuals who are owed payments...Such “justice-promoting” organizations engage in many of the activities of the modern states, and left-libertarianism can accept the legitimacy of such activities....There may be many organizations providing such services....Libertarianism, then, is not only critical of the modern welfare state, but of states in general.

   That you figured you could use this section to support your WP:OR that "left-libertarianism is 'statist'" is amazing. Frankly, your consistent misuse of sources is very disturbing, IMO. BigK HeX (talk) 19:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think Darkstar1st is familiar with the concept of Gradualism. Some left libertarians may gradually want to get rid of welfare state just like some anarcho-capotalists only gradually want to abolish the military or police. Don't confuse strategy with ideology. CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

according to wp:rs, left libertarian is statist, not up for debate. Darkstar1st (talk) 19:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

You have provided not a single source about left-libertarianism being statist. I'll ask you not to push this WP:OR. BigK HeX (talk) 20:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

::It is interesting that Darkstar1st wants to exclude left-libertarians because they are statist, while BlueRobe (section below) wishes to exclude them because they are anarchists. Maybe they should be called anarcho-statists or statist anarchists. TFD (talk) 22:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

@bigk you must have missed the original link to the wp:rs above, or the mountain of evidence ignored left-libertarian is statist Most left libertarians support some form of income redistribution on the grounds of a claim by each individual to be entitled to an equal share of natural resources. A number of left-libertarians of this school argue for the desirability of some state social welfare programs. Darkstar1st (talk) 23:00, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Lots of governments denationalized industries by redistributing shares in government-owned companies to taxpayers. Would you call that statist? TFD (talk) 23:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

For the fourth time today, Darkstar1st POST A QUOTE FROM THE RS HERE IN THIS TALK SECTION PAGE. If you fail to do this, I will not be able to WP:AGF for any edits you make on these lines. Especially since a source you've provided to supposedly support the case that "left-libertarianism is 'statist'" actually says "Libertarianism is committed to full self-ownership. A distinction can be made, however, between right-libertarianism and left-libertarianism, depending on the stance taken on how natural resources can be owned..... Libertarianism...is not only critical of the modern welfare state, but of states in general." Due your recent penchant for misrepresenting sources, any of your edits that your refuse to back with quotes directly from an RS will be treated as WP:OR. BigK HeX (talk) 01:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

For the love of all that is holy, would you numpties learn some basic formatting skills. This section looks like a dog's breakfast. BlueRobe (talk) 23:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

"Numpties?" I had to look that one up. Please read WP:No personal attacks. (Article probably should specify if that includes sock puppets ;-)

Anyway, as Big K HeX points out, the source does say Left Lib is libertarian except "it" (actually more like some of them) wants statism in certain limited areas. Just like minarchist libertarianism is libertarian except some minarchists want a big fat state to keep out immigrants and outlaw abortion. But I'll let Darkstar1st put that in the article too. Just not in the lead. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

@carol, ty for "letting" me add wprs, the problem is it contradicts your edit in the lede, which incorrectly list left libertarian as anti-statist. @bigk, your repeated request for verification of sources has become tiresome, this is obviously some kind of joke on me, haha you got me. from now on, you will have to look these up yourself, but for the 4th time today, here is the direct qoute, settling for all time, left libertarians are statist: Handbook of political theory By Gerald F. Gaus, Chandran Kukathas, page 128, paragraph 2. most left-libertarians thus uphold some substantial form of income redistribution . if you again ask for verification of a source readily available, a spaceship will land and take me back to zenu, where i will be melted downed a reformed as a more perfect unit, capable of communicating basic source coordinates to earth people. Darkstar1st (talk) 04:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

If that is the totality of the source material for which you are basing your edit, then that leaves no doubt that you are engaging in WP:OR, as there is absolutely nothing in there saying "left-libertarianism is 'statist'". BigK HeX (talk) 04:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, suggesting that you've quoted this source for me in any of my previous requests in this thread is inaccurate. Your most recent comment is the only one in the thread to even mention the Handbook of political theory. BigK HeX (talk) 04:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

It turns out that there are a few different positions which describe themselves as "left-libertarian". This is discussed in our article left-libertarianism. One of these, the one associated with Noam Chomsky, is largely anarcho-communism. It is not really part of the libertarian movement described in this article, and uses the word "libertarian" only in the French sense of the word, as a less-scary synonym for "anarchist". It is not really relevant here except in a disambiguation sense.

However, the other one, described here, is very much a part of the libertarian movement. It is even Rothbardian. It is derived from individualist anarchism and Austrian economics, makes use of the non-aggression principle, but draws different economic and cultural conclusions from these than right-libertarians do. Notably, left-libertarians of this sort claim that the economic and power inequality visible in today's society is not a consequence of market forces, but rather of state interference. Thus, a libertarian society would be more egalitarian and less classist than today -- in other words, would accomplish the sort of things that leftists claim to want. In addition, left-libertarians find cultural common ground with the left on issues such as labor conditions, feminism and sexuality, environmentalism, and the like -- although favoring voluntary rather than statist approaches to these issues. --FOo (talk) 08:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Libertarianism lede implies some forms of Libertarianism = Anarchism?

The last sentence of the lede states: "Some libertarians support a minimal state (or minarchist) position and others various non-state anarchist views, such as anarcho-capitalism and left-libertarianism."

We all know that the left-wingers have been sabotaging the Libertarianism page and inserting revisionist doublespeak. But, an express declaration that some Libertarians are Anarchists, who oppose all State mechanisms, is absurd.

The core principles of Libertarianism entail the need for some basic coercive State functions - the enforcement of private property rights, the enforcement of contracts and the enforcement of the Harm Principle - even if the State contracts those jurisdictions out to the private sector.

The Libertarianism page - especially the lede - is no place for Anarchist ideologies that oppose all forms of State coercion. BlueRobe (talk) 23:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Note - the above comment appeared as if it was posted by BigK HeX. It was actually posted by me. I have no idea what happened to cause the confusion. BlueRobe (talk) 23:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

"some" is a weasel word and a disgrace to the lede of this article. "some" is a sure sign the article is trying to cover more than 1 term. Darkstar1st (talk) 11:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Some is not a weasel word and I while I find accusations of left wing revisionism amusing, can we please this type of language and focus on the content please. --Snowded 12:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

some actually is a weasel word, see example 20 on http://en.wikipedia.org/Weasel_word Darkstar1st (talk) 15:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure what happened to my comment that started this section, or why it appears that BigK HeX posted it. BlueRobe (talk) 12:38, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

"Some" is merely a summary technique. Like "some humans are female and others are male." Is that being weasily? CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

CarolMooreDC, Darkstar1st is right. That use of "some" is misleading. It's like saying "some Socialists are mentally retarded..." That may be true, but the prejudice embodied in that statement is misleading. BlueRobe (talk) 05:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

"Some" becomes a weasel word only when used to avoid talking about specifics, especially specific sources. For instance, it's weaselish in the sentence "Cats are widely accepted to be mammals, but some claim they are alien lizards." It is not a weasel word when it is used in a purely descriptive sense, such as "Some cats have short hair and some cats have long hair." The former avoids attributing the remarkable (and false) claim, whereas the latter merely introduces the idea of diversity in cat hair length, which would presumably be addressed in greater detail later on. --FOo (talk) 08:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

If you start issuing some Clintonesque, "...it depend on what the meaning of "is", is...", I'm going to spend the rest of my evening looking for an ignore function ;-) BlueRobe (talk) 08:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

New section which may help

A significant omission of this article is coverage of (significantly large amounts of) people practicing or promoting Libertarianism. IMHO if we could develop such a section, it would fill that gap, an dalso help resolve some of these other issues. I'm planning to start such a section..... probably "Libertarian-leaning organizations and movements" which, per wp standards, would mean those with significant participation. I'm planning on starting such a section......it will probably be a "stub" at first. North8000 (talk) 00:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Excellent idea. These might help: List of Libertarian Political Parties and List of Libertarian Organizations. I'm not sure how accurate they are.

Curiously, there used to be a links to at least one of these two pages in the Libertarianism page, but it was removed by CarolMooreDC. Further more, someone has been trying to delete the pages with those lists. BlueRobe (talk) 00:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I find lists usually present a problem. They continue to grow, they always contain items that should not be there and they are never complete. Lists of a well-defined set, e.g., member parties of the Liberal International or presidents of the United States are different. TFD (talk) 01:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

It's worth checking some of those so-called Libertarian organisations. Some of them are blatantly Anarchist, (have a look at the Italian organisations). BlueRobe (talk) 02:11, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

First, if you are going to say someone removed something, please provide a diff. I don't know what you are talking about.

As I have mentioned before in these pages several times, there used to be a whole section on the libertarianian movement worldwide that should be created in shorter form. See this Jan 1 2010 version with section called "Current libertarian movements." CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Carolmooredc, you admitted it, yourself, here. BlueRobe (talk) 05:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The Welfare State

Imagine one belonged to a trade union in 1900. One's voluntary contributions were used to pay for unemployment insurance, health care, old age pensions, employment agencies and education. Then the liberals decided that these services were better delivered by government. One's new fees now exceeded one's previous payments, one's benefits were cut and they were harder to obtain. One's union now stopped providing benefits. Now the government decides to reduce benefits further and use the money to support "national defense". If one opposes what the government does, does that mean that one is "statist"? TFD (talk) 06:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

is left-libertarian anit-statist? "enforceable duty to pay others" and "income redistribution", if so, who is the enforcer, who redistributes the INCOME?

please only comment on statist, or anti-statist. Darkstar1st (talk) 08:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not sure. Left-Libertarianism is a fundamentally incoherent ideology - it endorses Positive Liberty (see John Stuart Mill) with regard to questions of economic egalitarianism (and sometimes Marxism), but it opposes the coercive State mechanisms that are necessary to ensure such a result. I'm open to persuasion. BlueRobe (talk) 09:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

It's inherently inconsistent, and a laughable way of statist-socialists to preserve some semblance of utopia out of the wreckage of the collapse of communism. Because their 'ideal' society would require constant re-distribution, a coercive state would be needed to do this. But they don't like being left outside the 'suddenly trendy' tent of non-coercive spontaneous order that is the exclusive province of mainstream libertarianism. It's essentially big state socialism in libertarian drag. It cannot and does not make sense. Which is why only confused utopian idiots support it. And which is why it's such a ridiculously marginal sect of libertarianism. And why it should be left on the left-libertarianism page for these guys to sort out their incoherent theories.

I'm guessing that the advocates of left-Libertarianism are relying on all citizens willingly cooperating to ensure the egalitarian outcomes they desire. Otherwise, a coercive State is a necessary means for their egalitarian ends. In other words, left-Libertarianism is an "...it would work if we all just hold hands..." ideology. BlueRobe (talk) 09:37, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. Let's all hold hands and sing 'Kumbaya'... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.110.8.39 (talk) 09:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

To BlueRobe and 122.....Why not (in a more Wikipedian way) cover what y'all said above in this article? You yourself said that some people practice it and that they call themselves Libertarians. So, if it too rare, and too marginal, it should not be in Misplaced Pages at all (i.e delete the left-libertarian article). And if not, I can't imagine covering the distinction in a disambiguation page. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

To Bluerobe: Would you say that "Left Libertarian" is a real term (vs. something made up by 1 or 2 authors and Misplaced Pages just for explanation purposes)? To me it seems that you are the strongest proponent of it being a real term. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Ahem. WP:NOTAFORUM. Your personal questions/opinions are not relevant here. Please find sources that raise and address the questions you're discussing, to make this discussion relevant to the article. --Born2cycle (talk) 14:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

North8000, to coin a British colloquialism, are you taking the piss? :-) I have consistently been one of the most passionate advocates of having the fringe oxymoronic ideology of left-Libertarianism (aka. Libertarian Socialism) removed from the Libertarianism page entirely. I think, perhaps, you have me confused with someone else or have accidentally attached my username to the wrong post, lol.

I think "left-Libertarianism" is a real term which should have its own Wikipaedia page. Indeed, I would be utterly horrified at the suggestion that the left-Libertarianism page be removed (censored) from Wikipaedia altogether, and I would fight alongside BigK HeX and CarolMooreDC to retain it.

But, clearly, it is too rare and marginal for the Libertarianism page and belongs in the Libertarianism disambiguation page. Frankly, I think it is utterly absurd and disgusting that left-Libertarianism is given equal weight with Libertarianism (aka. right-Libertarianism) in the Libertarianism page. BlueRobe (talk) 15:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

1. Cite error: The named reference autogenerated2 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. See, e.g., Phillippe van Parijs, Real Freedom for All: What (If Anything) Can Justify Capitalism? (Oxford: Clarendon-OUP 1998). Van Parijs’s “real libertarianism” is very similar in approach to that of Steiner and Vallentyne.
3. Steve Daskal, Libertarianism Left and Right, the Lockean Proviso, and the Reformed Welfare State, Social Theory and Practice, January 1, 2010 page 1, line 45. ~~~~

• Misplaced Pages former featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• Misplaced Pages former brilliant prose
• Old requests for peer review
• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• Pages using WikiProject banner shell with duplicate banner templates
• B-Class sociology articles
• Mid-importance sociology articles
• B-Class politics articles
• High-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• B-Class Philosophy articles
• Mid-importance Philosophy articles
• B-Class social and political philosophy articles
• Mid-importance social and political philosophy articles
• Social and political philosophy task force articles
• Top-importance politics articles
• Unassessed software articles
• Unknown-importance software articles
• Unassessed software articles of Unknown-importance
• Unassessed Computing articles
• Unknown-importance Computing articles
• All Computing articles
• All Software articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment