The Four Deuces (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 674: | Line 674: | ||
{{Ping|Work permit}} {{Ping|PhilLiberty}} {{Ping|The Four Deuces}} I believe I speak for the rest of the main editors who have been thoroughly discussing this issue in seeking your input regarding a more descriptive and accurate title for the page. [[User:JLMadrigal|<span style="color: green">'''JLMadrigal'''</span>]] [[User talk:JLMadrigal|<span style="color: maroon">@</span>]] 01:28, 30 October 2019 (UTC) |
{{Ping|Work permit}} {{Ping|PhilLiberty}} {{Ping|The Four Deuces}} I believe I speak for the rest of the main editors who have been thoroughly discussing this issue in seeking your input regarding a more descriptive and accurate title for the page. [[User:JLMadrigal|<span style="color: green">'''JLMadrigal'''</span>]] [[User talk:JLMadrigal|<span style="color: maroon">@</span>]] 01:28, 30 October 2019 (UTC) |
||
===The Four Deuce's views=== |
|||
:It seems to me that libertarian has two meanings in the U.S. In a narrow sense it refers to the ideology of people such as Ron Paul and Murray Rothbard that saw itself as part of 19th century libertarianism and adopted many of their theories and symbols. They talk about things such as the gold standard, self-ownership and other things that most people don't understand and promote non-interventionism and an end to the war on drugs, which draw little public support. In a broader sense, it refers to the traditional liberalism in the U.S. which promotes individualism and capitalism and is suspicious of government policies of redistributionism. That view can be seen across the U.S political spectrum except socialists. Its intellectual roots are in Locke and Adams, not Spooner and Goldman. Basically it refers to economic liberalism but that term is not used because due to what an editor of the National Review called the Great American Semantic Confusion, the term liberalism in the U.S. came to refer to an approach that was mid-way between laissez-faire liberalism and welfare liberalism. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 02:20, 30 October 2019 (UTC) |
:It seems to me that libertarian has two meanings in the U.S. In a narrow sense it refers to the ideology of people such as Ron Paul and Murray Rothbard that saw itself as part of 19th century libertarianism and adopted many of their theories and symbols. They talk about things such as the gold standard, self-ownership and other things that most people don't understand and promote non-interventionism and an end to the war on drugs, which draw little public support. In a broader sense, it refers to the traditional liberalism in the U.S. which promotes individualism and capitalism and is suspicious of government policies of redistributionism. That view can be seen across the U.S political spectrum except socialists. Its intellectual roots are in Locke and Adams, not Spooner and Goldman. Basically it refers to economic liberalism but that term is not used because due to what an editor of the National Review called the Great American Semantic Confusion, the term liberalism in the U.S. came to refer to an approach that was mid-way between laissez-faire liberalism and welfare liberalism. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 02:20, 30 October 2019 (UTC) |
||
::For the biggest numbers (the "20%" of US voters), I think it's a lot simpler. People who generally prioritize smaller and less intrusive government and more personal freedom. They mostly couldn't name a libertarian philosopher. Like 95%+ of Americans they consider capitalism to be the norm, without naming or promoting it. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> ([[User talk:North8000#top|talk]]) 10:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC) |
::For the biggest numbers (the "20%" of US voters), I think it's a lot simpler. People who generally prioritize smaller and less intrusive government and more personal freedom. They mostly couldn't name a libertarian philosopher. Like 95%+ of Americans they consider capitalism to be the norm, without naming or promoting it. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> ([[User talk:North8000#top|talk]]) 10:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC) |
||
Line 679: | Line 681: | ||
:::While the term is used that way, I don't see a body of literature about the topic. Can you point to any book or article about libertarianism that uses your definition? [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 16:59, 30 October 2019 (UTC) |
:::While the term is used that way, I don't see a body of literature about the topic. Can you point to any book or article about libertarianism that uses your definition? [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 16:59, 30 October 2019 (UTC) |
||
::::I think that it more of a "description of a phenomena" than "using a definition" but: The Libertarian Vote by David Boaz and David Kirby, Cato Institute, 18 October 2006. The ANES Guide to Public Opinion and Electoral Behavior, 1948–2004 American National Election Studies. Kiley, Jocelyn (25 August 2014). "In Search of Libertarians". Pew Research Center. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> ([[User talk:North8000#top|talk]]) 17:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC) |
::::I think that it more of a "description of a phenomena" than "using a definition" but: The Libertarian Vote by David Boaz and David Kirby, Cato Institute, 18 October 2006. The ANES Guide to Public Opinion and Electoral Behavior, 1948–2004 American National Election Studies. Kiley, Jocelyn (25 August 2014). "In Search of Libertarians". Pew Research Center. <b style="color: #0000cc;">''North8000''</b> ([[User talk:North8000#top|talk]]) 17:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC) |
||
:::::IOW it is the quarter of the Nolan chart that is socially liberal and economically conservative (as those terms are used in the U.S.) Maybe "Libertarian (political typology)?" In any case, this article is more about ideology than typology. The same thing could be said about the liberal typology. Democratic socialists for example are not liberals and don't base their opinions on liberal ideology but nonetheless score higher than actual liberals in the Pew typology. If as you say most libertarian voters can't name any libertarian philosophers, there's little need to mention them. [[User:The Four Deuces|TFD]] ([[User talk:The Four Deuces|talk]]) 19:35, 30 October 2019 (UTC) |
|||
==Cites== |
==Cites== |
Revision as of 19:36, 30 October 2019
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
To crystallize a discussion
This is only To crystallize a discussion. It should not be a "voting" format because it is mathematically defective for such a use. It would probably take a restructured second phase to ask for a consensus. Some possibilities to discuss are:
- Leave it roughly as is.
- Reduce it to an article just about the term and the usage of the term.
- Rename the article
- Delete the article with no redirect
- Delete the article with a redirect (no significant move of content)
- Merge into another article (sort of like #5 except with a significant move of content)
May I suggest commenting on several or all of them?
Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- This is a silly way to go about things. You want opinions, OK, #1 is fine, #2 is ridiculous, #3 has already been discussed and did not pass, #4 - take it to AfD, and good luck with that, #5 - redirect to what?, #6 - merge into what? Did that help "crystallize" anything?How about instead of this exercise in futility, you explain what you think should be done about the article, and let us discuss that? Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:01, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
- My idea was to leave it open to all possibilities without pushing it in any direction by immediately weighing in. No need to denigrate such an idea, whether or not it is optimal. And further, my idea is #2, the one that you felt the need to call "ridiculous" North8000 (talk) 21:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- There's no point in stirring up a probably contentious talk page discussion if one doesn't have a purpose in mind. We're not a debating society. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- The purpose is to decide what to do with this article. I already made my minor complaint regarding your posts. From here on out I just wish you the best and if nobody responds then I'll propose something and make a case for it as you are implying I should have done initially. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:27, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- There's no point in stirring up a probably contentious talk page discussion if one doesn't have a purpose in mind. We're not a debating society. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- My idea was to leave it open to all possibilities without pushing it in any direction by immediately weighing in. No need to denigrate such an idea, whether or not it is optimal. And further, my idea is #2, the one that you felt the need to call "ridiculous" North8000 (talk) 21:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I've just reverted a move
I can't understand why anyone would move this page against considering that we've just had a discussion that was closed as no move. That sort of thing can get an editor blocked. Doug Weller talk 17:56, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
- As much as I have some partial agreement with PhilLiberty's arguments, their approach has been very out of line, and I have asked them several times to quit it. I consider them to be a newbie on the Wiki learning curve, but IMO at least a short block or something should be done if they do it again. North8000 (talk) 00:34, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I have to agree that something must be done about @PhilLiberty: this was clearly not in WP:Good faith and was perhaps the worst kind of editing in that he literally just changed the words (despite sources not supporting his views; he didn't even add any sources to support his arguments, he just changed words) to fix his own POV. He also moved the page without any warning or discussion; and to top it all, despite the fact we just had a discussion about it.
- P.S. I even put one of his suggested image and another to show off the categorisations and differences to try to appease, but apparently it didn't.--79.27.160.51 (talk) 14:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Noting here that that editor also created Modern libertarianism as a WP:POV FORK; now redirected here to be resolved with the below discussions czar 13:59, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Proposed NPOV title - "Modern Libertarianism"
I've just discovered this article, and in order for it to be accurate, either the title will need to be changed or the content will need to reflect the distinction between center-north libertarianism (which this article describes) and the view among living libertarians that distinguishes those who hold to right-of-center views such as pro-life, centralized military, immigration restrictions, trade restrictions, legislated morality, and other viewpoints that align to some extent with those on the right (i.e. Republicans).
The vast majority of modern libertarians describe themselves as north-of-center, and consistently employ the Nolan Chart to describe their ideology. As can be seen above, there is considerable resistance by today's libertarians to grouping it together with obsolete POVs regarding the nation state - who the current title more accurately describes. To reflect current realities, the bulk of libertarianism must also be distinguished from POVs now generally considered obsolete regarding property and the marketplace - which describe the left.
JLMadrigal @ 13:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- I think the issue is that you're confusing libertarianism in the United States with right-libertarianism. Right-libertarianism is a term used to describe both mainstream libertarianism in the United States and the more social and cultural conservative variants, but which all agree in supporting capitalism and property rights, hence why they're put together and termed right-libertarian vis-à-vis the non-propertarian/anti-propertarian left-libertarianism. I repeat that the right/right-wing in libertarianism doesn't refer to the ideology's position on the political spectrum. Furthermore, while what these self-described libertarians think matter, ultimately it's what reliable sources and scholars say that matter. Beside, you can't just pick any name that comes off your mind; it must be corroborated by reliable sources. To me, this just seems your own POV issue in that you and PhilLiberty don't want libertarianism associated with the right despite it being explained many times why it's called like that and how it is NPOV.--79.27.160.51 (talk) 14:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- The lead of the article does not help. It describes the words "right-libertarianism" rather than what they refer to, inevitably inviting questions about the point of view behind the words. If it more clearly defined the political philosophy itself, then we might all end up talking about the same thing (or going to a different article to talk about what we thought this article was about!), and then it might become clearer what the best article title was. So long as the article starts "... has been used by some authors to refer to...", there is always going to be trouble. Lithopsian (talk) 15:45, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
(Edit conflict, written before Lithopsian's post) IMO this is not a distinct topic and the title is just a two word sequence with no consistent meaning. Most of the material in the article is duplication of material covered elsewhere, and it's inclusion is not supported by sourcing. Instead it's inclusion is mostly by synthesis. In essence, a wiki editor developing their personal meaning of the term and then deciding to include material based on that, even when the source didn't say it was right-libertarianism. If this was done based on there being a clear-cut distinct topic, IMO that would be fine but IMO such is not the case here. IMO we should reduce this article to a short one about the term and the usage of the term. And even if it were more of a distinct topic than it is, it would simply be a lens to what is already covered in other articles. It's sort of like if we had a dogs article, and hundreds of articles on specific dogs. And "Right-libertarianism" is the equivalent of starting a Big dogs article which just duplicates what is already in the other articles, selected by each source's viewpoint of what constitutes a big dog. So my idea is that we should reduce it to a short article about the term and the usage of the term. If this picks up a little steam I'll propose it more "formally". North8000 (talk) 15:49, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- "the right/right-wing in libertarianism doesn't refer to the ideology's position on the political spectrum."
- This statement perfectly sums up the issue with the title. If "right" is not "right" and "left" is not "left" how can such an article not confuse the reader. And if it is true that the right/right-wing in libertarianism doesn't refer to the ideology's position on the political spectrum, this fact, more than anything else should be made abundantly clear in the lede (if this article is to be preserved in any form at all). JLMadrigal @ 16:57, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- I think that comment you're responding to was poorly worded, and the intention behind it was probably that the "right" refers to this variation of libertarian's position within libertarianism, rather than within the broader political spectrum. Right-libertarianism is the right wing of libertarianism even if that still isn't near the right wing of politics generally. --Pfhorrest (talk) 17:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- For an analogy: "eastern Kansas" doesn't mean some part of Kansas (or one of several places called Kansas) that's on the east coast, it just means the part of Kansas that is more east than the rest of Kansas, even though all of Kansas generally is still in the middle of the continent. --Pfhorrest (talk) 17:15, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- On the Nolan Chart, Ron Paul would be found to the right among libertarians, and Bill Weld to the south (in the libertarian quadrant). JLMadrigal @ 17:40, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- For an analogy: "eastern Kansas" doesn't mean some part of Kansas (or one of several places called Kansas) that's on the east coast, it just means the part of Kansas that is more east than the rest of Kansas, even though all of Kansas generally is still in the middle of the continent. --Pfhorrest (talk) 17:15, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)You are right, and so much so that the term is an oxymoron in the US, the place where the majority of English-as-a-first language readers are. North8000 (talk) 17:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with JLMadrigal. Either reduce this article to links to other articles, or at least make it plain that this is a viewpoint article about what lefties call "right libertarianism." Pfhorrest, libertarian capitalists do not see themselves as right/right-wing even within libertarianism. "Right" is being used by detractors as a term of disparagement. Libertarian capitalists, as mentioned, see themselves as pro-liberty and against authority, a dimension othogonal to the left-right spectrum. And we consider the outdated term "left" to mean against existing authority, which puts libertarian capitalists on the left and anarcho-capitalists extreme left. Anyway, I put in a note about the term being mainly used by oppositional authors, and cited that Rothbard article. PhilLiberty (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- It may be an oxymoron in the United States, but this isn't the United States Wikipedia. Beside, Rothbard himself ultimately became a right-wing popoulist, just like Rockwell and Hoppe, or what they call paleolibertarianism, which is American right-wing populism, so I don't see what's the problem with that. Once again, I reiterate that the issue is that you're thinking in terms of and referring to libertarianism in the United States. Right-libertarianism is used to refer to the propertarian/capitalist vis-à-vis the non-propertarian and anti-propertarian/socialist libertarian philosophy. I even added a diagram image that explained this. And yes, I was referring to the right-wing within libertarianism. Either way, we just had a discussion about this, so either you show sources or it's all worthless. Beside, PhilLiberty continues to perpetrate the lie that right-libertarianism is a disparaging/non-neutral term and that it's used only by opponents; it may be true in real life within libertarians, but it certainly isn't in political science. Baradat 2015 refers to it as a reactionary ideology as it wants to dismantle the welfare state. The problem is that this libertarianism (right- and in the United States) isn't a new ideology; it's just another name for 19th century liberalism. These libertarians may not see themselves as right-wingers and may consider themselves as above it and it's stated in the specific section, but there're also reputable sources that disagree with that. I reiterate that if the name is the problem, then create a Libertarian capitalist page that doesn't redirect here so that we can have left-libertarianism vis-à-vis right-libertarianism and libertarian socialism vis-à-vis libertarian capitalism, if you can find sources that support it. In the end, I have to agree with what @Beyond My Ken: stated above.--79.27.160.51 (talk) 21:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- "the issue is that you're thinking in terms of and referring to libertarianism in the United States."
- If it were true that this contemporary strand of libertarianism is exclusive to the US (which, I believe, can be disproved empirically), then the solution to this dilemma would simply be to merge the article with the preexisting Libertarianism in the United States article. Nonetheless, I believe that "Modern Libertarianism" is the most accurate - since the Austrian school encompasses modern libertarianism internationally. JLMadrigal @ 23:13, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- JLMadrigal @ 23:20, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- I think that comment you're responding to was poorly worded, and the intention behind it was probably that the "right" refers to this variation of libertarian's position within libertarianism, rather than within the broader political spectrum. Right-libertarianism is the right wing of libertarianism even if that still isn't near the right wing of politics generally. --Pfhorrest (talk) 17:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
- Here is just one example demonstrating the predominance of modern (center-north) libertarianism in a country other than the US:
JLMadrigal @ 00:39, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- "Modern libertarianism" is a radically biased title because there are still contemporary left-libertarians/libertarian socialists, for example Noam Chomsky. Honestly this whole dispute feels extremely biased, like right-libertarians are trying to claim that their flavor of libertarianism is the one true (current) variety that is completely neutral and centrist and unbiased, and that left-libertarianism is some historical deviation from "true" (right) libertarianism. You're aware that many left-libertarians see their variety of libertarianism as the kind that doesn't need a qualifier; see for example the common anarchist argument that anarcho-capitalism simply is not anarchism at all (where many such anarchists also consider "libertarianism" synonymous with "anarchism", if that connection was unclear). The "left" and "right" modifiers are used to a comparative context to avoid giving either side precedence, and demanding that they not be used for one side is unabashedly biased in favor of that side. --Pfhorrest (talk) 02:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- I completely agree with @JLMadrigal: and I'm glad I'm not the only one to think this and that I have done my homework well. I would also like to thank him for explaining it better than I could. Either way, the majority of libertarians worldwide are anarchist/libertarian socialists. Ever since the 1970s, this American-flavor of neo-classical liberalism (a more appropriate name) has indeed expanded globally, but it remains a minority; it's only in countries like the United States that is the mainstream view, although even in the United States the term was first coined by Déjacque while he was in New York and was exactly like in the rest of the world until the 20th century when it was used to refer to so-called classical liberalism and then became used to refer to a new form of the latter, hence neo-classical liberalism.
- "Modern libertarianism" is a radically biased title because there are still contemporary left-libertarians/libertarian socialists, for example Noam Chomsky. Honestly this whole dispute feels extremely biased, like right-libertarians are trying to claim that their flavor of libertarianism is the one true (current) variety that is completely neutral and centrist and unbiased, and that left-libertarianism is some historical deviation from "true" (right) libertarianism. You're aware that many left-libertarians see their variety of libertarianism as the kind that doesn't need a qualifier; see for example the common anarchist argument that anarcho-capitalism simply is not anarchism at all (where many such anarchists also consider "libertarianism" synonymous with "anarchism", if that connection was unclear). The "left" and "right" modifiers are used to a comparative context to avoid giving either side precedence, and demanding that they not be used for one side is unabashedly biased in favor of that side. --Pfhorrest (talk) 02:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Having an article about right-libertarianism is perfectly fine - as long as it is not used to describe the views of most contemporary libertarians which the article currently does (in which case the title would need to be changed as I stated above). The term "right-libertarianism" more accurately describes the views of someone like Ron Paul, who identifies as a Libertarian, but tends to favor policies that are right-of-center such as abortion and immigration restrictions. To keep its current title, the article requires considerable revision. JLMadrigal @ 03:31, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- You're missing the point that it's not the social views that makes right-libertarianism right relative to left-libertarianism, it's support of capitalism. Left-libertarianism is libertarianism that supports socialism; right-libertarianism is libertarianism that supports capitalism. What you're calling "modern libertarianism" is not centrist on a scale of socialism-to-capitalism, it's explicitly pro-capitalism, and so is right relative to left-libertarianism. --Pfhorrest (talk) 03:57, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Pfhorrest, the socialist v. capitalist view of reality is a simplistic and exclusively leftist POV. Modern libertarians have come to realize that economic liberty is just as important as personal liberty. Those are the two factors quantified. The term "capitalism" has been used by the left to describe vague, emotion-laden concepts such as "wage slavery". Libertarians - including those mistakenly described as "right libertarians" - do not support any type of slavery. They consistently support the freedom to decide - including decisions regarding employment (by both employer and employee). So they cannot be described as "right" - which would imply support for limitations on personal decisions.
- JLMadrigal @ 12:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- @JLMadrigal: is right when he/she said "it's not the social views that makes right-libertarianism right relative to left-libertarianism, it's support of capitalism". I'm sorry, but I have just come to believe that you're simply this flavor of libertarians who are trying to push your own POV and that you don't want to be associated with the right-wing. We all have our own biases and POV, but I try to stay objectively and I have no problem to admit I'm wrong; however, this isn't the case. Just the way you said "the socialist v. capitalist view of reality is a simplistic and exclusively leftist POV" further validate my point. Go tell this to actual political scientists. You just have a very narrow view of liberty and freedom. Capitalism is freedom for the capitalist and slavery for the workers who have no access to capital and who have no choice but to sell their labour power and work for somebody else; whether you agree with it or not, or like it or not, that certainly sounds like slavery to certain people. It's also not true when you stated that "Libertarians [...] do not support any type of slavery"; there have been so-called libertarians who actually endorsed voluntary slavery and ultimately is perfectly compatible with capitalism, where everyone and everything is for sale and with the right-libertarian view of contract; it's the so-called left-libertarians who oppose it in any way. So-called economic freedom is the freedom for the capitalist; just because the worker may be better off, it doesn't mean they're truly free. Economic freedom could just as easily mean freedom for the workers to keep the value of their labour, why should your view be prioritarised? You know, there're actually many models that don't predict the employer-employee relationship. There's also the view that everyone should be self-employed and a producer; neither master not slave; and if workers want to associate themselves and work with others, they would be free to do so, but they would be paid according to their labour and not to capital which in many cases was actually created not by the owner, but by the workers he/she employed when the factory was first created; and that by your own labour theory of property, it should be the workers themselves to actually own the factory and not just the one who employed them since they were the ones to actually mix their labour with it. This was the socialist POV and just one example to show you what I believe to be your narrow view about freedom. There isn't one single view of what is freedom.--79.52.17.197 (talk) 15:02, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you and well put. To JLMagrigal I want to add: you realize that left-libertarians wouldn't characterize themselves as being "against economic liberty" in any way, right? You realize that left-libertarians are not in favor of state wealth distribution or anything that you probably think of when you hear "left" or "socialist", but actually want the state to do less than right-libertarians want it to do, namely they want it to not side with and protect capitalists? That they see capitalism as an institute supported by the state, and are against it as part and parcel of being against the state and for freedom? You realize left-libertarians support free markets, just not capitalism? It sounds like you're only capable of framing the difference between them from a right-libertarian point of view, which thus biases your perspective on what is neutral. --Pfhorrest (talk) 16:57, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- I would like to add that there're also left-libertarians who support decentralised planning in which individuals themselves plan together and don't let the market become a form of state or authority; planning isn't in any way authtoritarian, it has been practiced under capitalism too and there have been arguments that corporations are an examples of this, although highly centralised annd hierarchical in themselves, which is what these left-libertarians oppose. Either way, many left-libertarians really support free-markets too and argue that a truly free-market cannot flourish under the private ownership of the means of the production under because in this case there must be both states and classes, with the higher classes conquering the state to sway power to their favour in markets ("the class differences and inequalities in income and power that result from private ownership enable the interests of the dominant class to skew the market to their favor, either in the form of monopoly and market power, or by utilizing their wealth and resources to legislate government policies that benefit their specific business interests") whch is exactly what happened; and that a truly free market would flourish under the social ownership of the means of production or usufruct property rights in which capitalists have no privileges.--79.52.17.197 (talk) 18:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you and well put. To JLMagrigal I want to add: you realize that left-libertarians wouldn't characterize themselves as being "against economic liberty" in any way, right? You realize that left-libertarians are not in favor of state wealth distribution or anything that you probably think of when you hear "left" or "socialist", but actually want the state to do less than right-libertarians want it to do, namely they want it to not side with and protect capitalists? That they see capitalism as an institute supported by the state, and are against it as part and parcel of being against the state and for freedom? You realize left-libertarians support free markets, just not capitalism? It sounds like you're only capable of framing the difference between them from a right-libertarian point of view, which thus biases your perspective on what is neutral. --Pfhorrest (talk) 16:57, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- @JLMadrigal: is right when he/she said "it's not the social views that makes right-libertarianism right relative to left-libertarianism, it's support of capitalism". I'm sorry, but I have just come to believe that you're simply this flavor of libertarians who are trying to push your own POV and that you don't want to be associated with the right-wing. We all have our own biases and POV, but I try to stay objectively and I have no problem to admit I'm wrong; however, this isn't the case. Just the way you said "the socialist v. capitalist view of reality is a simplistic and exclusively leftist POV" further validate my point. Go tell this to actual political scientists. You just have a very narrow view of liberty and freedom. Capitalism is freedom for the capitalist and slavery for the workers who have no access to capital and who have no choice but to sell their labour power and work for somebody else; whether you agree with it or not, or like it or not, that certainly sounds like slavery to certain people. It's also not true when you stated that "Libertarians [...] do not support any type of slavery"; there have been so-called libertarians who actually endorsed voluntary slavery and ultimately is perfectly compatible with capitalism, where everyone and everything is for sale and with the right-libertarian view of contract; it's the so-called left-libertarians who oppose it in any way. So-called economic freedom is the freedom for the capitalist; just because the worker may be better off, it doesn't mean they're truly free. Economic freedom could just as easily mean freedom for the workers to keep the value of their labour, why should your view be prioritarised? You know, there're actually many models that don't predict the employer-employee relationship. There's also the view that everyone should be self-employed and a producer; neither master not slave; and if workers want to associate themselves and work with others, they would be free to do so, but they would be paid according to their labour and not to capital which in many cases was actually created not by the owner, but by the workers he/she employed when the factory was first created; and that by your own labour theory of property, it should be the workers themselves to actually own the factory and not just the one who employed them since they were the ones to actually mix their labour with it. This was the socialist POV and just one example to show you what I believe to be your narrow view about freedom. There isn't one single view of what is freedom.--79.52.17.197 (talk) 15:02, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I am reinserting the title POV-title tag as there is considerable dispute regarding its accuracy. The previous dispute was different in that it had to do with article placement. Do not remove this tag until either the title is revised satisfactorily or the article accurately reflects the current title. JLMadrigal @ 12:41, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Then please explain what changes you would propose. I'm all for improving the page, just not based on a supposed POV which to me and others too just seems a way not to be associated with the right.--79.52.17.197 (talk) 15:02, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
One sidebar comment. The relevance of the meaning of the term in the US is important, but not for the "straw man" reason that the US should dominate Wikipedia. When you want to know the meaning of a term in a particular language you need to look at what it is where it is spoken as a first language. And there are more of those by far in the US than in any other country. And so the fact that the term is an unused oxymoron in the US is very relevant for that reason.North8000 (talk) 16:45, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- I agree, but I believe in this case the oxymoron is just a POV in that these users don't want to be associated with the right.--79.52.17.197 (talk) 18:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree with JMadrigal and PhilLiberty that the article should not stay as-is. I agree with most of their other arguments, but think that there are even bigger reasons than the ones that they gave. I wrote those reasons above. But I don't agree that "Modern Libertarianism" is NPOV; it makes it sound as if some type of libertarianism is the modern type. I think we should reduce this article to a short one about the term and it's usage. My second choice would be to delete it. North8000 (talk) 16:52, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- I think that right-libertarianism may merit an article of its own, and would like to keep the article, if possible. But this, as I stated, will require major changes. There is a faction within contemporary libertarianism that supports immigration and abortion restrictions, and that leans toward a strong military that engages in nation building, &c. The article, if it is to survive as a full article, would need to limit itself to describing this faction - and clarify the limited use of the term by outsiders to describe center-north libertarianism. The revised article will also need to clarify that the term is rejected by most of the latter when used in such a context.
- JLMadrigal @ 17:19, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- The thing is that right-libertarianism doesn't refer to the right-wing of libertarianism in the United States, but it is used to refer to both centrist libertarians and right-wing libertarians due to their support for property rights and capitalism vis-à-vis left-libertarianism (non-propertarian/socialist libertarianism). Whether you agree with this, that's what the sources say, as far as I'm aware. Anyway, I'm glad you believe it merits an article of its own, which I agree with; and I'm willing to improve it. However, it's important to understand what the word actually means and what reliable sources say. I don't understand why we should reduce this article to a short one only about the term, or even how it would look like/be such an article, when right-libertarianism is also a specific philosophy (much like left- and right-populism) which include different variants; should we do the same with left-libertarianism too? Left-libertarians could be just as opposed to this since they reject this division as well, considering themselves the true libertarians and right-libertarians as another school of liberalism (neo-classical liberalism, if you will) rather than a full, new ideology. However, until now I have just seen personal opinions based on not wanting to be associated with the right.--79.52.17.197 (talk) 18:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- My main argument boils down to this analogy. Let's say there's already a dog article and many articles on dog types. And maybe some dog books use the term "large dogs" in varying ways. But we really shouldn't be starting a large dogs article. It would duplicate material, and it's not a distinct topic. North8000 (talk) 18:20, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Answering your question, I sort of think the same thing about left-libertarianism, but less so. First, it's not an oxymoron in the places that it is prevalent. Second, the terms seems to be used more in sources than right libertarian. Also, the term is not an anathema to those who practice it as the right libertarian term is. Finally, taking it further, some who practice it self-identify by that term. Which means not only is it not pejorative to them but that (unlike right libertarianism) it has a valid meaning in the English language in the places where it is practiced. North8000 (talk) 18:29, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- I understand your arguments and reasons, but I don't think it makes sense in this case. To me, it's more like libertarianism is dog, left-libertarianism is Labrador Retriever and right-libertarianism is Golden Retriever, or literally any other dog's breed, really. Nazis also didn't used the term Nazism and called themselves National Socialists, but Nazism is the common name and it's what reliable sources and scholars use; likewise, right-libertarianism is used by reliable sources and scholars in a neutral way and not just in pejorative way. Sure, some left-libertarians may self-indentify as such and more left-libertarians may self-identify as such rather than right-libertarians as right-libertarians, but they're just as opposed to it; and to me it seems more that right-libertarians simply don't want to associate themselves with the right rather than a sourced argument. Rothbard himself ultimately went further to the right and became a so-called paleolibertarian in a right-wing populist way along with Rockwell and others; Hoppe himself seems to be on an anti-left tirade; and while they may reject the political spectrum, political scientists don't and so they're referred to as such even if they themselves may reject that (it's not like there's isn't even a Contention over placement on the political spectrum section which address this issue and state their views about it). Beside, I thought there was a consensus not just to move the page but also that the name wasn't a pejorative and that it was fine; at least, that's what several users said in explaining their opposition to the move, so I don't know what to say anymore and I have to agree with what Beyond My Ken told you.--79.52.17.197 (talk) 01:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- The thing is that right-libertarianism doesn't refer to the right-wing of libertarianism in the United States, but it is used to refer to both centrist libertarians and right-wing libertarians due to their support for property rights and capitalism vis-à-vis left-libertarianism (non-propertarian/socialist libertarianism). Whether you agree with this, that's what the sources say, as far as I'm aware. Anyway, I'm glad you believe it merits an article of its own, which I agree with; and I'm willing to improve it. However, it's important to understand what the word actually means and what reliable sources say. I don't understand why we should reduce this article to a short one only about the term, or even how it would look like/be such an article, when right-libertarianism is also a specific philosophy (much like left- and right-populism) which include different variants; should we do the same with left-libertarianism too? Left-libertarians could be just as opposed to this since they reject this division as well, considering themselves the true libertarians and right-libertarians as another school of liberalism (neo-classical liberalism, if you will) rather than a full, new ideology. However, until now I have just seen personal opinions based on not wanting to be associated with the right.--79.52.17.197 (talk) 18:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
- Right-libertarianism is the term that a breakaway group of libertarians invented. They call themselves left libertarians. The term is only used in reliable sources in discussion about left libertarianism. The problem is that the term libertarian refers to three things: a movement that began in the nineteenth century, a movement created by Hess, Nolan and Rothbard that considers itself a successor to 19th century libertarianism and free market capitalism in the mainstream Republican and Democratic parties.
- I think that the French Wikipedia could guide us in what articles to have. It has articles for Libertaire, Libertarianisme and Libéralisme économique. Left-libertarianism is called Libertarisme de gauche. There is no article about right-libertarianism. It is referred to as le courant libertarien classique (anarcho-capitalisme, minarchisme de droite, etc), but libertarien classique links to Libertarianisme.
- TFD (talk) 02:05, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- It is historically inaccurate to call left-libertarians a "breakaway group". The original libertarianism was a synonym for anarchism, which was the remainder of socialism that did not take up Marxism; IOW, Marxism was a breakaway from early socialism, and what was left of early socialism was anarchism, which also called itself libertarian socialism, or simply libertarianism, to distinguish itself from Marxism. Libertarianism as a rebranding of "classical liberalism", meaning the branch of the original left/liberalism that adopted capitalism and did no go on to become early (libertarian) socialism, is the newer kind of "libertarianism", and what we call left-libertarianism to distinguish from that newer right-libertarianism is not a breakaway from it, but something that long predates it. (I recently doodled a little diagram to help illustrate this branching descent of different political ideologies.) --Pfhorrest (talk)
- As I wrote above, left libertarianism is the term used to refer to the Steiner-Vallentyne group which broke away from the Hess-Nolan-Rothbard group (which they call right libertarians) on the issue of whether or not natural resources should be privately owned. Otherwise they share the same beliefs including being pro-capitalist. It does not refer to the libertarianism that developed in the 19th century. Libertarianism includes Hess-Nolan-Rothbard libertarianism which includes Steiner Vallentyne libertarianism. TFD (talk) 04:48, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- That may be one use of the term, but it's the newer and not the original or exclusive use of it. See for example the sourced sentence from the lede of our own left-libertarianism article, "In its classical usage, left-libertarianism is a synonym for anti-authoritarian varieties of left-wing politics such as libertarian socialism which includes anarchism and libertarian Marxism, among others." That sentence is followed by a sentence about the newer sense that you mean. Right-libertarianism arose in between those two varieties of left-libertarianism, and the term "right-libertarian" is used to distinguish it from both of them, not just from the kind that broke away from it, but from the kind that came well before it too. --Pfhorrest (talk) 04:53, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- The most common usage of the term left-libertarianism is to refer to the Steiner-Vallentyne group as is apparent from a google books search.[1] Since each article should have a separate topic, could you please provide a source that defines right-libertarianism so that we can determine what should be in this article. TFD (talk) 05:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- I think that TFD's question is an important one. The source should describe the meaning of the term, not just use the term. North8000 (talk) 12:06, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- The most common usage of the term left-libertarianism is to refer to the Steiner-Vallentyne group as is apparent from a google books search.[1] Since each article should have a separate topic, could you please provide a source that defines right-libertarianism so that we can determine what should be in this article. TFD (talk) 05:24, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- That may be one use of the term, but it's the newer and not the original or exclusive use of it. See for example the sourced sentence from the lede of our own left-libertarianism article, "In its classical usage, left-libertarianism is a synonym for anti-authoritarian varieties of left-wing politics such as libertarian socialism which includes anarchism and libertarian Marxism, among others." That sentence is followed by a sentence about the newer sense that you mean. Right-libertarianism arose in between those two varieties of left-libertarianism, and the term "right-libertarian" is used to distinguish it from both of them, not just from the kind that broke away from it, but from the kind that came well before it too. --Pfhorrest (talk) 04:53, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- As I wrote above, left libertarianism is the term used to refer to the Steiner-Vallentyne group which broke away from the Hess-Nolan-Rothbard group (which they call right libertarians) on the issue of whether or not natural resources should be privately owned. Otherwise they share the same beliefs including being pro-capitalist. It does not refer to the libertarianism that developed in the 19th century. Libertarianism includes Hess-Nolan-Rothbard libertarianism which includes Steiner Vallentyne libertarianism. TFD (talk) 04:48, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- It is historically inaccurate to call left-libertarians a "breakaway group". The original libertarianism was a synonym for anarchism, which was the remainder of socialism that did not take up Marxism; IOW, Marxism was a breakaway from early socialism, and what was left of early socialism was anarchism, which also called itself libertarian socialism, or simply libertarianism, to distinguish itself from Marxism. Libertarianism as a rebranding of "classical liberalism", meaning the branch of the original left/liberalism that adopted capitalism and did no go on to become early (libertarian) socialism, is the newer kind of "libertarianism", and what we call left-libertarianism to distinguish from that newer right-libertarianism is not a breakaway from it, but something that long predates it. (I recently doodled a little diagram to help illustrate this branching descent of different political ideologies.) --Pfhorrest (talk)
Modern Libertarianism is better than the current title, but not as accurate or NPOV as Libertarian Capitalism. At the very least, we should add a disclaimer saying that "right libertarian is an oppositional or pejorative term. I just did that. PhilLiberty (talk) 15:56, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Proposed revisions
So, assuming we keep the current title, here is a proposed introduction to the lede that addresses the points made by the above editors:
- "Right-libertarianism is a term used to describe both mainstream neo-classical liberalism and the more social and cultural conservative variants, but which all agree on supporting capitalism and property rights, hence are put together and termed right-libertarian vis-à-vis the non-propertarian/anti-propertarian left-libertarianism. The right/right-wing in libertarianism doesn't necessarily refer to the ideology's position on the political spectrum, but rather its position relative to traditional libertarian views regarding property and capital.
- For this reason, such use of the term is generally rejected by libertarians of this camp, who view themselves as north of center and defer to the Nolan Chart for positioning on a multidimentional scale of political ideology. For them the term refers to the views of someone like Ron Paul, who identifies as a Libertarian, but tends to favor policies that are right-of-center such as abortion and immigration restrictions."
JLMadrigal @ 13:38, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
- @JLMadrigal: it just seems to be too convulsed; maybe we could add a Nolan chart image in which it's stated how these different libertarians see themselves, etc. Anyway, what's wrong with describing it as a
political philosophy that advocate civil liberties,[1] natural law,[6] laissez-faire capitalism and a major reversal of the modern welfare state[7] [and that] strongly support private property rights and defend market distribution of natural resources and private property.[8]
Isn't it true? - How about changing the sentence which follows from
This position is contrasted with that of some versions of left-libertarianism, with which it is compared.[9]
toThis position is contrasted with that of some versions of left-libertarianism, with which it is compared to, hence the name.[9]
Wouldn't it be better and simpler?--95.245.199.21 (talk) 21:12, 15 August 2019 (UTC) - @North8000: I'm not sure there's a consensus in using the phrase
has been used by some authors
. According to @Lithopsian:So long as the article starts "... has been used by some authors to refer to...", there is always going to be trouble.
--95.245.199.21 (talk) 23:28, 15 August 2019 (UTC)- Beginning the article with a Nolan chart would be an excellent choice, because it encompasses both definitions of right-libertarianism, and nicely describes a view of politics espoused by both. It also visually demonstrates that, when the term is used to differentiate "capitalist libertarianism" from "anticapitalist libertarianism", the former is not right of center, but is right of the latter.
- JLMadrigal @ 00:20, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- You realize that the Nolan chart is not an unbiased representation of the political spectrum, right? It's an inherently right-libertarian way of framing the situation, which frames pro-capitalism as centrist, which left-libertarians vehemently object to, which is why they more often employ a square (rather than diamond) chart where there is a north edge, rather than a north point, and positions along the right of that north edge are right-libertarian/anarcho-capitalist and those along the left of that north edge are left-libertarian/anarcho-socialist. Left-libertarianism/libertarian-socialism cannot be placed on a Nolan chart, because it is not "libertarianism minus some economic freedom" as right-libertarians would try to frame it; it would rather be somewhere outside the chart beyond the northwest edge of it. --Pfhorrest (talk) 05:02, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- @JLMadrigal: it just seems to be too convulsed; maybe we could add a Nolan chart image in which it's stated how these different libertarians see themselves, etc. Anyway, what's wrong with describing it as a
- So the "anticapitalists" hold that they support personal liberties in excess of 100%? That defies all logic. No wonder they have difficulty reconciling the free flow of property and capital with free markets. This makes visualization and quantification of libertarianism, and, in our case, right-libertarianism, even more imperative.
- JLMadrigal @ 12:04, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- No, you're missing the point that they deny that the Nolan chart's characterization of the axes is accurate, and they use a different kind of chart instead; someone posted one earlier on this same talk page, here. If you were to overlay a Nolan chart on that, the place that left-libertarians would characterize themselves would be in the top-left corner, outside the bounds of the Nolan chart, but not in the terms that the Nolan chart uses. Left-libertarians would say that they support 100% personal liberties and economic liberties, and that right-libertarians support less economic liberty (by having the state restrict who is allowed to access the means of production), but the Nolan chart would map that claim to right-libertarians being more "left", which is nonsense. --Pfhorrest (talk) 16:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Pfhorrest, you can't just "overlay" the Nolan hart over another chart with a different pair of vectors. Math doesn't work that way. And what's this "by having the state restrict who is allowed to access the means of production" all about? I have never encountered a libertarian who supports such a restriction. JLMadrigal @ 11:31, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- You're obviously completely unfamiliar with left-libertarian theory if you don't understand that bit you quoted. Right-libertarians support private ownership of the means of production, which means that if for example someone wants to graze their cattle on some land (a means of production), some other individual (the owner of that land) may have a right (enforceable by the state) to force that person not to graze there. Left-libertarians would say that the state should not do such things: it should not side with one party to exclude other parties from use of the means of production, it should allow everyone to make use of it (and of course it should continue defending individuals from each other, so the "owner" of the land doesn't get to use violence to exclude others from it himself). In other words, it should not recognize the right to private ownership of the means of production, in much the same way that it should not recognize the right for one person to own another person. Right-libetarians (and capitalists generally) do want states to enforce such rights, which left-libertarians see as a restriction on economic liberty. --Pfhorrest (talk) 18:01, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Left-libertarianism - which, fortunately, this article does not attempt to decipher - seeks to abolish property and dramatically restrict capital and markets. This ideal, as we have seen in the annals of history, requires a state (a totalitarian one at that). Even the plant and animal kingdoms respect property. On the Nolan chart, views favoring such economic restrictions clearly fall to the left. But they cannot be "off the chart" (i.e. 125% in favor of personal liberties - as you infer). Further, I would be delighted if you could produce a quote or reference supporting your claim that libertarians would like the state to enforce "the right for one person to own another person".
- JLMadrigal @ 11:17, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Yeah, you're just flatly refusing to even try to understand the way that different theories view things now. I'm not arguing for left-libertarianism here, I'm trying to explain to you that the way you view the political spectrum and the way they view the political spectrum are different, and so it is not neutral to use your right-libertarian framing to declare what moderate/centrist on the spectrum is when a left-libertarian framing would disagree. I'm not saying the left-libertarian framing is right, just that the right-libertarian framing is not uncontroversial or neutral.
- I would just be repeating myself to explain again that left-libertarians do not advocate for "restricting" capital or markets, and absolutely do not advocate for a totalitarian state (none of which have ever claimed to be any kind of libertarian-anything; the original "libertarians", libertarian socialists, called themselves that to distinguish themselves from the state-socialists you're thinking of, and were opposed to the formation of the USSR, PRC, etc). Read what I wrote above again: they advocate for states to do less than they do under capitalism, by not defending private property claims over the means of production. You can disagree about that as the right thing to do, but please just try to at least accurately understand the viewpoint you're disagreeing with.
- But you're not going to do that, because you can't even accurately understand my comments here, viz: I never claimed that "libertarians would like the state to enforce the right for one person to own another person"; "such rights" in my preceding comment refers to "the right to private ownership of the means of production". I'm beginning to doubt that you're operating in good faith here. --Pfhorrest (talk) 17:34, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Maybe we should start another discussion at the Left Libertarianism article. Could it be that "Left Libertarianism" has the same problem that I'm saying that this article has.....that it's just a two word sequence with varying meanings, not a distinct topic? North8000 (talk) 22:51, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- I disagree that either left-libertarianism or right-libertarian are just two-word sequences without a clear topic, though there is of course variation within the scope of each topic. In any case, suggesting that we move discussion of this to the left-libertarianism article is like suggesting that a discussion at Talk:Christianity about not framing that article as though the Christian worldview is uncontroversially true should be moved to Talk:Atheism instead: the point of bringing up left-libertarianism here is that it's a viewpoint that would disagree with the way that Madrigal wants to frame this article, which makes such framing biased, non-neutral, and so inappropriate for the encyclopedia. We can say that right-libertarians think of themselves in such-and-such way, but we cannot just say that they are such way in the article's own voice when there is disagreement over that claim. --Pfhorrest (talk) 05:58, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- What I said was (caps added): "Maybe we should start ANOTHER discussion....." Starting ANOTHER discussion is not moving this one, that would be an outlandish suggestion which you implied I made but which I didn't.North8000 (talk) 10:56, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- I disagree that either left-libertarianism or right-libertarian are just two-word sequences without a clear topic, though there is of course variation within the scope of each topic. In any case, suggesting that we move discussion of this to the left-libertarianism article is like suggesting that a discussion at Talk:Christianity about not framing that article as though the Christian worldview is uncontroversially true should be moved to Talk:Atheism instead: the point of bringing up left-libertarianism here is that it's a viewpoint that would disagree with the way that Madrigal wants to frame this article, which makes such framing biased, non-neutral, and so inappropriate for the encyclopedia. We can say that right-libertarians think of themselves in such-and-such way, but we cannot just say that they are such way in the article's own voice when there is disagreement over that claim. --Pfhorrest (talk) 05:58, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Maybe we should start another discussion at the Left Libertarianism article. Could it be that "Left Libertarianism" has the same problem that I'm saying that this article has.....that it's just a two word sequence with varying meanings, not a distinct topic? North8000 (talk) 22:51, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- You chose a natural resource as an example of "means of production". I think that that is a confusing non-typical example, as there is a whole different set of libertarian philosophies regarding natural resources. More typically it is something like a factory, machinery or business. Are you saying that there is a libertarian philosophy which advocates prohibiting ownership / control of such things ? North8000 (talk) 20:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, factories are another common example. Left-libertarians / libertarian socialists would have the state step aside and not protect a factory-owner's claim to ownership of the factory, allowing the workers to control it as they please. --Pfhorrest (talk) 21:04, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- OK, thanks for that information. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:35, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, factories are another common example. Left-libertarians / libertarian socialists would have the state step aside and not protect a factory-owner's claim to ownership of the factory, allowing the workers to control it as they please. --Pfhorrest (talk) 21:04, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- You're obviously completely unfamiliar with left-libertarian theory if you don't understand that bit you quoted. Right-libertarians support private ownership of the means of production, which means that if for example someone wants to graze their cattle on some land (a means of production), some other individual (the owner of that land) may have a right (enforceable by the state) to force that person not to graze there. Left-libertarians would say that the state should not do such things: it should not side with one party to exclude other parties from use of the means of production, it should allow everyone to make use of it (and of course it should continue defending individuals from each other, so the "owner" of the land doesn't get to use violence to exclude others from it himself). In other words, it should not recognize the right to private ownership of the means of production, in much the same way that it should not recognize the right for one person to own another person. Right-libetarians (and capitalists generally) do want states to enforce such rights, which left-libertarians see as a restriction on economic liberty. --Pfhorrest (talk) 18:01, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- The Nolan chart is useful inside of the US and useless outside of the US. It has uses too many words that have different meanings in the US vs. elsewhere. Regarding that linked-to chart, it's very specialized vs. a big picture, choosing Socialism/Capitalism as an axis. Also Socialism-in-practice introduces further complexities on these charts as, in practice, it always requires a powerful State. North8000 (talk) 18:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- North8000, "too many words that have different meanings" Which words in the Nolan Chart have different meanings elsewhere? I agree that Socialism-in-practice complicates matters. Fortunately this article is not about such fuzzy concepts. JLMadrigal @ 11:31, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Liberal, conservative. For example, in the US, liberal includes expansion of the state regarding social programs (and the taxes to pay for them). Conservative includes reduction or non-expansion in that area.North8000 (talk) 14:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Those terms are not integral to the chart. Rather they are superimposed over the chart in order to demonstrate the placement of their advocates - according to specific measures. Advocates for Self Government, for example provides a quiz with specific questions relating to the vectors in order to quantify the political views of individual testers.
- JLMadrigal @ 11:24, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- A chart is just a chart / what it is. And I think that those terms are used in most variants of it. You are implying that there is some underlying architecture that transcends the terms. That would be cool, but I tend to doubt it. If there is any underlying structure, I think that it is simply dividing the US liberal's and conservative's views into two categories: "US libertarians agree" and "US libertarians disagree" leading to the resultant axises which best summarize those groups. And the result is generally a "size of government" and "government control of behavior, especially in social areas".. I think that Nolan's main goals were to change from the "one axis system" to a 2-axis system which creates a place for US libertarianism. North8000 (talk) 13:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
- Liberal, conservative. For example, in the US, liberal includes expansion of the state regarding social programs (and the taxes to pay for them). Conservative includes reduction or non-expansion in that area.North8000 (talk) 14:10, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Your right-libertarian bias is showing. In saying that socialism can't exist without a powerful state, you're essentially saying that left-libertarianism cannot possibly be a thing, which, obviously, left-libertarians would disagree with vehemently. --Pfhorrest (talk) 21:04, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- I'm sorry. I thought that the "in-practice" qualifier might keep me in the clear because left-libertarians that I've discussed this with seemed to acknowledge that socialism without a powerful state is only a hypothetical possibility rather than an in-practice one. Also my comment was in the limited context of the complexity of using it on an axis of a chart. My apologies if I blew it on that post or in this edit summary. :-) North8000 (talk) 14:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- North8000, "too many words that have different meanings" Which words in the Nolan Chart have different meanings elsewhere? I agree that Socialism-in-practice complicates matters. Fortunately this article is not about such fuzzy concepts. JLMadrigal @ 11:31, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- Pfhorrest, you can't just "overlay" the Nolan hart over another chart with a different pair of vectors. Math doesn't work that way. And what's this "by having the state restrict who is allowed to access the means of production" all about? I have never encountered a libertarian who supports such a restriction. JLMadrigal @ 11:31, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
- No, you're missing the point that they deny that the Nolan chart's characterization of the axes is accurate, and they use a different kind of chart instead; someone posted one earlier on this same talk page, here. If you were to overlay a Nolan chart on that, the place that left-libertarians would characterize themselves would be in the top-left corner, outside the bounds of the Nolan chart, but not in the terms that the Nolan chart uses. Left-libertarians would say that they support 100% personal liberties and economic liberties, and that right-libertarians support less economic liberty (by having the state restrict who is allowed to access the means of production), but the Nolan chart would map that claim to right-libertarians being more "left", which is nonsense. --Pfhorrest (talk) 16:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't think the proposed revision is correct. Libertarianism is a term used to refer to anarchism, the strand developed by Rothbard et al and as a synonym for economic liberalism in the U.S. Left liberalism is a strand that developed out of Rothbard's school.
I have a question. Are anarchism and libertarianism two separate topics, or are they two names for the same topic? If they are the same topic, then we could merge them, which would help with naming issues. TFD (talk) 00:09, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- @The Four Deuces: Are you referring the proposed revision by @JLMadrigal:? I that case, I agree. I also share your thoughts; libertarianism should either be merged with anarchism, or perhaps it could remain if there're sources that describe it as a specific form of socialism opposed to all authoritarian and statist forms of communism/socialism, since worldwide libertarian is synonym with anarchism, libertarian socialism and social anarchism. We could remove sections about left-libertarianism (which is actually used to refer to the Steiner–Vallentyne school) and right-libertarianism (the Hess–Nolan–Rothbard school) as you actually stated and move them to the left-libertarianism, right-libertarianism and libertarianism in the United States pages, respectively. I believe this would be the only way to solve this naming issue.--95.245.199.21 (talk) 01:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Libertarianism and anarchism are most definitely not the same thing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Beyond My Ken: They are in certain ways; libertarian is still used as synonym for anarchism/libertarian socialism/social anarchism and was first coined in that sense by Joseph Déjaque, an anarchist and libertarian communist. If by libertarianism you meant libertarianism in the United States, then I agree they are most definetely not the same thing.--95.245.199.21 (talk) 03:53, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Libertarianism and anarchism are most definitely not the same thing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- See "Anti-Captialism and Libertarian Political Economy" by Deric Shannon: "Sometimes I use the term 'anarchism' as a synonym, as it was intended by the term's creators." EVen in the U.S., the Rothbard-Nolan-Hess school use the terms interchangeably, but the criticism is that they are not real anarchists or libertarians. It's only in the use as a synonym for laissez-faire capitalism that it takes on a different meaning. TFD (talk) 15:56, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
We can't even resolve this little sidebar article and now you want to kick the giant hornet's nest and delete the top level libertarianism article? We had a gigantic range war over somewhat the same topic at that article about 10 years ago. We settled it by just saying to cover all of the strands and explain the situation. The fundamental issue is that the word has two fundamentally different meanings in the US vs elsewhere. Not just different strands of libertarianism practiced, but fundamentally different meanings of the term. It's a tower of babel situation. But the two have much in common. Let's just start with fixing this article. The the common meaning of the English word libertarian in the country which is the largest English-as-a-primary-language country (the US) is a vague term that prioritizes smaller and less intrusive government and individual freedom. The entire common meaning can be be fully defined in about two sentences. It doesn't have a lot of complex philosophical definitions, and any similarity to any named philosophical strand is merely a coincidence. BTW, it is also not the USLP platform. It tacitly accepts capitalism and private ownership of resources as the norm, , but it's ideology does NOT include any specific viewpoint on those things. This isn't about grand complex philosophical issues, it's about acknowledging a common meaning of an English word amongst the majority of people who speak English as a primary language. For our European friends, the closet word in your language for the US meaning of libertarian isn't libertarian, it's liberal. Which is another word that has a very different meaning in the US. :-) Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 02:27, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Not to compound the vocabulary problem, but "liberalism" in Europe would be "classical liberalism". Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:34, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Indeed, does "libertarianism" actually have any meaning outside the U.S.? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:35, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Just clarifying, I think that you are saying that the US term for the European "liberal" is "classical liberalism". US libertarianism is often considered to be a renaming of classical liberalism. North8000 (talk) 02:46, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, sorry to have been obscure, that is what I was saying. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:59, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- I wouldn't be too sure to classify liberalism in Europe as classical liberalism; there're many social-liberal parties and a strong social-liberal tradition as well, so liberalism is used to refer to both, perhaps more to classical liberalism but not by much. Indeed, this American-style libertarianism has been exported in Europe and a few liberal parties critical of social liberalism call themselves Libertarian. Anyway, libertarianism has a totally different meaning (it goes back to Déjaque) outside the United States, where libertarian is a renaming for liberal in the classical sense. Anyway, @North8000: I agree with your concerns and I'm not opposed to keep things as they are now, but @The Four Deuces: raised important questions, as you yourself stated in the discussion above. Does libertarianism refer to anarchism? Does left-libertarianism refer to the Steiner–Vallentyne school? Does right-libertarianism refer to the Hess–Nolan–Rothbard school? I would also change
has been used by some authors
to simplyrefers to
because the first phrasing makes it seem like it's not a neutral naming and that only some authors use it when I thought the consensus was that right-libertarianism is a neutral, correct name. @Beyond My Ken: himself stated thatRight libertarianism is the WP:COMMONNAME for this political ideology
, then surely there's some sources consensus and it's not just some authors; or did I misunderstand you?--95.245.199.21 (talk) 03:53, 16 August 2019 (UTC)- I agree with your whole post, including the "refers to" change. With emphasis on the importance of answering TFD's question.North8000 (talk) 12:53, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- One update and one tweak. The update is to make the change that you suggested. Since it was basically removing some wording I put in in mid July, I figured that the change would not need a big discussion. Second I should have said I agree with 95% of your post. The other 5% is that so far we just decided to not make the move/redirect/name change, with no decision on the merits of the term itself. North8000 (talk) 16:11, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with your whole post, including the "refers to" change. With emphasis on the importance of answering TFD's question.North8000 (talk) 12:53, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- Just clarifying, I think that you are saying that the US term for the European "liberal" is "classical liberalism". US libertarianism is often considered to be a renaming of classical liberalism. North8000 (talk) 02:46, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- The term libertarianism is used in describing U.S. politics as a synonym for economic liberalism, i.e., less spending on social programs, less regulation and lower taxes. But it also refers to the ideology and movement set up by Rothbard, Nolan and Hess, which drew on anarchist literature and adopted anarchist symbols. TFD (talk) 16:03, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
- I'm tending to go more on common meanings of the term. I think that you are also referring to the political science realm. Which I think is referring to small groups of people with more fully developed philosophies. I would also put the USLP in that category. BTW, in the US "anarchy" has a very negative common meaning.....more likely to be described as a breakdown of order with riots in the streets throwing firebombs. Maybe 1% of Americans would know of it's political science meaning. North8000 (talk) 16:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
New lede
Here's a compromise:
(Nolan chart here with right half of libertarian quadrant shaded)
- "The term right-libertarianism is interpreted differently by different political camps. For libertarians in the US and other regions who include economic liberalization in their interpretation of libertarianism in general, right-libertarian refers specifically to those who hold to right-of-center views such as pro-life, centralized military, immigration restrictions, trade restrictions, legislated morality, and other viewpoints that align to some extent with those on the right (i.e. Republicans)."
(anticapitalism-capitalism chart here with right half shaded)
- "For traditional libertarians who oppose capitalism, all libertarians who support both economic and social liberalization are included in the definition. In this case, the right/right-wing in libertarianism doesn't necessarily refer to the ideology's position on the political spectrum, but rather its position relative to traditional libertarian views regarding property and capital."
JLMadrigal @ 12:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- The phrasing "economic liberalization" still framing things from a right-libertarian (in that second sense) perspective. Left-libetarians would not say that they are against economic liberalization, they would say that they are more for it than right-libertarians, that capitalism is inherently un-libertarian and being against it is favoring more economic liberty. That is the big ideological difference that I keep trying to communicate to you.
- Also, if anything the order of these two paragraphs should be reversed, both because the second sense is the more prominent one and because the first sense is a subset of the second sense.
- And I'd like to see some sources that the first sense is even a thing in usage at all, because I've only ever heard the term used in the second sense, and that is what the entirety of this article is about right now. --Pfhorrest (talk) 15:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- The current article conflates neoliberalism with paleolibertarianism. In order to fix it, the distinction will first need to be clarified. The former support economic and personal liberation while the latter combine cultural conservativism. To be true to the title, the article will need to limit itself to a description of the latter along with an expansion of its variants and proponents, and include right-leaning individuals who associate with libertarianism such as Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Justin Amash, &c. As you stated, central libertarianism supports economic liberation. The fact that some writers make an unfounded distinction between free markets and the free exchange of property does not change this fact.
- JLMadrigal @ 17:17, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- You can’t just keep ignoring the point that I keep reiterating to you. This article is about a broader topic than either neoliberalism or paleolibertarianism, both of which fall under the umbrella of right-libertarianism: anti-state, pro-capitalism. You want to make this article about something narrower than it is about: the right wing OF right-libertarianism. Because you refuse to acknowledge that there is any way besides the Nolan chart to characterize the political spectrum, and that different viewpoints see “economic liberty” to mean something different than your kind of libertarianism sees it, and see your kind of libertarianism as being less in favor of it just as much as you see them as being less in favor of it. This isn’t about the left and right wings of what you think of as libertarianism: this is about two kinds of libertarianism that both see each other as more libertarian than the other, and the other failing either to the left or the right of their “true” libertarianism. —Pfhorrest (talk) 21:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Perhaps JLMMadrigal's meaning of the term being totally different is further evidence that it's just a two word sequence with no consistent meaning? North8000 (talk) 21:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- You can’t just keep ignoring the point that I keep reiterating to you. This article is about a broader topic than either neoliberalism or paleolibertarianism, both of which fall under the umbrella of right-libertarianism: anti-state, pro-capitalism. You want to make this article about something narrower than it is about: the right wing OF right-libertarianism. Because you refuse to acknowledge that there is any way besides the Nolan chart to characterize the political spectrum, and that different viewpoints see “economic liberty” to mean something different than your kind of libertarianism sees it, and see your kind of libertarianism as being less in favor of it just as much as you see them as being less in favor of it. This isn’t about the left and right wings of what you think of as libertarianism: this is about two kinds of libertarianism that both see each other as more libertarian than the other, and the other failing either to the left or the right of their “true” libertarianism. —Pfhorrest (talk) 21:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
IMO the proposal scrambles it up even worse. It defines "right" in the US conservative sense of the term, and lists attributes which most US libertarians oppose.North8000 (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Overall structure to resolve this
This discussion has moved. I suggest making no more edits in this section. North8000 (talk) 02:13, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Step 1 Decide whether or not we are going to rename the article. I think that "No" is a near-certain answer. The previous RFC (which failed) was basically a "rename" one to the most viable possibility, and there are no other ideas that have gained even the tiniest bit of traction. But it's an important step in the process.
Step 2 Decide between remaining a full article which requires treating it as a distinctive topic or move on to step 3 to deprecate it.
Step 3 (only if chosen in step 2) Deprecate the article in one of these ways: A. Reduce it to short article just about the term. B. Make it a redirect to some established existing article.
C. Delete the article.
Any objections? Should any be a full blown published RFC, or should it be just a discussion among st the current participants. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- I think that is a good structure, and you’re right that renaming seems unlikely. I think step 2 should require at least an RFC as it’s suggesting deleting most of this article which I think definitely is on a notable topic in its own right and should not be deprecated. —Pfhorrest (talk) 21:41, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Do you think that the RFC should be one where the bot advertises it? Or an "in between" level of advertising (e.g. at project libertarianism and Libertarianism)? Or just for the people who are watching this page? North8000 (talk) 21:49, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- I think the more eyes the better for something like this. —Pfhorrest (talk) 21:54, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- OK then maybe an official one advertised by the bot (are there choices we have to make (that we should discuss) when doing that?) plus at project libertarianism plus at the Libertarianism article? North8000 (talk) 21:59, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- I think the more eyes the better for something like this. —Pfhorrest (talk) 21:54, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- Do you think that the RFC should be one where the bot advertises it? Or an "in between" level of advertising (e.g. at project libertarianism and Libertarianism)? Or just for the people who are watching this page? North8000 (talk) 21:49, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
- The first request for comments under Step 1 should be an invitation to commentators intimately familiar with the topic of right-libertarianism and/or the content of the existing article, rather than those who have a left-libertarian or "anticapitalist" bias - which, either way, is outside of the scope of this article. Some possible names should be presented for comment - such as "Anti-Statism", "Negative Rights Libertarianism", "Individualist-Libertarianism", "Mainstream Libertarianism", "Laissez-Faire Libertarianism", "Propertarian Libertarianism", "Free-Market Libertarianism", "Center-North Libertarianism", "Modern Libertarianism", "Nolan Libertarianism", and "Rothbardian Libertarianism", among others, and the commentators should be invited to make additional suggestions for an alternate title, to describe the existing content with only minor revision required, if possible, and with minimal overlap with existing articles. Since the use of "right-libertarianism" to describe every libertarian who favors private property is highly controversial, a name change would be the most straight-forward and long lasting solution to the controversy. If it fails, Step 2 will require a major rewrite to clearly familiarize the reader, early on, with the controversy surrounding the term, and curtail future conflict among editors.
- JLMadrigal @ 04:45, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- That sounds fine. BTW, step 2 is deciding between a full "distinct topic" article and deprecating it; you seemed to be saying that getting to step 2 means that the former was already decided. North8000 (talk) 12:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- If Step 1 fails, and the decision is made in Step 2 to remain a full article as a distinctive topic, it must be made known that a major rewrite will be required, expounding on the controversy surrounding right-left placement. JLMadrigal @ 13:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, but I suspect that if we do step 1 we are going to have to decide what it is that we are naming. We might be stuck in a chicken-and-egg quandary there that might call for changing my proposed structure. You can't talk about renaming something without pre-supposing that there is a distinct topic to rename. Maybe step one should be to decided "Is there a distinct topic here". A "Yes" anser would inevitably required defining the topic. What do you think? North8000 (talk) 17:01, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- That is a good point, and I think you're right that your steps 1 and 2 should be reversed. First we need to settle whether there is a distinct topic here (I think there is), and if there is one then how to name it (I think right-libertarianism is fine), and if there's not one then what to do with the article. --Pfhorrest (talk) 17:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, but I suspect that if we do step 1 we are going to have to decide what it is that we are naming. We might be stuck in a chicken-and-egg quandary there that might call for changing my proposed structure. You can't talk about renaming something without pre-supposing that there is a distinct topic to rename. Maybe step one should be to decided "Is there a distinct topic here". A "Yes" anser would inevitably required defining the topic. What do you think? North8000 (talk) 17:01, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- If Step 1 fails, and the decision is made in Step 2 to remain a full article as a distinctive topic, it must be made known that a major rewrite will be required, expounding on the controversy surrounding right-left placement. JLMadrigal @ 13:18, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- Madrigal, while it's of course important that people involved in this process be familiar with right-libertarianism, it sounds as though you want to make sure that the process be conducted from a right-libertarian point of view, which is not how Wikipedia works. The article needs to conform to a neutral point of view, that does not state controversial claims biased toward right-libertarianism in the encyclopedia's own voice. To make sure that that happens, we have to be sure that there are editors with a variety of viewpoints involved. You wouldn't limit an article about Christianity to only editors who are Christians.
- Most of your proposed name options are very problematic for reasons already explained, BTW. All varieties of libertarianism are "Anti-Statism" so that's far too wide for this narrow topic, likewise "Negative Rights Libertarianism", "Laissez-Faire Libertarianism", and "Free-Market Libertarianism" which all apply to all forms of libertarianism; there are individualist varieties of left-libertarianism too so likewise "Individualist-Libertarianism" is too broad; "Mainstream Libertarianism" and "Modern Libertarianism" are both biased against other current and active varieties of libertarianism; and "Center-North Libertarianism" presumes a biased answer to the question of where on the political spectrum right-libertarianism is located. --Pfhorrest (talk) 17:46, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- That sounds fine. BTW, step 2 is deciding between a full "distinct topic" article and deprecating it; you seemed to be saying that getting to step 2 means that the former was already decided. North8000 (talk) 12:24, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
This discussion has moved. I suggest making no more edits in this section. North8000 (talk) 02:13, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
A simple solution to the left-right thing
Here is a quick thought that I hope will help make everyone involved feel less uncomfortable about using the term "right" in the name here.
Would you all agree that left-libertarianism or libertarian socialism is located to the left, on any political spectrum, of the kind of propertarian, pro-capitalist libertarianism that this article is about?
Does it not then follow immediately that this kind of libertarianism is to the right of that kind?
And that therefore, between those two different kinds of libertarianism, this is the right-more variety?
Why then is it a problem to call the kind of libertarianism that's on the right side of the broad spectrum of libertarianisms "right-libertarianism"?
Sure, within that kind there can be further divisions into left and right, but that's a different topic that's irrelevant to this broader point. And it only makes sense to limit "right-libertarianism" to mean that sub-subdivision if you deny or ignore the existence of left-libertarianism, and think that the propertarian, pro-capitalist kind is the entirety of libertarianism. Which it clearly is not. --Pfhorrest (talk) 17:56, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- I agree, but quibble on details that do not affect your main concept. But I think that the result is pretty much limited to your first sentence. North8000 (talk) 19:19, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- The problem is that "left libertarianism" is not libertarian socialism but a subset of capitalist libertarianism but differs on some issues, such as whether a corporation could buy the water in the Great Lakes or the Mississippi and sell it back to us. The other capitalist libertarians who are not left-libertarians are referred to as right libertarians, although the term is rarely used since left libertarianism is relatively insignificant. TFD (talk) 21:13, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- As I pointed out already upthread, that is not the exclusive or original sense of the term. From the lede of our own Left-libertarianism article:
- "In its classical usage, left-libertarianism is a synonym for anti-authoritarian varieties of left-wing politics such as libertarian socialism which includes anarchism and libertarian Marxism, among others.[5][6] Left-libertarianism can also refer to political positions associated with academic philosophers Hillel Steiner, Philippe Van Parijs and Peter Vallentyne that combine self-ownership with an egalitarian approach to natural resources.[7]"
- (emphasis mine), and from Left-libertarianism#Definition:
- "In its oldest sense, it is a synonym either for anarchism in general or social anarchism in particular. Later it became a term for the left or Konkinite wing of the free-market libertarian movement, and has since come to cover a range of pro-market but anti-capitalist positions, mostly individualist anarchist, including agorism and mutualism, often with an implication of sympathies (such as for radical feminism or the labor movement) not usually shared by anarcho-capitalists. In a third sense it has recently come to be applied to a position combining individual self-ownership with an egalitarian approach to natural resources; most proponents of this position are not anarchists.[5]"
- --Pfhorrest (talk) 21:54, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- As I pointed out already upthread, that is not the exclusive or original sense of the term. From the lede of our own Left-libertarianism article:
- "...left-libertarianism or libertarian socialism is located to the left...Does it not then follow immediately that this kind of libertarianism is to the right of that kind?...therefore, between those two different kinds of libertarianism, this is the right-more variety?"
It does not. And here's why: The center of the bird is located to the right of its left wing. It does not follow that the center of the bird is also its right wing. Better, suppose a horse sprouts a left wing. It does not logically follow that it will also sprout a right wing. It may, but having a left wing is not an inevitable precursor to having a right wing. Although a wing of libertarianism that is right of center does indeed exist, the current article does not exclusively describe it. JLMadrigal @ 23:17, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- That analogy doesn't work because birds and horses have uncontroversially well-defined bilateral structure with a clear unambiguous center, while political spectra are inherently controversial ways of carving up an unbounded abstract space. There is disagreement about where the center is; that is the point I keep reiterating that you keep ignoring. I'm not saying either side of that disagreement is correct, only that neither is uncontroversially correct, and so we cannot say in the encyclopedia's own voice that one way of framing the spectrum is the right way. The best that we can say is that one is to the left of the other, and the other is to the right of the first; the one on the left of the other is the left one, and the one on the right of the other is the right one. --Pfhorrest (talk) 01:51, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Pfhorrest, Wikpedia articles are not reliable sources. Now, we need to follow disambiguation guidelines for articles: each article must have a distinct topic and each must use its common name. We cannot combine two different topics and pretend they are the same thing, nor can we create terms that no one uses. See the google scholar search for "right-libertarianism" which was provided above.[2] All the sources are articles about left (capitalist) libertarianism and all define right libertarianism as libertarianism that excludes left libertarianism. TFD (talk) 23:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not citing a wikipedia article in another article so saying it's not a reliable source is non-sequitur. I'm pointing you, in this conversation, to a well-sourced wikipedia article on a topic you misspoke of; the second quote from that article is actually a quote from one of its sources, in fact. --Pfhorrest (talk) 01:51, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Proposed overall structure to resolve this - Take 2
In my first attempt I think that I may have skipped over some fundamental questions. My second attempt is to suggest starting by resolving these underlying questions:
Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:34, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Question #1 Terminology aside / ignoring terminology Is there an inherent distinct topic that should have a separate article? If you think "yes" please describe the topic (descriptively, not relying on the R-L term) and make the case for it being an article.
- The existing topic is a description of today's libertarian movement - excluding only anti-capital anti-property sentiment, which itself is distinct to a particular group - which has its own article. So, no, it does not merit an article of its own in Wikipedia. All of these topics are discussed elsewhere. One topic, however, that, to my knowledge, does not already have its own article is the distinct political viewpoint, especially in the US, that combines elements of nationalism, and other views identified with Republicans, with those held by the Libertarian Party, as stated in their Platform, and the majority of Americans who identify with it. Such an article may merit consideration.
- JLMadrigal @ 13:14, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, there is an inherent distinct topic that should have a separate article. The article at Libertarianism simpliciter covers the whole range of different libertarianisms across history, as it properly should: from the earliest anarchist/socialist sense of the term, through the 20th century capitalist appropriation of it now common in the United States, and newer anticapitalist offshoots of the latter. We have an article specifically about the socialist/anticapitalist varieties of it, and we should also have another article about the capitalist varieties of it (which we already do: this one), as neither of those has an uncontroversial claim to "libertarianism" simpliciter. --Pfhorrest (talk) 17:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Pfhorrest: OK, if we look at only the meaning of R-L that you are discussing, would you say that "dividing line" is consistent? Anti-capitalist vs. strands that accept or advocate capitalism?
- Yes. With the important note that capitalism is not equivalent to free markets; both sides are pro-market. It's about ownership of the means of production. --Pfhorrest (talk) 17:25, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Agree, and this is an important distinction. Unregulated markets are not, generally, free markets. They are just "free" from government interference. ---- Work permit (talk) 17:47, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Lack of third-party interference is what defines free markets. Only the left can get away with differentiating free markets for products and services from free markets for capital - AND making it a dividing line between right and left. JLMadrigal @ 23:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- I didn't mean to hijack this thread by bringing up the distinction. In economics, a free market is a system in which the prices for goods and services are determined by the open market and by consumers. In a free market, the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government or other authority and from all forms of economic privilege, monopolies and artificial scarcities.---- Work permit (talk) 00:01, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- These free markets are precisely what these libertarians would like to see - and what the subjects of this article describe as "capitalism" (contrary to the foggy definitions from the left). There is no line. JLMadrigal @ 04:32, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Madrigal, it's really clear that you haven't read the first thing about left-libertarianism, so you don't even know what you're arguing against. They aren't advocating for any kind of third-party interference. They're arguing against interfering in ways that capitalists, even libertarian capitalists, still support: states defending private parties' claims to things that, left-libertarians claim, do not rightly belong to them. See the earlier example of enclosure of grazing land, which at one point was available for anyone to use, and then was declared, by the state, to be only for the exclusive use of its designated owner, with the state using force to interfere with anyone else's attempt to use it against that decree. That is the kind of thing that left-libertarians are against. --Pfhorrest (talk) 01:16, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- You will search in vain to find even a tiny minority of those described in this article supporting state interference in market processes. As I have stated earlier, territory is natural in the plant and animal kingdoms. Abolishing property and capital, however, requires interference. Furthermore, enforcement of tort, property, and contract law does not even require a state (see subrogation). JLMadrigal @ 04:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- The statement "territory is natural in the plant and animal kingdoms. Abolishing property and capital, however, requires interference" is exactly the statement that these two groups of libertarians disagree about. Regardless of whether or not it is true, there is clearly one group who says it is, and one group who says it is not: that territory and other natural resources are naturally free for public use, until someone seizes them by violent intervention for exclusive private use, which violence constitutes the establishment of a state. (IOW: that in a truly free market, you would have to continuously pay off other potential users of such territory/etc enough to persuade them to voluntarily let you have exclusive use of it, and that instead using police or military or other violence to force people to not use it because it's "your private property" is interference in that free market where exclusivity would naturally cost the "private owner" payments to the public). It's not our place on this talk page to argue about who is right in that disagreement, but you cannot deny that there is such a disagreement in effect, and that is the disagreement that defines the difference between these two kinds of libertarians. --Pfhorrest (talk) 05:17, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Grazing land is a classic example. A more recent one is intellectual property. Copyright and patents are monopolies granted by the government to private parties. I understand left-libertarians oppose this government-mandated protection to inventors against competition and "free markets".---- Work permit (talk) 03:14, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Neither does support for Copyright and patents define this "group". They have no consistent position on the issue - certainly not enough support to merit it being the dividing line (which does not exist in reality). JLMadrigal @ 04:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- @JLMadrigal:Do you think that "not anti-capitalist" (vs. anti-capitalist) defines a group worth covering / having an article, per my "tentative yes" post below?
- If you are suggesting renaming the article "Not Anti-Capitalist" (or "Non-Anti-Capitalist-Libertarianism"), and keeping it essentially intact, substituting each occurrence of "Right-Libertarianism" with "Non-Anti-Capitalist-Libertarianism", then I will respond with a tentative yes. But I'm hoping that there is a shorter term available (other than "Capitalist-Libertarianism" due to the misuse and discoloration of "capitalism"). Even the term "capitalism" is not consistently used by the described group in its discussion of the freed market which it advocates. We may have to settle for the longer name. JLMadrigal @ 14:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- "Non-Anti-Propertarian-Libertarianism" may be more accurate - or even "Anti-Collectivist/Anti-Statist Libertarianism" would describe the movement (without the dreaded double negative) in its metamorphosis from a previous life, and cleanse it from the stigma of collectivism without resorting to philosophical dualism. JLMadrigal @ 14:53, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- "Anti-Collectivist/Anti-Statist" is too broad of a title because all libertarians characterize themselves as such, including the ones (left-libertarians) that this article is not about.
- All libertarians characterize themselves as anti-collectivist? WTF?
- More generally though, all of these titles reek of original research. I doubt you're going to find anyone in any sources using anything like them. The only sourced titles for this topic are going to be from sources discussing the difference between this kind of libertarianism and the other (left/socialist) kind. TFD has complained that those sources are all left-leaning, but if that is true then it suggests that right-libertarian sources just don't even acknowledge the existence of left-libertarianism, so if the only sources comparing the two are left-libertarian, then that's where the common name for this variety of libertarianism (distinguished from libertarianism more broadly) is going to have to come from. --Pfhorrest (talk) 17:19, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- I would have a lot to say on the naming topic but the structure I proposed delayed tackling that issue.North8000 (talk) 18:05, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- "Anti-Collectivist/Anti-Statist" is too broad of a title because all libertarians characterize themselves as such, including the ones (left-libertarians) that this article is not about.
- @JLMadrigal:Do you think that "not anti-capitalist" (vs. anti-capitalist) defines a group worth covering / having an article, per my "tentative yes" post below?
- Neither does support for Copyright and patents define this "group". They have no consistent position on the issue - certainly not enough support to merit it being the dividing line (which does not exist in reality). JLMadrigal @ 04:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- You will search in vain to find even a tiny minority of those described in this article supporting state interference in market processes. As I have stated earlier, territory is natural in the plant and animal kingdoms. Abolishing property and capital, however, requires interference. Furthermore, enforcement of tort, property, and contract law does not even require a state (see subrogation). JLMadrigal @ 04:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- I didn't mean to hijack this thread by bringing up the distinction. In economics, a free market is a system in which the prices for goods and services are determined by the open market and by consumers. In a free market, the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government or other authority and from all forms of economic privilege, monopolies and artificial scarcities.---- Work permit (talk) 00:01, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- Lack of third-party interference is what defines free markets. Only the left can get away with differentiating free markets for products and services from free markets for capital - AND making it a dividing line between right and left. JLMadrigal @ 23:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Agree, and this is an important distinction. Unregulated markets are not, generally, free markets. They are just "free" from government interference. ---- Work permit (talk) 17:47, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Yes. With the important note that capitalism is not equivalent to free markets; both sides are pro-market. It's about ownership of the means of production. --Pfhorrest (talk) 17:25, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- @Pfhorrest: OK, if we look at only the meaning of R-L that you are discussing, would you say that "dividing line" is consistent? Anti-capitalist vs. strands that accept or advocate capitalism?
- Yes there is a distinct topic. The topic, as discussed, is the relatively modern pro-capitalist branch of libertarian thought. I do believe the sections Right-libertarianism#History, Libertarianism#Modern_American_libertarianism and Libertarianism in the United States need some cleaning up but that is for another question.---- Work permit (talk) 17:41, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Tentative yes I'm starting to get swayed :-) . So it looks like the largest branch of libertarianism has no article except this one. Even though few of its adherents would define their libertarian philosophy as pro-capitalism (but they tacitly accept capitalism as the norm) the main thing that distinctly defines it / separates it from the other strands of libertarianism is that it is not anti-capitalist. Vaguely speaking, US people of this ilk are called "libertarians" by US observers, and Europeans of this ilk are called "liberals" by European observers. (the tower of babel is that those two words have very different common meanings in the US vs. Europe.) So now I'm thinking that this topic needs an article North8000 (talk) 18:37, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, there is an inherent distinct topic that should have a separate article. The article at Libertarianism simpliciter covers the whole range of different libertarianisms across history, as it properly should: from the earliest anarchist/socialist sense of the term, through the 20th century capitalist appropriation of it now common in the United States, and newer anticapitalist offshoots of the latter. We have an article specifically about the socialist/anticapitalist varieties of it, and we should also have another article about the capitalist varieties of it (which we already do: this one), as neither of those has an uncontroversial claim to "libertarianism" simpliciter. --Pfhorrest (talk) 17:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- No The term is primarily used to distinguish the main group of U.S. libertarianism from a strand that calls itself "left libertarianism," which is only left in comparison with right libertarianism. It's like using the term "rest of the world" when discussing the U.S. While it makes sense to have articles about the world and the U.S., we don't have articles about the world excluding the U.S. TFD (talk) 18:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- @The Four Deuces: I'm only pressing you on this because for many years I have had a lot of respect for your expertise here and would like to make sure we know your opinion on the "is it a topic" issue. You seemed to instead being weighing in on the term. Also because I'm sort of flipping from a "no" to a "yes" on this based on the reasoning in my "tentative yes" post immediately above. Would very much value double checking on what you meant or any critique of my post. North8000 (talk) 18:19, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- @North8000:, sorry I missed your ping. The term right libertarian is generally used to contrast Vallentyne's school with the Rothbard school, hence it is not a topic. The term is also used to distinguish between use of the term libertarianism as developed in the 19th century and as a synonym for laissez-faire liberalism. That is a topic, but I find the term right libertarian to be not the best one for an ideology that has dominated the world for most of the past three centuries. A lot of this has to do with the fact that there is no uniformity in the use of terms to describe various schools of liberalism. Our challenge is to clearly identify them and use distinct terms for each one. Take for example social liberalism. That article is about liberalism that supports the welfare state, rather than cultural liberalism, which the article social conservatism is about cultural conservatism, not conservatism that supports the welfare state, which is another definition. TFD (talk) 17:44, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- @The Four Deuces: I'm only pressing you on this because for many years I have had a lot of respect for your expertise here and would like to make sure we know your opinion on the "is it a topic" issue. You seemed to instead being weighing in on the term. Also because I'm sort of flipping from a "no" to a "yes" on this based on the reasoning in my "tentative yes" post immediately above. Would very much value double checking on what you meant or any critique of my post. North8000 (talk) 18:19, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Tentative result on Question #1
This is just for the purpose of going to the next step of the discussion, this is not an official RFC or a decision-with-weight. Unless I'm mistaken....JLMadrigal basically answered "NO, if titled "R-L", yes if not." TFD answered with an objection to the R-L term, I'm sort of reading that as "not if titled "R-L". The "cover it?" question aside, there seems to be agreement on what the topic-in-question is. Vaguely speaking, it's the current content of the article, or the form(s) of libertarianism that don't object to capitalism. I think that we have a strong consensus to cover this topic conditional on not-titling it "right-libertarianism". Without that condition, I think that we have either a weak consensus to cover it, or "no consensus yet". Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:56, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- I think that is a fair summary, assuming there are no editors who strongly oppose covering the topic if it is not titled "R-L". I for one would not oppose having the content if it were under another appropriate title.---- Work permit (talk) 15:18, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- The term "Right Libertarianism" has two distinct uses:
- 1) An ideologically biased description of libertarian views colored by admittedly left libertarians to pigeonhole those who do not subscribe to their views regarding property and capital.
- 2) A distinction among libertarians primarily within Libertarian Parties combining stated libertarian positions with those to their right (i.e. Republicans). This topic will be receiving increasing attention in the coming years as the Libertarian Party continues to expand and establish its identity in relation to the major political parties.
- JLMadrigal @ 13:44, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- @JLMadrigal: Do you believe that the term should be covered? North8000 (talk) 12:53, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Sure, but only for the purpose of disambiguation, since the term is ambiguous and multifaceted. There is no clear line between right and left libertarianism - other than that described by Nolan (which is also controversial to those on the left). Even, as we have seen, the term "capitalism" (which seems to be the bone of contention) is interpreted as something other than free-market by some on the left. ::::JLMadrigal @ 13:57, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- There is a clear line between left-libertarianism of any variety, which are all anti-capitalist in the sense of against private ownership of the means of production (while also being pro-market and anti-state), and varieties of libertarianism which are pro-capitalist and therefore to the right of the former varieties. Of course you could subdivide either of them further into the left and right sides of themselves, but I've yet to see any indication that "right-libertarian" ever means the right half of the pro-capitalist kind of libertarianism, while we have an entire article -- this one -- that's all about right-libertarianism as in pro-capitalist libertarianism. --Pfhorrest (talk) 17:25, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Left-libertarianism as the term is normally used supports private ownership of the means of production. It differs only in how individuals can acquire natural resources. Left libertarians believe this can only be done with the consent of the majority. That describes any country once government has been established. You can't put a fence around a lake in the Alaskan wilderness and claim you own it. There's nothing particularly left-wing about that. TFD (talk) 20:21, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
- There is a clear line between left-libertarianism of any variety, which are all anti-capitalist in the sense of against private ownership of the means of production (while also being pro-market and anti-state), and varieties of libertarianism which are pro-capitalist and therefore to the right of the former varieties. Of course you could subdivide either of them further into the left and right sides of themselves, but I've yet to see any indication that "right-libertarian" ever means the right half of the pro-capitalist kind of libertarianism, while we have an entire article -- this one -- that's all about right-libertarianism as in pro-capitalist libertarianism. --Pfhorrest (talk) 17:25, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Sure, but only for the purpose of disambiguation, since the term is ambiguous and multifaceted. There is no clear line between right and left libertarianism - other than that described by Nolan (which is also controversial to those on the left). Even, as we have seen, the term "capitalism" (which seems to be the bone of contention) is interpreted as something other than free-market by some on the left. ::::JLMadrigal @ 13:57, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- @JLMadrigal: Do you believe that the term should be covered? North8000 (talk) 12:53, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, the term deserves coverage as the obvious counterpart of "Left Libertarianism", and discussion of taxonomies is entirely appropriate. --Pfhorrest (talk) 17:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
- The left-libertarian article combines sources that use different definitions of left libertarianism and sources that Wikipedia editors think are referring to left libertarianism, whether they use that word or not. Sorry but I can't find the source you presented here, could you please tell me what it is. I suggest too you check google scholar for "left libertarianism.""left+libertarianism"&btnG= None of the results on the first page use your definition. 00:03, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, I believe that the term should be covered. It is used, and in varying ways, The coverage needed to explain the uses goes far beyond a dictionary, and the varying uses and meanings are related. Wikipedia is the place to do that. North8000 (talk) 12:51, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Question #3 Presuming that there is a distinct topic which is (roughly speaking) that covered by the current contents of this article, what should the title of the article be?
Lets just start with discussion before asking for final answers. North8000 (talk) 15:27, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to try really hard to avoid "right libertarian". The common names for this philosophy are "libertarianism" in the US and "liberalism" in Europe. A tower of Babel situation. So maybe there is no "common name" that is widely acceptable and we need to try something else. If we were to try to use sources to settle what the "common name" is, we need sources that reflect on the common name question. A libertarian writer who merely uses the term is not a source on that question, they are a participant. Plus there is a lot of strong pushback against the R-L term/title. Plus we are writing to communicate in English, and in the largest English-as-a-first-language population(the USA), the term is an oxymoron, and, for the people that it is referring to it is either somewhat of a pejorative or naming them by a political philosophy which they are in opposition to 1/2 of the tenets of. North8000 (talk) 15:27, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
When you look at this, the underlying tough problem isn't differences in strands of libertarianism or claims of primacy for one strand or competitions between strands, it's differences in the common meanings of the term (and also the term "liberalism") in common US English vs. common European English. What if we used that understanding to sort this out? So name this article "Libertarianism (common USA meaning)"? And explain the situation at the beginning of the article. So we're not claiming that there is a single US form of libertarianism, merely that the common meaning of single-word "libertarianism" in the US is what's in this article. Other forms just get a longer name. Just like European writers make up a longer name "right libertarianism" when referring to something that is different than the common meaning of "libertarianism" in Europe.
Perhaps even do something similar for left libertarianism, although I think that the need there is less pressing. Being a smaller group, I think that it is more common to add the word (to make it "left libertarianism") when discussing it. North8000 (talk) 23:21, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- I have no objection to "Libertarianism (common USA meaning)" or "Libertarianism (U.S. usage)" as a title. JLMadrigal @ 03:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- North8000, what about my suggest below, laissez-faire liberalism? TFD (talk) 00:03, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- I'm thinking not. The term is sort of redundant for European readers and and oxymoron for US readers. = confusing for both. :-) North8000 (talk) 01:19, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- I don't see why it would be confusing. Liberalism has the same meaning in Europe as it does in the rest of the world. The only difference is that colloquially it refers to what Americans call libertarianism. Note that the article Liberalism is not about modern American liberalism or what is colloquially called libertarianism in the U.S. And see the French Wikipedia,[3] A lot of people outside American see no significant difference between the two brands of U.S. liberalism. They are both pro-capitalist and differ on such things as whether the maximum tax rate should be 36% or 38%. Both Nancy Pelosi and Elizabeth Warren have sung the praises of capitalism. Anyway, we shouldn't assume that readers are ignorant. TFD (talk) 04:46, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Well, the readers are intelligent but not usually political scientists. They also often know (only) the meanings of words in their own brand of English. My guess is that only about 1% of US people know what classical liberalism is, or that it is / there is an alternate meaning for the word liberal. This isn't about talking down to people, it's about communicating in their language, or at least explaining when using foreign/different meanings of their words. BTW the liberalism article does cover the difference and the US meaning issue, albeit IMO possibly while under-acknowledging the language diffrence issues. As far as the naming / topic approach on the liberalism article, it is the single-word top level article (analogous to Libertarianism) covering all meanings and treating the US meaning as a special case. I think one difference (compared to libertarianism) is the the general initial meaning of liberalism is still very widespread, and goes by that name where it is most prevalent. And so it's not too confusing to cover it thoroughly in the one-word top level article, and treat the US special version as a two-word variant. And so the top level one word article covers it. Nobody is suggesting that a separate Liberalism (Non-US Meaning) article is needed. But if it was, I think that they would have the same / analogous naming problem that we're having here. Imagine that after studying the US variant (the liberalism that prioritizes increasing government social programs and the taxes to cover them), an author used the term Right-liberalism to describe the most prevalent type. I don't know where I'm going with all of this, I guess I'm just discussing / trying to sort it out. North8000 (talk) 13:31, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- I don't see why it would be confusing. Liberalism has the same meaning in Europe as it does in the rest of the world. The only difference is that colloquially it refers to what Americans call libertarianism. Note that the article Liberalism is not about modern American liberalism or what is colloquially called libertarianism in the U.S. And see the French Wikipedia,[3] A lot of people outside American see no significant difference between the two brands of U.S. liberalism. They are both pro-capitalist and differ on such things as whether the maximum tax rate should be 36% or 38%. Both Nancy Pelosi and Elizabeth Warren have sung the praises of capitalism. Anyway, we shouldn't assume that readers are ignorant. TFD (talk) 04:46, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- I'm thinking not. The term is sort of redundant for European readers and and oxymoron for US readers. = confusing for both. :-) North8000 (talk) 01:19, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- I think your suggestion has a lot of merit. Call this topic Libertarianism (U.S. usage) or something like that. I think we mostly agree the topic is the post-war, pro-capitalism branch of Libertarianism. In the United States this branch is commonly called Libertarianism. ---- Work permit (talk) 02:03, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- There may be considerable overlap with the Libertarianism in the United States article. Are the topics distinct enough to avoid a merge? JLMadrigal @ 16:33, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- I've been thinking the same thing and earlier suggested the sections Right-libertarianism#History, Libertarianism#Modern_American_libertarianism and Libertarianism in the United States would need some "cleaning up". One idea would be for this article to focus on the philosophy and its underlying academic literature, while the Libertarianism in the United States article would focus on the post-war political movement.---- Work permit (talk) 16:45, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Libertarianism in the United States is about a small movement that began in the 1960s, while this article is about the strand of liberalism that dominated the developed world from the late 1700s to the Second World War and again from the mid 1970s until today. TFD (talk) 16:40, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- That's a good way to put it.---- Work permit (talk) 16:51, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Would there be a distinction between the pre-war strand of liberalism that you mention and what is called Libertarianism in the United States? Does the thread that started in the mid 1970 include with it a specific lens on "liberalism" dating back further? My sense is that it does.---- Work permit (talk) 17:21, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Just brainstorming/discussing.....Per the discussions under question #1 I think that this is a distinct topic not fully synonymous with libertarianism in the US. There are other types on libertarians in the United states (abiet a tiny fraction of US libertarians) and there are the type in this article outside of the US, possibly where they are even called libertarians rather than liberals. To e4mphasise, where I keep mentioning the USA, and in my title idea, it is to be cognizant of the meaning of the term is US English. North8000 (talk) 21:21, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Note that in American English, words can have more than one meaning and different words can mean the same thing. Not only that, but articles can use any national variety of English that the editors choose. When this occurs we need to follow Wikipedia:Disambiguation. I note too that the articles on liberalism, conservatism and social liberalism do not follow the Great American Semantic Confusion and there are dedicated articles to modern liberalism and conservatism in the U.S. TFD (talk) 23:11, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- I'm just analyzing, not making a point....Those examples are the top level articles, analogous to Libertarianism. Those articles provided the decoder ring in the body of the article. Usually by describing the US version as a (poli-sci based) 2 word version e.g Liberal conservatism (a term that is Greek and an oxymoron to USA people) and then explaining that Americans have abbreviated that 2 word name to the top level name. Then the mid level two-word articles seem to have the same types of questions / questions that we are dealing with. :-) North8000 (talk) 01:48, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- In 1932, Roosevelt, who had supporters and opponents in both parties, decided to call his supporters liberals and his opponents conservatives, and eventually the terms stuck. He could just as easily have called his supporters conservatives and his opponents liberals, or used colors, directions or big endiens and little endians. It had nothing to do with what these terms historically meant and there is no reason to redefine these terms. Both Roosevelt's opponents and supporters were primarily within the liberal tradition.
- Although America means the United States to most Americans, they understand that the place called South America is not in the U.S. We don't need to rename South America so that Americans aren't confused.
- TFD (talk) 05:47, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- Again, I'm just analyzing, not making a point.... Well, one thing that I think is undisputed is to fully explain the situation in the body of articles. So then it's down to which libertarian articles articles exist and what to name them. To utilize your reasoning above, one needs to (names aside) start with is deciding what the entities are. If the topic of this article is a synonym with liberalism or classical liberalism then that would in essence be an argument for deletion of this article because those articles exist already. If you consider the topic of this article to be similar but not identical to those, then this article is about a primarily (but not exclusively) USA phenomena. A phenomena which USA people call "libertarianism" and which non-USA people don't have a common name for. North8000 (talk) 10:50, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- The liberalism article is about the ideology that developed in the 1600s and came to dominate the world. The classical liberalism article is about the liberalism that developed during the classical period of liberalism (late 1700s to mid-1800s) that would be abandoned but influential in neo-classical liberalism, social liberalism and socialism and every other modern ideology. But both terms are also used as synonyms for this article. TFD (talk) 15:22, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- I'm just analyzing, not making a point....Those examples are the top level articles, analogous to Libertarianism. Those articles provided the decoder ring in the body of the article. Usually by describing the US version as a (poli-sci based) 2 word version e.g Liberal conservatism (a term that is Greek and an oxymoron to USA people) and then explaining that Americans have abbreviated that 2 word name to the top level name. Then the mid level two-word articles seem to have the same types of questions / questions that we are dealing with. :-) North8000 (talk) 01:48, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- Note that in American English, words can have more than one meaning and different words can mean the same thing. Not only that, but articles can use any national variety of English that the editors choose. When this occurs we need to follow Wikipedia:Disambiguation. I note too that the articles on liberalism, conservatism and social liberalism do not follow the Great American Semantic Confusion and there are dedicated articles to modern liberalism and conservatism in the U.S. TFD (talk) 23:11, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- Libertarianism in the United States is about a small movement that began in the 1960s, while this article is about the strand of liberalism that dominated the developed world from the late 1700s to the Second World War and again from the mid 1970s until today. TFD (talk) 16:40, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
If "Libertarianism (common USA meaning)" has not already been decided, I would also like "Mainstream Libertarianism" to be considered. Any takers? JLMadrigal @ 18:16, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- I've already voiced my strong objections to "mainstream libertarianism" as unfairly biased in favor of (I'm going to keep using the terms we have now) right-libertarianism over left-libertarianism, especially in an international context where right-libertarianism is far from the mainstream meaning of "libertarianism".
- And "Libertarianism (common USA meaning)" and others still smack too much of original research. We need to find sources that discuss the difference between the different things called "libertarianism" and use whatever terms they use to distinguish between them as our titles.
- Consider for comparison Football, American football, and Association football. In common parlance people in any country just say "football", but they all mean different things by it. In America, the most internationally most common kind of football is called "soccer", but most people who play that game don't call it that and would object strongly to it being called that; they just call it "football". But in America (and Canada, and Australia), "football" simpliciter means something different (a different game entirely in each of those countries). In a comparative context, when talking about the different kinds of games, the internationally most common kind is called "association football", even though nobody who plays that game calls it that; they just call it "football". The different national varieties each have their own names too, for example what's played in the NFL is American football, even though nobody who plays it calls it that, they just call it "football".
- We have a similar situation with "libertarianism", except not quite so cleanly divided by country, and we need to find sources that discuss the different kinds comparatively and find what terms they use to distinguish them, like how "association football" is used for the game most commonly called "football" or "soccer", even though nobody who plays it calls it that.
- The only terms I'm familiar with being used in that comparative context are "right-libertarian" and "left-libertarian", but if there are other well-sourced names I'm open to considering those as well. --Pfhorrest (talk) 20:12, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- Consider for example the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on Libertarianism, section 4. Libertarianism, Left and Right. --Pfhorrest (talk) 20:16, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- I already have a pretty good idea how you feel about "Mainstream Libertarianism" (and every other libertarian adjective including the one used by leftists), Mr. Pfhorrest. JLMadrigal @ 02:23, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- Consider for example the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on Libertarianism, section 4. Libertarianism, Left and Right. --Pfhorrest (talk) 20:16, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
- It's a pretty moot point because throughout the world since all natural resources are either privately or government owned. You can't just stake a claim of land or gold and own it without securing legal title. Jed Clampett's ancestors got their farm through settling where no recognized government existed, but that's not how the modern world works. TFD (talk) 02:54, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- So your position is "left-libertarianism is irrelevant, right-libertarianism is the only libertarianism anymore"? Sounds like you're maintaining a nice neutral point of view here /s. The different views on legitimate acquisition of natural resources are relevant in today's world for their impact on who does or does not have legitimate current claims to those resources; if they were initially claimed illegitimately in the past then ongoing claims to them in the present may be challenged.
- In any case what we editors personally think about the merits of different positions is irrelevant. There are a range of notable sources that hold a range of different views on what proper libertarianism is like, and the encyclopedia must not favor any of them over the others. Your entire objection is a non-sequitur to the point that there's one reliable source right there (SEP) discussing those different points of view and differentiating them with the terms "left" and "right". Your turn to find a source comparing them using different terminology. --Pfhorrest (talk) 03:50, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- No, I am saying that the left-right distinction in the school that Rothbard et al. founded is fairly minor. As your source mentions, they differ on "how exactly [the Lockean] proviso is to be understood." Because it does not challenge existing ownership of natural resources or challenge future appropriation of natural resources. It merely challenges the original justification for ownership. So maybe you own your house lot because your ancestor combined his labor with a natural resource. Or maybe your ancestor received a grant from the Crown or a relevant government. But today your ownership is accepted by the government so the means of original acquisition is irrelevant. If you think what I have said is irrelevant, please find a source that finds the distinction significant. TFD (talk) 04:09, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- The very same article I already linked reads that, in the views of the most left of libertarians, "...those who thereby acquire more than their share (understood in terms of per capita value) owe compensation to others. This constraint is enduring significance. It applies at the moment of appropriation, and encumbers subsequent through time." (Emphasis mine, typos in source). And once again, this is non-sequitur. We have a source, on libertarianism generally, discussing the distinction between left and right libertarianism, under those names, without playing one up as the major strain or the other down as a minor strain. Wikipedia as it stands already mirrors that structure, and you are the ones wanting to change that, so you need to provide a source to back up that proposed change, some general treatment on different strands of libertarianism that uses some other terminology to distinguish them. --Pfhorrest (talk) 07:21, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- By most "the most left of libertarians" you are referring to left libertarianism which is pro-capitalist and follows the libertarianism of Rothbard, Nolan and Hess, except for their theory of the origins of land ownership. Their argument is not new btw. Liberals including Margaret Thatcher have mostly challenged aristocratic land ownership to some degree. And few have challenged the right of municipalities to levy property taxes. Liberals historically saw ownership of capital as being in competition with aristocratic land ownership. But again, that is not a significant issue today in the developed world where land is now treated very much like capital in that it can be bought and sold. TFD (talk) 00:53, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- No, by "the most left of libertarians" I mean, to quote the same source (that it seems you didn't read) again, "What we might call equal share left-libertarianism—advocated by Henry George (1879) and Hillel Steiner (1994), for example...". Note that one of those example proponents predates any of the figures you're saying they "follow" after by about a century, clearly connecting the 19th century left-libertarianism you insist is unrelated to the newer Steiner et al left-libertarianism you at least admit the existence of.
- And again, you're making a non-sequitur argument about the merits of the different views, when all that matters for our purposes is that different people hold those views. You're saying that contemporary political regimes conform to a view of property rights more like those of right-libertarians than those of left-libertarians, but that's not relevant to whether or not left-libertarians exist who contest the rightfulness of those property claims.
- Also, and this is again going off the relevant topic which is just "sources say left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism are a thing": you seem to take "capitalism" to mean just "free markets". This question of the justness of claims to land etc is very much the question underlying capitalism vs socialism as left-libertarians / libertarian socialists understand it. If they are right that "those who thereby acquire more than their share (understood in terms of per capita value) owe compensation to others" in a way that is of "enduring significance ... and encumbers subsequent through time" then private ownership of the means of production is being challenged, and that private ownership of the means of production is the defining characteristic of capitalism, not free markets. You are free to think that they are not right in that claim, but there's a reliable source saying that there are notable people who make that claim, that those people are called left-libertarians, and that libertarians who disagree with it are called right-libertarians, and that's all that matters for our purposes. --Pfhorrest (talk) 01:33, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think you are reading the source correctly. Left-libertarians do not think that the the means of production should be publicly owned. They are against redistribution of capital and income and oppose income tax, sales tax and corporate taxes. They believe however that society can tax land (but not buildings), since it was originally in public ownership, unlike businesses which were created by their owners. In some circumstances society may reaquire title to land and natural resources that were improperly appropriated. So for example they might oppose Bundy's ranch which he appropriated from federal land without public permission. But none of their economic positions are left-wing in any sense. Hillel Steiner in "The right to trade in human body parts" argued that it was not exploitive. The only types of exploitation are theft and taxes. Now I am sure some socialists might trade in body parts, but it's not something they openly advocate. TFD (talk) 02:52, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- By most "the most left of libertarians" you are referring to left libertarianism which is pro-capitalist and follows the libertarianism of Rothbard, Nolan and Hess, except for their theory of the origins of land ownership. Their argument is not new btw. Liberals including Margaret Thatcher have mostly challenged aristocratic land ownership to some degree. And few have challenged the right of municipalities to levy property taxes. Liberals historically saw ownership of capital as being in competition with aristocratic land ownership. But again, that is not a significant issue today in the developed world where land is now treated very much like capital in that it can be bought and sold. TFD (talk) 00:53, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- The very same article I already linked reads that, in the views of the most left of libertarians, "...those who thereby acquire more than their share (understood in terms of per capita value) owe compensation to others. This constraint is enduring significance. It applies at the moment of appropriation, and encumbers subsequent through time." (Emphasis mine, typos in source). And once again, this is non-sequitur. We have a source, on libertarianism generally, discussing the distinction between left and right libertarianism, under those names, without playing one up as the major strain or the other down as a minor strain. Wikipedia as it stands already mirrors that structure, and you are the ones wanting to change that, so you need to provide a source to back up that proposed change, some general treatment on different strands of libertarianism that uses some other terminology to distinguish them. --Pfhorrest (talk) 07:21, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- No, I am saying that the left-right distinction in the school that Rothbard et al. founded is fairly minor. As your source mentions, they differ on "how exactly [the Lockean] proviso is to be understood." Because it does not challenge existing ownership of natural resources or challenge future appropriation of natural resources. It merely challenges the original justification for ownership. So maybe you own your house lot because your ancestor combined his labor with a natural resource. Or maybe your ancestor received a grant from the Crown or a relevant government. But today your ownership is accepted by the government so the means of original acquisition is irrelevant. If you think what I have said is irrelevant, please find a source that finds the distinction significant. TFD (talk) 04:09, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes; No; Libertarian capitalism. The topic is libertarian capitalism. It is separate from traditional libertarian socialism due to its support for free markets and private property. Right-libertarianism is an oppositional and pejorative term, so I suppose this article could be, in effect, criticisms of libertarian capitalism. Thus, there is room for two separate articles, Libertarian capitalism for the NPOV article, and this one using the pejorative term for criticisms. PhilLiberty (talk) 16:44, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- That would be a WP:POVFORK which is not allowed. --Pfhorrest (talk) 17:11, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- Then the Criticism of socialism and Criticism of Islam articles (among many others) are POV forks, too. PhilLiberty (talk) 20:33, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Proposed overall structure to resolve this - Take 2 Arbitrary Break
If I may attempt to summarize, there is no broadly used common name for the topic of the article. In the USA the common name is "libertarianism"; in Europe the name for the similar phenomena where it exists in Europe is "liberalism". However, they are not exactly the same phenomena. We're not just talking difference in forms; we are talking about fundamental differences in the common meaning of terms in US English vs. English elsewhere. So there is no easy or really good answer for naming; so we probably should forge ahead and decide on an imperfect name. I guess that there are these categories of where to go for a title:
- Based on the predominance of current common usage, a title that lets it somewhat appropriate the term. Like "Modern Libertarianism" Or "Mainstream Libertarianism" or "Current Libertarianism". "Contemporary libertarianism" added Sept 2nd per suggestion.
- Descriptive term that goes by the meaning e.g. "Libertarianism (common US meaning)". "Libertarianism (US style)" meaning the most common US style, not the overall topic which is Libertarianism in the United States
- Terms used by writers when tackling the taxonomy of this topic. For example "Right-Libertarianism". I used the term "writers" instead of "sources" because in this case I would consider them to be participants in name usage, not sources on it. I suspect that any source on name USAGE is not going to come up with a single name due to the dilemma described at the beginning of this summary.
- Other
May I suggest we jump in and choose an imperfect title? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:35, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- What about merging into economic liberalism? It's the same topic. TFD (talk) 15:40, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- My suggestion is "Libertarianism (common US meaning)" but I'm willing to support whatever seems to be gaining a consensus North8000 (talk) 17:31, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- I think the third option is the only viable one. The first option biases this form of libertarianism over others by deeming it "modern"/"mainstream"/"current" when there are current/modern proponents of the other form and outside the US this form is far from mainstream. The second option is original research. We have to see what other notable sources comparing the different kinds of libertarianism call them; that's the only way we can remain neutral without making things up ourselves. --Pfhorrest (talk) 18:36, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- I don't think the article on economic liberalism defines the topic well, but here is a description from p. 1 of P Political Failure by Agreement: Learning Liberalism and the Welfare State: "economic liberalism [is] a conception which seeks to minimize the role of the state....All advocates of economic liberalism seek to foster market development which requires economic liberty, whereas the state has to guarantee economic rights such as property rights, the right of abode, the freedom to choose and free trade." That seems to be the same topic as this article and therefore the two should be merged. TFD (talk) 20:51, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- Pfhorrest, just to sort things out, may I debate you a bit on "The second option is original research."? I don't think that a title alone can violate WP:NOR. The question arises when you put material into the article. Typical presence in the article is a sort of implicit statement that the material falls under the subject of the article, and so it becomes a requirement that that implied statement is sourced/sourcable. I think that there is a lot of precedent and practical interpretation in Wikipedia that if the sourcing shows that it clearly under the topic of the title, that the source does not have to use the exact wording of the title to support this. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:04, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- I would prefer option 2 assuming sources can back up that meaning. I fully admit I am not a libertarian scholar, but from a quick perusal of literature it appears to me that many US authors use the word libertarianism to mean the topic in the article. Of course, they don't call it "US Libertarianism". They call it "Libertarianism" and they all happen to be from the US. The literature is fairly recent. They discuss the long history of libertarianism but through a "private property" lens.---- Work permit (talk) 00:54, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
- I prefer Option 1 and would add "Contemporary Libertarianism" as a possibility - assuming that it can be reasonably assumed or documented that the majority of self-identified libertarians subscribe to this ideology. I am a little hesitant to apply Option 2, because this brand of libetarianism is not unique to the US, but would favor it over the current title. I would apply Option 4 if it can be documented that anticapitalist libertarianism is mainstream, and would add "Negative-rights Libertarianism" or "Center-north Libertarianism". Perhaps a runoff vote is in order. JLMadrigal @ 02:22, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
- The number of contemporary “anti-capitalist” libertarians in the world seems to be a tiny fraction of libertarians of the American variety. 4.5 million people voted for the Libertarian candidate for President, Gary Johnson, in the 2016 election. This number does not include apolitical libertarians of the American variety. In contrast, Spain, has the greatest number of anti-capitalist libertarians, estimated at about 30,000. Therefor, a generous estimate for all left-libertarians worldwide would put the number well below 1 million. In terms of numbers, it is safe to say that the American variety of libertarianism is the mainstream of libertarianism. JLMadrigal @ 03:19, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- I think that it was Boaz who estimated that 20% of US voters vote libertarian (i.e are against half the platform of each major party in a libertarian way), which would put it at around 40,000,000 / half of that turning out for any given election. Only a tiny fraction vote for Libertarian Party candidates.....with zero chance of winning in the US 2 party system, a USLP vote is often considered to be a wasted vote at best. North8000 (talk) 23:02, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- See again the situation with football. Just because association football players vastly outnumber American football players doesn’t mean that there’s something wrong with calling that sport what we do here in this comparative international context. —Pfhorrest (talk) 02:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- I was just putting out info, not implying anything by it. The football example is a good example of the tower of babel situation we have here. The top level article libertarianism uses the same approach, covering both. From there on out I'm not so sure it's analagous. Difference are that the US form American football is very distinct and clearly closely related to the US. North8000 (talk) 12:28, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
- See again the situation with football. Just because association football players vastly outnumber American football players doesn’t mean that there’s something wrong with calling that sport what we do here in this comparative international context. —Pfhorrest (talk) 02:34, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
- I think that it was Boaz who estimated that 20% of US voters vote libertarian (i.e are against half the platform of each major party in a libertarian way), which would put it at around 40,000,000 / half of that turning out for any given election. Only a tiny fraction vote for Libertarian Party candidates.....with zero chance of winning in the US 2 party system, a USLP vote is often considered to be a wasted vote at best. North8000 (talk) 23:02, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
- The number of contemporary “anti-capitalist” libertarians in the world seems to be a tiny fraction of libertarians of the American variety. 4.5 million people voted for the Libertarian candidate for President, Gary Johnson, in the 2016 election. This number does not include apolitical libertarians of the American variety. In contrast, Spain, has the greatest number of anti-capitalist libertarians, estimated at about 30,000. Therefor, a generous estimate for all left-libertarians worldwide would put the number well below 1 million. In terms of numbers, it is safe to say that the American variety of libertarianism is the mainstream of libertarianism. JLMadrigal @ 03:19, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
There seems to be consensus on fixing the title and converting the existing title to a disambiguation page. How do we proceed without an "edit war"? JLMadrigal @ 12:43, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
- I see no such consensus evident here. --Pfhorrest (talk) 17:08, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
- Make that, a strong majority consensus. JLMadrigal @ 17:26, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
- I don't see any such consensus; can we remove the template. I'll be mostly gone for 8 days. Maybe we can wait 8 more days :-) for more input and then, since we've come this far, bring this to some type of a decision? North8000 (talk) 22:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
- I provisionally removed the tag in the hope that we can settle this matter soon among ourselves. JLMadrigal @ 07:38, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
- I don't see any clash here, or even strong opinions for any particular outcome. Just a bunch of editors trying to figure out how best way to handle this. North8000 (talk) 12:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
- Perhaps you don't see it, North, but I predict that Pfhorrest is not going to budge on fixing the title. To date, he has not offered a single alternative. JLMadrigal @ 15:49, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
- I've not offered any alternatives because I don't think there's anything wrong with it as it is. I've suggested a place to look for acceptable alternatives: reliable sources comparing the different kinds of libertarianism, to see what they name them. I even went and looked up the first one that came to mind (SEP)... and it used the names we already have, confirming my opinion that it's fine how it is. --Pfhorrest (talk) 17:42, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
- Perhaps you don't see it, North, but I predict that Pfhorrest is not going to budge on fixing the title. To date, he has not offered a single alternative. JLMadrigal @ 15:49, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
- I don't see any clash here, or even strong opinions for any particular outcome. Just a bunch of editors trying to figure out how best way to handle this. North8000 (talk) 12:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
- I provisionally removed the tag in the hope that we can settle this matter soon among ourselves. JLMadrigal @ 07:38, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Sources
Can someone please provide a book or article about right-libertarianism that explains what the term means and provides a detailed explanation of its main tenets, history, literature and leading proponents. I can find this type of source for socialism, communism, fascism, liberalism, conservatism and other ideologies, but not for right-libertarianism. TFD (talk) 15:55, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- I believe most modern U.S. books would call "right-libertarianism" simply "libertarianism". The Libertarian Mind: A Manifesto for Freedom may be a good place to start.---- Work permit (talk) 16:15, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- Boaz is using the term libertarian as a synonym for what Ian Adams calls "laissez-faire liberalism." According to Adams, it "adheres to three basic principles: the free market, the miniumum state, maximum freedom and responsibility for every individual." It developed from Locke and Smith and other writers and is still influential today.[4] A number of social scientists writing about the U.S. also use the term libertarianism in this way, while in Europe or South America they may call it liberalism. In fact it is a form of liberalism, not a form of libertarianism as that term was traditionally understood.
- If we use that as a definition for this topic, that means that the Rothbard-Nolan-Hess school (and discussion of self-ownership) has little weight and requires its own article.
- But then the question arises why this article should be called right libertarianism.
- TFD (talk) 18:26, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- It appears to me the article as it stands does generally hue to the concepts Boaz lays out. Is that really not the case? I will fully admit, I am no expert on the various strands and nuances in this broad "pro-capitalist" branch of libertarianism, assuming that really is the topic covered in this article.---- Work permit (talk) 18:57, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- Then we get statements such as: There is a debate amongst right-libertarians as to whether or not the state is legitimate, the non-aggression principle (NAP) is often described as the foundation of present-day right-libertarian philosophies, Right-libertarians are economic liberals of either the Austrian School or Chicago school, right-libertarianism developed in the United States 1950s. There's an entire section about anarcho-capitalism, although it forms a tiny part in the history of laissez-faire liberalism.
- As Boaz used the term, libertarianism was the driving ideology from the late 18th century until it was challenged by welfare liberalism. That's a pretty vast history.
- TFD (talk) 20:00, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- That is a good point. Each branch claims the other has hijacked the term.---- Work permit (talk) 02:07, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- For that reason I still really think we should stick to sources that discuss the difference between these two kinds of libertarianism to find what names those sources use to distinguish them. A lot of the name suggestions so far smack of original research. Also I think this discussion has grown beyond just the scope of this article and should be moved somewhere more about libertarianism generally so we can discuss both this and left-libertarianism and the relationship between them and between each and libertarianism simpliciter. —Pfhorrest (talk) 04:03, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- On the face of it a good idea but it would probably get hopelessly large and mired down. Maybe better to start "small" here? North8000 (talk) 12:04, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
- In the section above I linked to a Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article that discusses what makes a form of libertarianism left or right. That answers TFDs initial request in this section.
- I've also notified WikiProjects Philosophy, Politics, and Libertarianism asking for more eyes on this discussion, as I suggested above. --Pfhorrest (talk) 03:54, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- For that reason I still really think we should stick to sources that discuss the difference between these two kinds of libertarianism to find what names those sources use to distinguish them. A lot of the name suggestions so far smack of original research. Also I think this discussion has grown beyond just the scope of this article and should be moved somewhere more about libertarianism generally so we can discuss both this and left-libertarianism and the relationship between them and between each and libertarianism simpliciter. —Pfhorrest (talk) 04:03, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- That is a good point. Each branch claims the other has hijacked the term.---- Work permit (talk) 02:07, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
- So why not change the title to laissez-faire liberalism or something similar? TFD (talk) 21:07, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
- It appears to me the article as it stands does generally hue to the concepts Boaz lays out. Is that really not the case? I will fully admit, I am no expert on the various strands and nuances in this broad "pro-capitalist" branch of libertarianism, assuming that really is the topic covered in this article.---- Work permit (talk) 18:57, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
structure of conversation
Before I read all that, can someone please close any conversations deemed irrelevant? It's not clear if " Take 2" means I should still be responding to the original one. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:36, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
- @MJL: I don't think I can officially "close" any conversations deemed irrelevant, but it looks like nothing new has happened outside the "Take 2" thread in a week, and most everything has been gone over again in the "take 2" thread (and can be reiterated again if needed, if not). --Pfhorrest (talk) 22:11, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
I'll just put a few notes there that discussion has moved. North8000 (talk) 02:10, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Pejorative Description
We need to make sure that the reader knows that this a about a pejorative term used mainly by opponents. PhilLiberty (talk) 22:20, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- Whether or not the title is a pejorative at all is still under debate above. See Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy for an example using it in a purely comparative neutral way. --Pfhorrest (talk) 23:01, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
- Of course it is okay to stipulate that libertarianism can be thought of as a continuum. That is a far cry from endorsing the term, and is not denying that it is pejorative. (Article> "Libertarian theories can be put on a continuum from right-libertarianism to left-libertarianism, depending on the stance taken on how natural resources can be owned.") PhilLiberty (talk) 17:06, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
POV forks
@PhilLiberty recently recreated/created Libertarian capitalism and Modern libertarianism in what appear to be POV forks of right-libertarianism. Given the above discussions, this talk page should arrive at a consensus on whether/how split the content for reasons other than POV. czar 19:39, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
Lede
Paragraph One
Mainstream-libertarianism, refers to the prominent brand of libertarian political philosophy, originating in the United States, that advocates civil liberties, natural law, laissez-faire capitalism and a major reversal of the modern welfare state. Mainstream-libertarians strongly support private property rights and defend market distribution of natural resources and private property. JLMadrigal @ 15:50, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
- A simple Google search for "mainstream libertarianism" produces over 1700 hits, a random sampling of which demonstrates that most people associate it with the brand of libertarianism currently described in this article. The term "right-libertarianism" is primarily employed by the self-described libertarian left, and is widely rejected by most libertarians. JLMadrigal @ 04:02, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- That's a backward way of looking for a name. We need to identify reliable sources first and then see what kinds of names they use, not pick names we like or dislike and then see who uses those kinds of names. It's entirely possible that one side of a controversy may be more likely to use the terminology favored by neutral comparative sources; that doesn't make those sources biased, that makes one side more neutral in their terminology. Consider for comparison a term like "race realism", which is not used by any neutral reliable sources, only by racists, but that doesn't make those neutral comparative sources non-neutral for using unbiased terminology. We need to avoid false balance. --Pfhorrest (talk) 07:40, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- The problem with your approach is that you have not identified a topic, which would be necessary in order to obtain reliable sources to describe it. Instead, you are starting with a false premise, and seeking justifications for that premise. In your own words, you can't "pick names we like or dislike and then see who uses those kinds of names." "Right-libertarianism" seems to be the only name you like, and you seem unwilling to research even one more descriptive title. The range of titles must be analyzed in order to determine the validity of said terms to describe the subject matter. The most accurate terms will then be candidates for title. We have already thoroughly vetted "right-libertarianism" and have found it wanting. It's time to take the next step. JLMadrigal @ 14:45, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- I have identified a topic. Ask yourself, why does this article exist, instead of just Libertarianism, when the people this article is about just call their view "Libertarianism"? Because there are other people with different views who also call their views "Libertarianism", so the article Libertarianism is about the overarching umbrella of all views that get called that and the things that they have in common. What are the things that these different views that all call themselves just "Libertarianism" disagree about? Ownership of natural resources and thereby the means of production. There are two articles about the different sides of that disagreement: this one is about the side that thinks natural resources can be freely appropriated from an unowned initial state and then privately owned and traded, and that ownership rightly defended by force, and that counter-force against that constitutes coercion; while there is another article about those who think that natural resources belong initially to the public and private use of them requires compensation to the public, that the use of force to maintain private control of them instead of such compensation constitutes coercion, and that counter-force against that is just defense against that coercive force. So, what do sources that discuss that difference of opinion between people who all call themselves just "Libertarian" use to distinguish the two different types? So far as I can see, they use "right-libertarian" and "left-libertarian". And nobody has pointed at any sources that use any other terminology to discuss that distinction. You've pointed at things showing that right-libertarians call themselves as mainstream or contemporary or whatever, but that's irrelevant. We need sources that discuss the difference between this kind of libertarianism and the other kind, because that's why this article exists in the first place, to discuss one side of that disagreement.
- Tangential to this, I skimmed the history of this article and it seems that it has had some back-and forth merging and splitting with Libertarian conservativism in its early years before settling on this topic, with the article at that other title (Libertarian conservativism) being the one about views that are between libertarianism and right-wing (conservative) views. So that is clearly not the topic of this article. --Pfhorrest (talk) 17:55, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- I agree that "Libertarian Conservativism" is not a good title - since antipropertarian libertarians (your brand) are more conservative. Traditional (conservative) libertarians belong over there. But if the distinction were merely the resistance to property, then "Propertarian Libertarianism" would be an acceptable title. Today antipropertarianism and anticapitalism has become relegated to the fringe of the libertarian movement. As discussed above, the ideology described in this article has, for the most part, overtaken the movement. Trying to relegate it to a mere wing is an exercise in futility. JLMadrigal @ 03:15, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
- Where did you get the impression that I'm antipropertarian? I've just been trying to explain their views to you and maintain balance in the encyclopedia, I'm not on either side of this disagreement (I'm a weird in-between position of my own invention, not that that should matter). In any case, you can't honestly claim propertarianism/capitalism is less traditional or conservative than their opponents, considering that the opponents came later historically. --Pfhorrest (talk) 05:31, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
- Oh and as far as left-libertarian being relegated to a fringe, you might want to skim through Libertarianism#Contemporary_libertarian_socialism for a whole bunch of counterexamples. --Pfhorrest (talk) 01:26, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
- Hmmm. The "Libertarian conservativism article seems like a perfect disambiguation redirect, since, as you say, it is the article "about views that are between libertarianism and right-wing (conservative) views" (which is exactly what the title "Right-libertarianism" implies). JLMadrigal @ 02:11, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
- I agree that "Libertarian Conservativism" is not a good title - since antipropertarian libertarians (your brand) are more conservative. Traditional (conservative) libertarians belong over there. But if the distinction were merely the resistance to property, then "Propertarian Libertarianism" would be an acceptable title. Today antipropertarianism and anticapitalism has become relegated to the fringe of the libertarian movement. As discussed above, the ideology described in this article has, for the most part, overtaken the movement. Trying to relegate it to a mere wing is an exercise in futility. JLMadrigal @ 03:15, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
- The problem with your approach is that you have not identified a topic, which would be necessary in order to obtain reliable sources to describe it. Instead, you are starting with a false premise, and seeking justifications for that premise. In your own words, you can't "pick names we like or dislike and then see who uses those kinds of names." "Right-libertarianism" seems to be the only name you like, and you seem unwilling to research even one more descriptive title. The range of titles must be analyzed in order to determine the validity of said terms to describe the subject matter. The most accurate terms will then be candidates for title. We have already thoroughly vetted "right-libertarianism" and have found it wanting. It's time to take the next step. JLMadrigal @ 14:45, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
- That's a backward way of looking for a name. We need to identify reliable sources first and then see what kinds of names they use, not pick names we like or dislike and then see who uses those kinds of names. It's entirely possible that one side of a controversy may be more likely to use the terminology favored by neutral comparative sources; that doesn't make those sources biased, that makes one side more neutral in their terminology. Consider for comparison a term like "race realism", which is not used by any neutral reliable sources, only by racists, but that doesn't make those neutral comparative sources non-neutral for using unbiased terminology. We need to avoid false balance. --Pfhorrest (talk) 07:40, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
Disambiguation Page
Lede
The term, "right-libertarianism" is used by mainstream libertarians to refer to libertarians who ally with the right while holding otherwise libertarian views. It is also used by traditional libertarians and self-identified left-libertarians to describe libertarian views that do not object to capitalism, laissez-faire, and the individualization of property. JLMadrigal @ 03:14, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
- The mainstream libertarian link would, of course, link to the new Mainstream libertarianism article instead of redirecting to the "Libertarian conservativism" article. JLMadrigal @ 03:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Try for the finish line on the title
Well, I'm back on the continent. We've had a lot of excellent discussion. Sometimes the discussion page is more informative than the article page, and this might be one of them, and over 8 years I've been learning much from discussion pages on libertarianism, including when there was the giant range war at Libertarianism. And so thank you to everyone for that. I think that we have decided that this is a distinct topic and one worth having an article on, and we've decided on roughly what that topic is. It can be defined roughly as "the form that is commonly called "libertarianism" in the US and is the common form in the US (but also exists elsewhere)", or it can also be defined in political science terms (e.g. not anti-capitalist etc.) in ways that others here can do better than me. Regarding a title, besides all of the usual complexities, we have an additional "tower of babel" one, where, in this case, the English language is actually two different languages which have very different words for the topic of the article. When I proposed a process, I considered it unlikely that we'd come to a consensus in the usual Wikipedia way. I see about 5 possibilities, and I'm going to show some bias in my descriptions.
- Decide that there is "no consensus" and have the default status quo, not as a decision, but as a non-decision. So all of our work would be for nothing and it would still be unresolved.
- Continue discussions here and see if we can gravitate towards a title.
- Move to a conventional broadcast RFC right now. IMO, especially with all of the possibilities for an answer, and people unfamiliar with the topic, this will generate a random answer or no answer.
- Have a further discussion to organize an RFC. Possibly reduce it to two possibilities for the RFC to consider.
- Resolve it per the un-wikipedian way that I propose as follows. First, I think we have a pretty representative and well-versed group here to handle this. Somebody already advertised this discussion at the key places to get similar participants. We'll make a list of all of the proposed titles. Only persons who have contributed at least a few times to the discussion can participate. Then everybody give EVERY possible title on the list one of the following ratings: "Good", "OK" or "Bad". "Good" will equal 2 points, "OK" will equal 1 point, and "Bad" will equal zero. The one with the highest average rating will be our decision for a title.
Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:27, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Personally, I prefer #5 but could also live with #2, #3 or #4. North8000 (talk) 21:33, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
- Since I see no problem with the status quo, and the only method that seems acceptable for coming up with a new title from scratch (seeing what sources comparing different kinds of libertarianism call them) so far seems to point at the status quo as well, I think #1 is best. Failing that, #3. --Pfhorrest (talk) 23:39, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Of the options presented, it seems that the best way to proceed is #5 - and possibly have a runoff. JLMadrigal @ 04:10, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
- Using the weighted voting system described for arriving at an approach, given the options presented, here is the tally with three participants:
North8000 Pfhorrest JLMadrigal TOTAL Option 1 0 2 0 2 Option 2 1 0 0 1 Option 3 1 1 0 2 Option 4 1 0 0 1 Option 5 2 0 2 4
- JLMadrigal @ 09:41, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
- Cool North8000 (talk)
- That doesn't really mean anything, never mind the circularity of using the methodology of option #5 to decide on option #5, especially when that is explicitly not the way things are usually done around here. --Pfhorrest (talk) 16:58, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
- One way or the other, someone needs to propose some specific alternative titles. Like for anything else we do on wikipedia, it needs to be backed by sources. We need to develop a consensus to change from the status quo. So, to start, what are the alternative titles and what sources back them up? (posted by workpermit)
List of possible titles
Everybody, please add to / edit this list
- Right-libertarianism [5]
- Libertarianism (common U.S. meaning)
- Libertarianism (U.S. usage)
- Libertarianism (common U.S. usage)
- Modern libertarianism [6]
- Libertarian capitalism [7]
- Contemporary Libertarianism [8]
- Mainstream Libertarianism [9]
- American libertarianism
- American style libertarianism
Every, please add to this list North8000 (talk) 11:56, 18 September 2019 (UTC) North8000 (talk) 21:09, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Here are four more that should be considered:
- Negative Rights Libertarianism [10]
- Laissez-Faire Libertarianism [11]
- Free-Market Libertarianism [12]
- Center-North Libertarianism [13]
The last 5 get my top votes (2 each) - especially "Mainstream Libertarianism". All of the rest get 1 vote - except, of course, for the first (which gets a big fat zero). I'm shying away from using the mysterious term "capitalism" in the title. JLMadrigal @ 00:29, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
And reliable, neutral sources for any of these besides the first (which I’ve already provided from SEP)? —Pfhorrest (talk) 01:18, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- Libertarianism [14]
JLMadrigal @ 14:13, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
I've added a google search to each item to help us find sources. I know we all understand Wikipedia:COMMONNAME but to remind new editors who come across this page:
In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations, major English-language media outlets, quality encyclopedias, geographic name servers, major scientific bodies, and notable scientific journals. A search engine may help to collect this data; when using a search engine, restrict the results to pages written in English, and exclude the word "Wikipedia".
---- Work permit (talk) 02:15, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- "Center-North Libertarianism" is the most accurate and descriptive title for the state and essence of the apolitical movement defined in the current article, but it is not yet generally used as a term (nor is the Nolan Chart well known outside of the movement). The most common term is "libertarianism" as understood by the vast majority of English speakers today, but there is already an article by that title (which also includes traditional and fringe "libertarians"). So the task at hand here is to provide an objective title that best describes the movement while being readily identified by the greatest number of readers. The article itself will provide an abundance of sources buttressing the explanatory materials therein, clarifying the terminology, and differentiating between the various viewpoints within and without. JLMadrigal @ 02:54, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Weighing-in / discussion
Well, "common name" isn't going to solve this for us. Vaguely speaking, the common name in the US is "libertarianism" and the common name in most other places is "liberalism". Both of these names already have articles which have broader coverage than the topic of this article. And, for everybody, the "other" name is not only not the common name for them, it has a completely different meaning in common usage of their version of English, and that different meaning is in the same (politics/poly-sci poly-sci) arena. (= not analogous to "orange the fruit and orange the color") I don't think that there is a poly-sci term that is used across the divide, and also most poly-sci terms of those are speaking of some narrower philosophical strand, and none of the other poly-sci terms are in common use to qualify for "common name"
I suggest "Libertarianism (common U.S. meaning)".....the choice which has the most awkward wording of all of them, and (IMO) the choice which will best resolve this and the confusion related to it, making awkwardness the inevitable small price to pay. The awkward inclusion of "meaning" brings the central "tower of Babel" issue immediately forward, and immediately provides the context/framework for absorbing the info that follows and avoids any appearance of saying that it is only practiced in the US or that it is the only variant practiced in the US. And, so, IMO "Libertarianism (common U.S. meaning)" also best and most closely implements "Common name" including the qualifier (in parenthesis) needed to do that Then we can address the name topics early in the lead. North8000 (talk)
- I disagree that common name won't solve this. I was going to take my time to write more extensively, but even a quick perusal of the google sources suggest the most common names are Modern libertarianism, Contemporary libertarianism, and of course Right-libertarianism. Prominent sources supporting the common name are the Encyclopedia Britannica for Contemporary Libertarianism [15], the Cato Institute for Modern Libertarianism [16][17], and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy for Right-libertarianism [18]. I'd argue that "modern" and contemporary" are synonymous and in some way a source for one back up the other term. ---- Work permit (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- I also disagree vehemently (with North8000). But also, looking through those prominent sources you mention for "modern" and "contemporary" libertarianism, they all seem to be using "modern" or "contemporary" as a simple adjective in articles generally about libertarianism, not using the term "modern libertarianism" or "contemporary libertarianism" as a compound proper noun phrase for a specific kind of libertarianism. This article is a sub-article of Libertarianism, along with left-libertarianism, and it is specifically about the kind of libertarianism that is contrasted with left-libertarianism, so for sources for names on what to call that kind of libertarianism, we need sources comparing those two kinds of libertarianism. --Pfhorrest (talk) 17:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- From Britannica The publication in 1974 of Anarchy, State, and Utopia, a sophisticated defense of libertarian principles by the American philosopher Robert Nozick, marked the beginning of an intellectual revival of libertarianism. is what I take to be the article (though it should acknowledge Rothbard who preceded Nozick). As I mentioned, I haven't had time for a more thoughtful approach to sources. ---- Work permit (talk) 17:55, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- Pfhorrest, this is not a subsidiary article. It is not a contrast or comparison with any other article or viewpoint. The subject of this article is the contemporary brand of libertarianism. It could stand alone without mentioning contrasting political views, and still be a world class encyclopedic entry. JLMadrigal @ 23:06, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- Calling this kind of libertarianism "THE contemporary brand of libertarianism" discounts anyone who is a contemporary advocate of another kind of libertarianism, of which there are plenty of notable people, such as Noam Chomsky. The kind of libertarianism discussed in this article is newer, sure, and maybe more widely known in some places like the United States, sure, but it is not THE ONLY kind of libertarianism that currently exists. The article Libertarianism is rightly about all kinds of libertarianism that have ever existed. An article about "contemporary libertarianism" would need to be about all forms of libertarianism that exist contemporarily. That is not what this article is about; regardless of title, the current contents of this article aren't just about libertarianism of recent years rather than of times in the distant past, it's about libertarianism that's pro-capitalist rather than anti-capitalist. To name that topic, we need to look at sources talking about that kind of libertarianism, distinguishing it from other kinds of libertarianism, and see what they call it. And I strongly doubt you'll find anything calling it anything other than "right-libertarianism", because that's the term used to distinguish this kind of libertarianism from libertarianism that is not of this kind. --Pfhorrest (talk) 03:39, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- In case you have not been paying attention, Pfhorrest, the article is about the PREDOMINANT, MAINSTREAM brand of contemporary libertarianism. To attempt to shrink and place all libertarian political philosophies that advocate civil liberties, natural law, laissez-faire capitalism, reversal of the modern welfare state, private property rights, and market distribution of natural resources and private property into something that can be placed to the right of some imaginary line is an exercise in futility. You seem stuck in some sort of dualism, as does your friend Noam, in which reality is neatly divided into two opposing camps (over some nuanced interpretation of the word "capitalism"). JLMadrigal @ 06:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- I think it's you who haven't been paying attention. This kind of libertarianism might be the predominant, mainstream, contemporary brand of libertarianism (at least in some place), but that is not the defining characteristic of it. As for my supposed dualism, I could retort that you seem equally obsessed with defining your brand of libertarianism as the objective center, and ignoring that there are multiple ways of constructing political spectra (even multidimensional ones) and your preferred way is not the only or even most widely accepted never mind objectively right one.
- But back on titles. Compare again this topic and football. Say you've got a typical American who loves football and libertarianism, as he understands those terms. He wants to look them both up on Wikipedia. When he looks up football, he finds out that there's actually a variety of related sports all locally called "football", that all have more specific names, and that the kind he's familiar with is called "American football", and there's another article about that specifically. Even though nobody who plays "American football" calls it that; that's how it's generally distinguished as a type of football from other types of football. Note well that that is not the mainstream kind of football worldwide, but that the mainstream kind is not called "mainstream football", it's called "Association football".
- Likewise, when he looks up libertarianism, he finds out that there's actually a variety of related political/philosophical views called "libertarianism", and that all of them have more specific names, and that the kind he's familiar with is called "right-libertarianism", and there's another article about that specifically. Even though nobody who is a "right-libertarian" calls it that; that's how it's generally distinguished as a type of libertarianism from other types of libertarianism. Maybe that is the mainstream kind of libertarianism, at least in America, or even worldwide, but that's not its defining characteristic. Its defining characteristic, as a kind of libertarianism, the thing that sets it apart from other kinds of libertarianism, is its support of capitalism (not free markets, which all libertarians support, but private ownership of capital). The dimension from anticapitalist to capitalist in the usual, commonly-used political spectrum is termed "left-right", so the kind that's anticapitalist is rightly called "left-libertarianism" and the kind that's capitalist is called "right-libertarianism". By professional sources who discuss the differences between different kinds of libertarianism. The fact that you don't like it as irrelevant as the guys who think Football should just be about American football and Association football should be called soccer. Yes, we get that that's how you talk, and it bothers you that other people speak differently, but that's what reliable sources specifically addressing the different varieties of things that call themselves the same name use to distinguish them..
- I've said all of this before and I'm getting tired of having to repeat points that have not been refuted. I hear what you're saying, I understand why you have the view that you do, but there are reasons against it. Repeating it over and over again isn't going to change that. Find a source discussing different varieties of libertarianism that uses different terminology for them than "left" and "right" if you want to argue that this article on one of those varieties of libertarianism should be called something other than what it is. --Pfhorrest (talk) 19:49, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- Just to help sort this out I would like to point out / debate a few things in relation to your argument. One point which JLMadrigal might have been trying to make is that you are proposing your own idea of an approach which (even if it is really good) IMO departs from guidelines while sort of implying that it implements guidelines. Namely, find a source that that discusses the topic in conjunction with related types and use whatever their terminology was for differentiating. This is more likely to end up with poly-sci jargon than a common name. (Which begets the question....what are they a source on? What the common name is? What the distinctions are? What the poly-sci names are? etc.) If you use that method on your (well chosen) football analogy you might end up with "Prolate spheroid ball football" rather than "American Football" which I'm guessing is the common name outside of the US. Do you think that your analogy might have suggested an answer: "American libertarianism" or "American style libertarianism" And, as with football, this is not synonymous with "libertarianism in the US" because we also play a lot of round ball football in the US, and American football is not confined the the US. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:06, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- So far as I am aware the approach I am advocating is not my own, it is just a straightforward implementation of the guidelines. And given that this is a political science topic, "poli-sci jargon" is the common name; relevant sources on the topic are all about political science in one way or another. I think "association football" is a much clearer football analogy here: that's a really technical term that nobody besides people comparing different kinds of football would use, but that is exactly the kind of term we need for a differentiating title about one of those kinds of football, and I expect (not being a sports expert myself) that there are sources supporting Wikipedia's usage thereof in its articles about sports. My analogy very well might suggest that this article should be called "American libertarianism" and left-libertarianism should be renamed "International libertarianism" or something, I don't know, but I've never seen any sources suggesting that. All I'm saying is that since this article is about a sub-type of libertarianism, and can't just have the common name "libertarianism" because that means a broader variety of things, we need sources that discuss different sub-types of libertarianism to see what they call this one. And all I've ever seen it called is "right-libertarianism", which is why the article has been developed under this name now.
- It's poli-sci (political science), not poly-sci (many sciences), BTW. --Pfhorrest (talk) 22:30, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with about 3/4 of your post. On the other 1/4, to look for wp:Common name for guidance: First it is pretty clear to use the common name vs. the technical one. Also, it is basically saying that a parenthetical disambiguation in the second part of the title is merely that for when two different articles both need the same common name. In short, the common name is the part of the title before the parenthetical disambiguation, there is no such requirement for the disambig portion. So the parenthetical part does not need to be and actually isn't a part of the common name. Finally, taking "based on appearance is RS's" both literally and I think in spirit, it is referring to usage in sources in general (e.g. newspapers, magazines) not just sources that make a scientific study of the topic. Putting this all together, if we go by what the topic is called where it is practiced, I think that the guidelines pretty strongly suggest "Libertarianism" followed by parenthetical disambiguation. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:10, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
- OK you've convinced me, North8000. "Libertarianism (common U.S. meaning)" is the best choice. The most common term to describe the ideology of the article is Libertarianism, and the described brand of libertarianism predominates in the U.S. Let the disambiguation begin. JLMadrigal @ 14:47, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Article_titles#Disambiguation suggests that natural disambiguation (using a less-commonly used name attested in reliable sources) should take priority over parenthetical disambiguation. Also the fifth of the general principles for naming, Consistency, suggests that we should take into account other article names, like Left-libertarianism, and try to name this article in a way consistent with them, so as I said long ago if there is to be any renaming it should probably involve input from a wider community than just those watching this article. —Pfhorrest (talk) 20:49, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
- I agree with about 3/4 of your post. On the other 1/4, to look for wp:Common name for guidance: First it is pretty clear to use the common name vs. the technical one. Also, it is basically saying that a parenthetical disambiguation in the second part of the title is merely that for when two different articles both need the same common name. In short, the common name is the part of the title before the parenthetical disambiguation, there is no such requirement for the disambig portion. So the parenthetical part does not need to be and actually isn't a part of the common name. Finally, taking "based on appearance is RS's" both literally and I think in spirit, it is referring to usage in sources in general (e.g. newspapers, magazines) not just sources that make a scientific study of the topic. Putting this all together, if we go by what the topic is called where it is practiced, I think that the guidelines pretty strongly suggest "Libertarianism" followed by parenthetical disambiguation. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:10, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
- Just to help sort this out I would like to point out / debate a few things in relation to your argument. One point which JLMadrigal might have been trying to make is that you are proposing your own idea of an approach which (even if it is really good) IMO departs from guidelines while sort of implying that it implements guidelines. Namely, find a source that that discusses the topic in conjunction with related types and use whatever their terminology was for differentiating. This is more likely to end up with poly-sci jargon than a common name. (Which begets the question....what are they a source on? What the common name is? What the distinctions are? What the poly-sci names are? etc.) If you use that method on your (well chosen) football analogy you might end up with "Prolate spheroid ball football" rather than "American Football" which I'm guessing is the common name outside of the US. Do you think that your analogy might have suggested an answer: "American libertarianism" or "American style libertarianism" And, as with football, this is not synonymous with "libertarianism in the US" because we also play a lot of round ball football in the US, and American football is not confined the the US. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:06, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- In case you have not been paying attention, Pfhorrest, the article is about the PREDOMINANT, MAINSTREAM brand of contemporary libertarianism. To attempt to shrink and place all libertarian political philosophies that advocate civil liberties, natural law, laissez-faire capitalism, reversal of the modern welfare state, private property rights, and market distribution of natural resources and private property into something that can be placed to the right of some imaginary line is an exercise in futility. You seem stuck in some sort of dualism, as does your friend Noam, in which reality is neatly divided into two opposing camps (over some nuanced interpretation of the word "capitalism"). JLMadrigal @ 06:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- Calling this kind of libertarianism "THE contemporary brand of libertarianism" discounts anyone who is a contemporary advocate of another kind of libertarianism, of which there are plenty of notable people, such as Noam Chomsky. The kind of libertarianism discussed in this article is newer, sure, and maybe more widely known in some places like the United States, sure, but it is not THE ONLY kind of libertarianism that currently exists. The article Libertarianism is rightly about all kinds of libertarianism that have ever existed. An article about "contemporary libertarianism" would need to be about all forms of libertarianism that exist contemporarily. That is not what this article is about; regardless of title, the current contents of this article aren't just about libertarianism of recent years rather than of times in the distant past, it's about libertarianism that's pro-capitalist rather than anti-capitalist. To name that topic, we need to look at sources talking about that kind of libertarianism, distinguishing it from other kinds of libertarianism, and see what they call it. And I strongly doubt you'll find anything calling it anything other than "right-libertarianism", because that's the term used to distinguish this kind of libertarianism from libertarianism that is not of this kind. --Pfhorrest (talk) 03:39, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
- FYI my whole agenda is an as accurate and informative article as is possible, with the title being a key part of that. And, now that we have invested a lot of work in this, to have our process reach some type of conclusion. My suggestion above was my best effort towards that process, but I'm flexible. North8000 (talk) 18:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not at all questioning your motives North (AGF and all that), I just disagree strongly with your conclusions. --Pfhorrest (talk) 19:30, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- Cool & thanks. I figured that. You've been a great person to converse with, as with many others here. I just wanted to emphasize that I'm not married to the title I suggested. North8000 (talk) 19:47, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- North8000, thank you for all the work you've done, including assembling a list of possibilities. I think the best way forward is to identify and discuss sources for each item. ---- Work permit (talk) 20:46, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- I'm not at all questioning your motives North (AGF and all that), I just disagree strongly with your conclusions. --Pfhorrest (talk) 19:30, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
- I also disagree vehemently (with North8000). But also, looking through those prominent sources you mention for "modern" and "contemporary" libertarianism, they all seem to be using "modern" or "contemporary" as a simple adjective in articles generally about libertarianism, not using the term "modern libertarianism" or "contemporary libertarianism" as a compound proper noun phrase for a specific kind of libertarianism. This article is a sub-article of Libertarianism, along with left-libertarianism, and it is specifically about the kind of libertarianism that is contrasted with left-libertarianism, so for sources for names on what to call that kind of libertarianism, we need sources comparing those two kinds of libertarianism. --Pfhorrest (talk) 17:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
FYI I'll be off-the-grid gone 9/27-10/5. North8000 (talk) 14:06, 26 September 2019 (UTC)
CUTTING-EDGE THOUGHT-LEADER
While the future of Right-Libertarianism is under discussion [1], we really should make sure one of the most forward-thinking writers in this space is included—Ilana Mercer. Wikipedia’s mission and mandate to be a trusted, credible cornerstone of truth and reality dictates that thought leaders who make significant contributions to a particular field be acknowledged. That mission is undermined, if Wikipedia pages start emulating “social media,” where notoriety and cyberspace celebrity are key determinants for inclusion.
Ms. Mercer has a long-lived following, not because she was once carried on the masthead of Reason magazine, but because her decades of on-target, take-no-prisoners writing placed her solidly in the hard-libertarian right universe. [2] & [3]
For 20 years, Mercer has been writing consistent weekly columns, helping define issues that have become synonymous with Right-Libertarianism. In many cases, Ms. Mercer has been the hands-down leader on controversial issues, such as:
• Immigration — A loud-and-clear restrictionist. [4]
• Anti-wars of aggression — A libertarian theorist and tireless contributor of works that strengthen the foundations of anti-war right-libertarianism: [5]
• Trade — Unlike left-libertarians, she is not enamored with trade deficits, and routinely takes aim at those who praise them: [6]
• Israel and foreign aid — Authored a position piece for Ron Paul’s 2008 campaign, articulating a position that informs America First, right-libertarianism: [7]
• Crime — Generally supports retribution, not restitution: [8]
• Anarchism — In her characteristically astute, spare manner, Mercer says, “It’s a justice issue.” [9]
Wmbscott (talk) 14:40, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Comprehensive disambiguation strategy
According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "libertarianism" today refers to the brand of libertarianism that originated in the United States, and is described in this article. Britannica defines it similarly. This suggests that the current misnamed article, "Right-libertarianism" be titled "Libertarianism", and the title of the article currently named "Libertarianism" be revised for the purpose of disambiguation. Perhaps something along the lines of "International Libertarianism", "Libertarianism (usages)", or "Libertarianism (disambiguation)" would be a more apt title for that page. If we're going to fix this naming issue, we'd better fix it right. JLMadrigal @ 14:04, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- Care to quote that SEP article? That's the same one I referred to earlier, which has an entire section on "Libertarianism, Left and Right" and names and describes right-libertarianism and left-libertarianism. It also begins with the sentence "Libertarianism is a family of views in political philosophy", and does not contain "United States" or "U.S." in it anywhere, so I don't see how you can claim it says what you say. I similarly see no such support in the Brittanica article you link.
- And if you think this article should just be moved to Libertarianism, then this discussion is definitely going to have to involve the people there too, and probably a much larger process. --Pfhorrest (talk) 19:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- "Care to quote that SEP article?" Sure.
- Paragraph one: "...libertarians endorse strong rights to individual liberty and private property..."
- Paragraph two: "...libertarians typically endorse something like a free-market economy: an economic order based on private property and voluntary market relationships among agents. Libertarians usually see the kind of large-scale, coercive wealth redistribution in which contemporary welfare states engage as involving unjustified coercion...Thus, rights of freedom of contract and exchange, freedom of occupation, and private property are taken very seriously."
- Paragraph three: "In these respects, libertarian theory is closely related to (indeed, at times practically indistinguishable from) the classical liberal tradition, as embodied by John Locke, David Hume, Adam Smith, and Immanuel Kant. It affirms a strong distinction between the public and the private spheres of life; insists on the status of individuals as morally free and equal, something it interprets as implying a strong requirement of individuals sovereignty; and believes that a respect for this status requires treating people as right-holders, including as holders of rights in property."
- Paragraph four: "It is popular to label libertarianism as a right-wing doctrine. But this is mistaken. For one, on social (rather than economic) issues, libertarianism implies what are commonly considered left-wing views. "
- Note here the Nolan distinction between economic and social issues. On Economic issues, you may recall, libertarians fall to the right. On social issues they fall to the left. Thus the two-dimensional chart is required.
- JLMadrigal @ 20:14, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- I replied to the version of this comment you posted at Talk:Libertarianism#Eyeballs_needed_at_Talk:Right-libertarianism already and I think the discussion should continue there so that we're not repeating the same posts in two different places from here on out. --Pfhorrest (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- "Care to quote that SEP article?" Sure.
We had a gigantic range war at Libertarianism maybe 8 years ago. The result was to discuss all significant strands of libertarianism there. Trying to claim that the US meaning gets dibs on the word would doubly kick that hornet's back open. I'd be opposed to reigniting that fire, and also I think that the "cover all significant strands" decision was a good one. Not that I'd be against converting it into some type of disambiguation article.
Pfhorrest, as you noted, the guideline prefers switching to a different common name in sources. Without repeating myself, in short I think that there is no such term that meets that criteria. And, IMHO, I think that "Right libertarianism" specifically fails that criteria. Also the guideline in essence says that there is no "common name" requirement for the portion in parentheses...it is merely disambiguation. North8000 (talk) 19:23, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- Well, I disagree strongly that there is no such term that meets that criteria. There are clear reliable sources using the term "right-libertarianism" specifically to disambiguate this kind of libertarianism from others. That it is a less common name than just "libertarianism" is perfectly fine per the guidelines, since "libertarianism" is ambiguous.
- Consider for another analogous case "rights". There are some people (probably a lot of overlap with libertarians) who would argue that there is no such thing as a "positive right", that all rights are negative rights, and so they might want to argue that Rights should be just about negative rights, and Positive rights should be an article about the (in their view) made-up nonsense that some people believe in. But that's not what we have; we have an article at Rights about all kinds of rights that all kinds of people believe in, and then sub-articles on the different subtypes of those, using the technical language that sources use to distinguish those kinds from each other, even though most English-speakers, who are not experts, just say "rights" and never use those technical terms. An even better but less familiar example might be "claim rights" vs "liberty rights", where in the language of the author who originated that distinction (Hohfeld), "rights" meant explicitly claim rights, and "liberties" were a different thing, not a kind of "right"; but we don't give the title Rights to mean just claim rights, we use it for liberties too (and powers, and immunities, etc, even though Hohfeld wouldn't call any of those "rights").
- In both of those cases, we eventually ended up with merged articles about Negative and positive rights and Claim rights and liberty rights, discussing the distinction between the two for each pair, rather than having separate articles for each side of each distinction. I would be fine with a solution like that here, if we had an article like Left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism that discussed the distinction between them, instead of separate articles about each of them. But that's a much bigger project, and would again need input from a broader community. --Pfhorrest (talk) 20:50, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
- The guideline discusses using prevalence in sources sources to determine what a common name is. This is sources in general, not just sources who create terminology to deal with taxonomy issues. My point was saying that IMO "Right-libertarianism" fails that test.
- "Right-libertarianism" only fails the test for what is the most common name. I don't think there's any disagreement that the most common name is just "libertarianism", but the problem is that that's the common name of multiple things. So for disambiguation, we look first for a natural disambiguation, a name that is still attested in reliable sources but is not ambiguous. In this case I don't expect you're going to find anything other than a taxonomy of different kinds of libertarianism using anything besides just "libertarianism", so those are going to be the kinds of sources we have available, and so far as I've seen, they only use "right-libertarianism". --Pfhorrest (talk) 17:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- If I may sum up my point of contention (ignoring "liberalism" as a possibility) it would be that "right-libertarianism" may be in second place, but it is such a distant second in everyday sources that it doesn't qualify as common. Which leaves no possibility under natural disambiguation, and so then I'd advocate moving on the parenthetical disambiguation e.g. "Libertarianism xxx xxx)" Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:36, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- "Right-libertarianism" only fails the test for what is the most common name. I don't think there's any disagreement that the most common name is just "libertarianism", but the problem is that that's the common name of multiple things. So for disambiguation, we look first for a natural disambiguation, a name that is still attested in reliable sources but is not ambiguous. In this case I don't expect you're going to find anything other than a taxonomy of different kinds of libertarianism using anything besides just "libertarianism", so those are going to be the kinds of sources we have available, and so far as I've seen, they only use "right-libertarianism". --Pfhorrest (talk) 17:20, 24 September 2019 (UTC)
- The guideline discusses using prevalence in sources sources to determine what a common name is. This is sources in general, not just sources who create terminology to deal with taxonomy issues. My point was saying that IMO "Right-libertarianism" fails that test.
- The current Libertarianism article, as now being discussed on its talk page, has a gigantic flaw that reflects the dichotomy view of libertarianism. The chart used on various pages regarding libertarianism inserts a sharp line of division separating left from right libertarianism, rather than a continuum of gradually differing views regarding expropriation (which is only one of many views held by a variety of libertarians - and doesn't even touch on positions regarding social issues). I have no objection, of course, to including mention of left-leaning libertarians in an article about libertarianism. JLMadrigal @ 23:13, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Towards bringing the main question to a conclusion
We've put a lot of work into trying to deal with this. We're probably all feeling burnt out but we should not let all of that effort go to waste and try to bring this to a conclsion. I think that we already decided that this article should exist and we have sort of an idea what it should be about. To state it imperfectly (but still goo for clarification) it's about the form of libertarianism that matches the common meaning of "libertarianism" in the US. In in the global taxonomy, it is a type that is not opposed to capitalism.
Here is is the result of soliciting possible names for the article. I left on any links that people put on during the "request for ideas" phase.
- Right-libertarianism [19]
- Libertarianism (common U.S. meaning)
- Libertarianism (U.S. usage)
- Libertarianism (common U.S. usage)
- Modern libertarianism [20]
- Libertarian capitalism [21]
- Contemporary Libertarianism [22]
- Mainstream Libertarianism [23]
- American libertarianism
- American style libertarianism
- Negative Rights Libertarianism [24]
- Laissez-Faire Libertarianism [25]
- Free-Market Libertarianism [26]
- Center-North Libertarianism [27]
Not sure how this might or might not be considered to be a result/decision, but may I request that the regulars/watches here weigh in on every one of the above ideas? The "every" is important; otherwise similar ideas will detract from each other. Besides the normal comments, may I suggest 3 potential "ratings" for each?
- Good idea
- "just OK" idea
- Bad idea
Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:07, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
North8000's views
- Bad idea
- Good idea
- Good idea
- Good idea
- "Just OK" idea
- Bad idea
- "Just OK" idea
- Bad idea
- "Just OK" idea
- "Just OK" idea
- Bad idea
- Bad idea
- "Just OK" idea
- Bad idea
These are based on considerations already discussed at length above. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:47, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
JLMadrigal's views
- Bad idea
- Good idea
- Good idea
- Good idea
- Good idea
- Bad idea
- Good idea
- Good idea
- "Just OK" idea
- "Just OK" idea
- Good idea
- Good idea
- Good idea
- Good idea
JLMadrigal @ 12:56, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
Pfhorrest's views
- The only truly Good idea
- Bad idea
- Bad idea
- Bad idea
- Bad idea
- "Just OK" idea (but really should be a separate article if at all, a la Left-libertarianism and Libertarian socialism)
- Bad idea
- Bad idea
- Bad idea
- Bad idea
- Bad idea
- Bad idea
- Bad idea
- Bad idea
@Work permit: @PhilLiberty: @The Four Deuces: I believe I speak for the rest of the main editors who have been thoroughly discussing this issue in seeking your input regarding a more descriptive and accurate title for the page. JLMadrigal @ 01:28, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
The Four Deuce's views
- It seems to me that libertarian has two meanings in the U.S. In a narrow sense it refers to the ideology of people such as Ron Paul and Murray Rothbard that saw itself as part of 19th century libertarianism and adopted many of their theories and symbols. They talk about things such as the gold standard, self-ownership and other things that most people don't understand and promote non-interventionism and an end to the war on drugs, which draw little public support. In a broader sense, it refers to the traditional liberalism in the U.S. which promotes individualism and capitalism and is suspicious of government policies of redistributionism. That view can be seen across the U.S political spectrum except socialists. Its intellectual roots are in Locke and Adams, not Spooner and Goldman. Basically it refers to economic liberalism but that term is not used because due to what an editor of the National Review called the Great American Semantic Confusion, the term liberalism in the U.S. came to refer to an approach that was mid-way between laissez-faire liberalism and welfare liberalism. TFD (talk) 02:20, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
- For the biggest numbers (the "20%" of US voters), I think it's a lot simpler. People who generally prioritize smaller and less intrusive government and more personal freedom. They mostly couldn't name a libertarian philosopher. Like 95%+ of Americans they consider capitalism to be the norm, without naming or promoting it. North8000 (talk) 10:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
- Could you give your thoughts on the title ideas? North8000 (talk) 10:27, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
- While the term is used that way, I don't see a body of literature about the topic. Can you point to any book or article about libertarianism that uses your definition? TFD (talk) 16:59, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
- I think that it more of a "description of a phenomena" than "using a definition" but: The Libertarian Vote by David Boaz and David Kirby, Cato Institute, 18 October 2006. The ANES Guide to Public Opinion and Electoral Behavior, 1948–2004 American National Election Studies. Kiley, Jocelyn (25 August 2014). "In Search of Libertarians". Pew Research Center. North8000 (talk) 17:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
- IOW it is the quarter of the Nolan chart that is socially liberal and economically conservative (as those terms are used in the U.S.) Maybe "Libertarian (political typology)?" In any case, this article is more about ideology than typology. The same thing could be said about the liberal typology. Democratic socialists for example are not liberals and don't base their opinions on liberal ideology but nonetheless score higher than actual liberals in the Pew typology. If as you say most libertarian voters can't name any libertarian philosophers, there's little need to mention them. TFD (talk) 19:35, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
- I think that it more of a "description of a phenomena" than "using a definition" but: The Libertarian Vote by David Boaz and David Kirby, Cato Institute, 18 October 2006. The ANES Guide to Public Opinion and Electoral Behavior, 1948–2004 American National Election Studies. Kiley, Jocelyn (25 August 2014). "In Search of Libertarians". Pew Research Center. North8000 (talk) 17:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
- While the term is used that way, I don't see a body of literature about the topic. Can you point to any book or article about libertarianism that uses your definition? TFD (talk) 16:59, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Cites
- ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-libertarianism
- ^ http://www.ilanamercer.com/2008/01/high-priests-of-pomposity-pan-ron-paul/
- ^ http://www.ilanamercer.com/2011/07/libertarianism-lite/
- ^ http://www.ilanamercer.com/2002/02/the-problem-with-immigration/
- ^ http://www.ilanamercer.com/2004/07/libertarianism-foreign-policy-a-reply-to-randy-barnett/
- ^ http://www.ilanamercer.com/2018/03/trade-deficits-in-the-context-of-state-managed-trade-and-systemic-debt/
- ^ http://www.ilanamercer.com/2011/05/is-ron-paul-good-for-israel/
- ^ http://www.ilanamercer.com/2004/01/the-criminal-s-theoretical-enablers/
- ^ http://www.ilanamercer.com/2015/04/libertarian-anarchisms-justice-problem/