Some different stuff & Goethean have been trying to war in a big change in the lead and refusing to take it to talk. Rather than report I'll start the conversation here. (in fairness to Somedifferentstuff, they only did it the first 2, Goethean did #3) The roots of that section are to have some representative/significant sourced statements of what libertarian promotes. And to include a statement by (what few or none would argue isn't) the largest libertarian organization in the world as ONE of those. North8000 (talk) 17:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Rather than report what? What am I refusing to discuss? Please discuss content rather than contributors. And find a secondary source for your preferred content per WP:SECONDARY. — goethean 17:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)I don't really have an objection to this change; the information seems better suited for the "U.S. libertarianism" section than the lead. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:41, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- @Goethean, answering your question, it was rather than report you. You just did #3 (within a few hours) of trying to hammer in the same major edit to the lead of a major article, without discussing, despite previous "take it to talk" in edit summaries. And I was commenting on warring behavior not on people. North8000 (talk) 17:51, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Please go ahead and report me to whatever authority you would like rather than throwing around false threats and accusations. You are the one making personal attacks, so I think that any report is likely to WP:BOOMERANG. — goethean 17:56, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Find a secondary source for your preferred content per WP:SECONDARY. And note MisterDub's comment: I don't really have an objection to this change; the information seems better suited for the "U.S. libertarianism" section than the lead. — goethean 18:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- It's a primary source used within the proper limits for use of primary sources. North8000 (talk) 18:29, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
As context, Goethean and I have "history"; interactions I have with Goethean never go well. For the others, as always with this article, my "agenda" has always been topped by it being informative, not to tilt it toward one strand or another. I think that the USLP (the "party" part) is a bad idea so my comments don't come from any pro-USLP bias. I think that that paragraph should give representative examples of statements of what libertarian objectives/ideologies/priorities are, and I think that such from the largest libertarian organization is useful. A good substitute would also fulfill this. Further the sentence (I think) limits itself to common tents of libertarianism in general. North8000 (talk) 18:49, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- If you start following Wikipedia policy, rather than needlessly making deprecating comments about Wikipedia contributors, there will be no problems between you and I. Nobody asked for or cares about your personal commentary on our shared history. Nobody asked for or wants to hear about your agenda or your personal views of the US Libertarian Party.
- As MisterDub says above, your preferred content is is a better fit for the article on the US Libertarian Party. This article is on libertarianism as a political philosophy. Adding the content here makes about as much sense as adding the platform of the US Democratic Party to the lead of the article on Democracy. — goethean 19:30, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'll skip responding to the false accusations and insults and just respond to your last item. If the US Democratic party's priority/priority was to promote democracy then their statement of that type would be informative. But such is not the case. North8000 (talk) 20:00, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Nobody is interested in your personal political views. — goethean 20:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know why I bother, but what the heck "political views" are you talking about. My statement was just about the self-stated priorities / platform of the organization. North8000 (talk) 23:18, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Why not just say that there are parties called "Libertarian?" TFD (talk) 19:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Maybe. But my point is not to give the party a place there, it is to have another representative statement of what (one or the other significant strand of) libertarianism is about. That's (expanding here) I said that another substitute that does not use the USLP party would be fine. But what needs to be covered is a statement covering the "short list" of common tents of nearly all libertarianism, which also happens to be the "1 sentence" version of libertarianism which has the largest following (40- 60 million people in the US). North8000 (talk) 20:05, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Then there is no reason to mention the U.S. Libertarian Party. Just say that in the U.S. the term libertarian is often used as a synonym for economic liberalism. TFD (talk) 21:13, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Agree on the "no need (per se) to mention the USLP". But even the shortest lists of common tenets and/or US meaning of the term are broader than just "economic".North8000 (talk) 23:04, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- If it does, can you provide a source for it. AFAIK, "libertarian" can mean either people in the traditional of Rothbard, Nolan, Hess, Paul, etc. or economic liberalism. What else is there? TFD (talk) 23:23, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Quick interjection: it might be helpful for people to review what liberalism is, including classical liberalism, social liberalism, economic liberalism and neoliberalism. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 23:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Plus the overwhemingly most common meaning of liberalism in the US which is the opposite of most of those. :-) North8000 (talk) 00:56, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, liberalism in the USA generally refers to social liberalism, which yes, does value government-provided services like education, health care, etc. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 05:14, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- @TFD. The source of it is the USLP. That is how they got in the in the first place, not due to wanting to mention them. Answering you later question, they are the other 90% of US Libertarians (~20% of the US population) that you didn't mention as quantified by Boaz, roughly along the Nolan Chart definition. And a 1 sentence ideology definition (prioritizing reduction of government, and increase in freedom) where the complete philosophies / philosophers that you just listed are not even on their radar screen. North8000 (talk) 01:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- Do you mean people who combine economic and cultural liberalism? We could add that as another definition. TFD (talk) 02:10, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- In the US that's an unusual way to express it (somewhat of an oxymoron), but yes and of course you are also technically correct. The common way to say it in the US is via the Nolan chart terminology. Don't forget that the common meaning of "liberal" in the US means advocating an expanded government; the opposite of classical liberal on that topic. North8000 (talk) 02:47, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- That's not accurate. Is Reagan thought of as liberal? No, but he expanded government. The schema you are using (liberal = more government = less freedom) is extremely simplistic and inaccurate. — goethean 13:25, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah. I'm normally fairly on your "side", North8000, but that fairly-modern "meme" of equating "Liberalism" and "Big Gov't", and "Conservatism" to "Small Gov't" is neither accurate now, nor has it ever been. It's especially ridiculous when you consider "Social Conservatism", which has been the driving force in American Conservatism over the last century, and which advocates EXTREME government expansion into individuals' lives, and is usually seen as the "barometer" of how "Conservative" a politician's views are... Ex.: Rick Santorum, who is seen as a very Conservative politician, because of his extremely Conservative views on social issues...regardless of the fact that he is very Centrist on economic ones. (And of course, a person in America who is extremely Conservative on fiscal issues, but "Liberal" on social ones, is generally considered a "Libertarian", and not a "Conservative". Ex. Gary Johnson.) It's nothing more than a propaganda tool, designed by Conservatives to demonize the Left, and has no basis in reality, history, or scholarship. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 13:39, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- Bryonmorrigan, you are absolutely right except in interpreting that we are disagreeing, where you were misled by Goethean's usual "misinterpretation" (to put charitably) of what I said which led you to mistakenly imply that there is a conflict between what you said and what I said. My comment was very narrow, merely pointing out that the term "liberal" is ambiguous because, in some respects, various meanings of it are in direct conflict with each other. In the US, by the common meanings of the terms, both liberals and conservatives advocate smaller government / more freedom in certain (different) areas, and bigger government / less freedom in other (different) areas. The Nolan diagram probably says it best. North8000 (talk) 15:02, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- For the benefit folks not in the US, the common meaning of "liberal" in the US includes advocating increasing government in taxation, re-distribution of money, larger amounts of government programs, implementing social activism, and larger amounts of government regulation. And the common meaning of "conservative" in the US includes advocating larger or more intrusive government on security / police state matters, punishment of crime and "crime", size/funding of the military, and legislating morality. North8000 (talk) 15:11, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Here's an idea.
- Instead of editors trying to create a description for US style, or editors selecting an putting in a particular author's opinion, let's use the largest libertarian organization in the US (and the world) as as source.
- And just to be doubly cautious that we aren't giving even that as fact in the voice of Wikipedia, let's use in-text attribution wording.
Oh wait, we did that already!, And by agreement!. It is in the last stable version prior to this mess. North8000 (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- We cannot use Libertarian Party (U.S.) for what libertarianism means, any more that we could use the British Conservative or Canadian Liberal Parties for what conservatism or liberalism mean. That is prohibited by "no original research". Furthermore, the founders of the U.S. party adopted the name "libertarian" and considered themselves to be in the tradition of 19th century libertarians. Yet you continually argue that has nothing to do with libertarianism in the U.S. TFD (talk) 05:07, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
- TFD, let me split this into two parts.
- Regarding the article content, all that I think is really really needed is a sentence (in a way that uses words that aren't going to confuse half the readers) providing another / more of an expression of the common tenets of libertarianism worldwide. I think that what was in there did that somewhat well, but I am not particularly partial to it. From a process standpoint, (unlike now) that last stable version is long standing and was discussed and agreeable. But I'd rather just focus on ending up with an informative statement on common tenets.
- The second point is an area where I don't think that we actually conflict, but that you may not understand what I am trying to say. I think that it is important because I think that it is one of the two "Rosetta stones" that helped resolve the bonfire that this article was engulfed in ~3 years ago. While the bonfire back then was as hot as that at any article, at the roots the situation at this article was/is more promising because it was not the usual case of a real-world contest moving into Wikipedia, but instead due to a "Tower of Babel" situation. And that is simply that the most the common meaning of libertarianism in the US is a very short list of tenets, and also matches the short list of common tenets of all libertarianism. (roughly speaking prioritizing reduction of government and maximization of liberty). For example, according to Boaz, they are defined that simply, and comprise in the ballpark of 20% of the US population. And so my point is that this "short form" does NOT include any complete libertarian philosophies, such as those developed by USA and European libertarian philosophers, and not the full platform of the USLP or even the full philosophies of prominent US libertarians. In short, the common meaning in the US is the 2 tenet short version. And by lucky "coincidence" (not) those two tenets are also common tenets for all (or nearly all) libertarianism.
- Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 15:19, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
We should go to the last stable version and then decide on / consensus any changes from there. The current state should not be determined by who is more aggressive on it in article space. North8000 (talk) 18:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
I have to ask the user who reverted my edit to explain him/herself. Defense of laissez faire capitalism is everywhere incluiding the US a part of right wing politics and if there is a section called "left libertarianism" it is obvious to label the pro deregulated capitalism section "right libertarianism". But in fact it seems that we will have to label that section "US right libertarianism" since it only deals with the US and and it has to be that way since in the rest of the world those politics are called "economic liberalism" and "libertarian" tends to be used for anarchists.--Eduen (talk) 01:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
- Anarcho-capitalists are also anarchists, and you would define them as right- libertarians since they favor a "deregulated" capitalism (self-regulated actually). Anyway, the term "libertarianism" predates its appropriation by anarchists (left anarchists?) and in any case, nowadays has fallen in desuse (other than for historic references). The only active use in their identification comes from North American market anarchists and minarchists. In other regions other forms of anarchism are simply referred to as anarchism or anarcho-syndicalism. 81.60.184.142 (talk) 12:45, 19 November 2013 (UTC)
- I would also note that, although both "left-libertarianism" sections of this article seem devoted entirely to marxism/socialism/communism variants, the main article on "left-libertarianism" at least discusses what other encyclopedias (like Stanford) call left-libertarianism, under the heading of "Steiner–Vallentyne Left Libertarianism". Also, Geo-libertarianism would be considered "left-libertarianism" according to the Stanford article on libertarianism, and although this article mentions it separately, it's not in the "left-libertarianism" section for some reason. Lockean One (talk) 08:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed because Wikipedia is not a forum. Please do not modify it.
|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
|
- Why consider "left libertarianism" a subset of libertarianism at all? Its defining characteristic is, according to this article, specifically its opposition to (economic) libertarianism. It's not like being libertarian on some issues but not others is something new. Why not just say that?
- It sounds like an attempt to usurp the term "libertarianism" the same way the term "liberalism" was usurped in the U.S., as mentioned above resulting in "economic liberalism" having completely opposite meanings depending on who is using the term. If this article is to be accepted, the word "libertarian" would suffer the same fate. A word is useless if it could have two mutually exclusive definitions in the same exact context, making it necessary to explicitly define the word with each use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.195.198.127 (talk) 04:06, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
- And "Right Libertarianism" is usually used as a term by those people who are opposed to social/cultural Libertarianism. Unfortunately, such people rarely qualify their beliefs with "Right", but rather, lead the masses/media to believe that their anti-Libertarian beliefs on social/cultural issues are the Libertarian "norm", leading many to erroneously conclude that US Libertarianism is simply a more Right-Wing form of Conservatism, essentially co-opting the term. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 14:20, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
- I haven't heard that one myself, but it would be just as fraudulent as someone calling themselves a "libertarian socialist". Even if someone is libertarian on most issues, they shouldn't use the term libertarian in conjunction with their non-libertarian views. And even if they do, the rest of us shouldn't refer to such beliefs as libertarian. It's just silly to use terms like "libertarian speech banner", "libertarian religion enforcer", "libertarian gun banner" or "libertarian socialist".
- Should I start a section in this article about the "branch" of libertarianism that believes in banning speech, guns, short pants, hula hoops, and rock music? We could call it "libertarian fascism". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.215.128.90 (talk) 10:59, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- And notably, the only reason libertarians in the U.S. call themselves libertarians instead of liberals is because the word liberal was usurped in the U.S. and now is commonly used to refer to (economic) anti-liberals. I wonder what libertarians will call themselves after the word libertarian suffers the same fate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.195.198.127 (talk) 04:18, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
The structural reality is that "libertarianism/libertarian" covers a very diverse set of ideologies, but they have a few important tenets in common, as well as the name. North8000 (talk) 14:41, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
IP, you have it the wrong way around - Rothbard and Nolan adopted the term "libertarian", which had already been used to describe what this article calls "left libertarianism." Furthermore, they claimed to be in the tradition of libertarianism, although they faulted that tradition for failing to support property rights. See for example Karl Hess's writings on Emma Goldman. TFD (talk) 16:29, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
- The fact that the word has been used fraudulently by some throughout history doesn't change the fact that it has always meant (in the political sense) "advocate of liberty". There is no legitimate reason to combine the word with another word that specifically refers to a belief in depriving people of their liberty in some way, even if not in other ways. Is someone who believes in banning speech, books, guns, hula hoops, and rock music a "libertarian fascist" just because he's libertarian on other issues? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.215.129.93 (talk) 11:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- You cannot say the term has always meant something when it was coined by what we would call left libertarians. You still need to explain how we are supposed to distinguish between these two groups. Since liberal is a cognate word, similar issues arise. Yet liberalism has both a left and a right, and all have them have taken some rights away from some people. Hence few liberals have argued to abolish prisons. TFD (talk) 17:34, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- We can't go saying that there is a burden of finding a really great way (great enough to avoid criticism) in order to avoid inserting/ using a really bad, problematic, lacking-any-consistent-definition and (in many places oxymoronic) term ("right libertarian"). And the most common form of libertarianism in the US (e.g. the 40-60 million people one) has a 1 sentence ideology that includes only the common tenets of all libertarianism. Probably the best term (which doesn't meet the "great way" criteria) is "common US type libertarianism. But the other alternative is to not try to give it a name. North8000 (talk) 18:01, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- When used that way, it is not an ideology, but a view on economic policy and is "neo-classical liberalism." It actually has a much wider following but there is a dispute over how rigidly the doctrine should be applied. While that use of the term should be mentioned, there is also a group in the U.S. that self-identify as libertarians, have established a political party, think tanks and a body of literature, and developed an ideology that embraces social policies as well. Obviously it merits its own article. TFD (talk) 18:33, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with everything that you just said but I'm not sure what you are getting at. The small fraction of US libertarians that are in the USLP, or in libertarian think tanks generally do have philosophies/ ideologies/platforms/economic policies that weigh in in many more areas, and do not fall under the most prevalent "one sentence" form of libertarianism in the US that I was referring to. North8000 (talk) 18:41, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
- We can easily distinguish between those two groups by saying one is libertarian on both social and economic issues while the other is libertarian on social issues but not on economic issues. Since the word means "advocate of liberty" in each case, it seems as easy as it is obvious. And the word itself meant "advocate of liberty" when coined, now, and at all times in between. It means that even if used fraudulently. Regardless, that's the dictionary definition of the word, so one would think that should settle it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.196.10.142 (talk) 17:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- IP, the etymological approach to defining words doesn't work as well as you seem to think. For example, both liberal and libertarian are derived from the Latin liber, meaning free; however, you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who thinks these terms are synonymous. Reliable sources illustrate that libertarianism has traditionally been a socialist position, and Wikipedia ought to reflect that fact, even if you personally don't like it. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:09, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- By "traditionally" do you mean "historically"?North8000 (talk) 18:35, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- Historically and outside of the US. MilesMoney (talk) 19:13, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, North8000, I meant libertarianism qua political philosophy was socialist in nature up until ~1950, when figures like Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, and Robert Nozick popularized a capitalist interpretation. This is really tangential to my point though, which is that Wikipedia does not allow us to claim that, because libertarianism has the root liber, everything we as individuals associate with liberty is therefore necessarily associated with the philosophy; we have to rely on RSs, not our personal biases. In this specific case, the IP user is stating that libertarianism is a philosophy that upholds liberty, and that capitalism is the only economic system (he feels is) compatible with a free society. Now, some people might argue this (and they do), but it's also quite evident from our sources that people have criticized capitalism for being inherently coercive and uphold socialism as the economic system of a free society. Wikipedia, however, doesn't permit us to inject our own opinion on this matter as fact, regardless of our personal, economic bias; libertarianism has adherents of both capitalist and socialist persuasions, whether we like it or not. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:07, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- OK, I see. I haven't done slow reads of it but didn't notice / haven't found the "capitalism is the only economic system (he feels is) compatible with a free society" claim. Eith way I agree with 98% of what you last wrote. The 40,000,000+ person gorilla in the living room that you didn't mention is the renaming of classical liberalism in the US to libertarianism, coinciding with the changing of the meaning of "liberal" in the US to advocating a larger government. Also, the 40,000,000+ one sentence US libertarians probably mostly tacitly accept capitalism and even prefer it, but such does not make such a plank in their libertarian "platform". I think that non-US left-libertarians have a hard time understanding this. North8000 (talk) 20:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- North8000, I'm aware of the common values of US libertarians... what does this have to do with the discussion at hand? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- In looking through the thread, I don't even know what the discussion at hand is. My first of the last two posts was asking for clarification of what you meant, because you were suggesting that the article be guided by it. And my last post was to mostly agree with your post, and to put a 40,000,000 person stake in the ground against mis-naming or constructing an overly long platform for the most common form of US libertarianism. And to say that for the short form libertarians, the one sentence platform is their entire libertarian platform, not just common values. North8000 (talk) 21:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- Then, to recapitulate, I'm not arguing any particular interpretation of libertarianism (or any subgroup therein), as you seem to think. I'm merely stating the fact that Wikipedia does not grant a forum for our personal convictions. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't think that you were, I was just conversing and I agree. We're cool. North8000 (talk) 22:12, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
- MisterDub, there seems to be great confusion about what I've said. The fact that a word has a specific definition in the dictionary has nothing to do with whether "I personally like it". The fact that some delusional socialists tried, and continue to try, to fraudulently use the word libertarian to refer to using force to maintain a monopoly over the means of production, use force to prevent competition, deprive people of their liberty to produce, associate, contract, etc as they see fit is just that: fraud. It's by definition anti-libertarian. That's according to the dictionary, not what I personally do or don't like. I'd be perfectly fine with any word having any definition, the problem I have is the perpetuation of fraud. Using the word "libertarian" to refer specifically to depriving individuals of liberty is fraud, and obviously so.
- And I notice that I haven't read too much about what is it about socialism that is even regarded as libertarian? What liberties are being advocated? Power over others is being advocated, using the word "libertarian" fraudulently because it's such a nice sounding word and they want to sound nice.
- I would note that capitalism being the only system "compatible" with a free society sounds a little odd. Obviously capitalism will exist in any society that permits it. It's not like capitalism is imposed by government, or is a government program, or is a "system" at all in the strict sense of the word (coordinated scheme). Capitalism is just what people do when they are free to do so. They produce goods and services for sale or trade, employ and be employed by others, make agreements with each other, etc. Societies are referred to as "capitalist" because people are free to engage in all the things that define capitalism, not because they are forced to, or because everyone does those things. In other words, capitalism is merely a consequence of liberty. Socialism (in the normal, non-voluntary sense), to the contrary, is achieved by imposing a coordinated scheme and using force to prevent competition. (Obviously that doesn't apply to voluntary communes within a free society, but ironically, that's not what is referred to by "libertarian socialism") — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.72.36 (talk) 06:28, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- You need to read the libertarian writers who inspired Nolan, Rothbard and Hess. Their theory was that individuals should have freedom. They were expelled from the Socialist movement. See for example Statism and Anarchy. They saw the remaining socialists as statist, no different from the elites they planned to replace.
- “The theory of statism as well as that of so-called ‘revolutionary dictatorship’ is based on the idea that a ‘privileged elite,’ consisting of those scientists and ‘doctrinaire revolutionists’ who believe that ‘theory is prior to social experience,’ should impose their preconceived scheme of social organization on the people. The dictatorial power of this learned minority is concealed by the fiction of a pseudo-representative government which presumes to express the will of the people.”
- While American libertarians may not agree with their views entirely, you can see where they get many of their views.
- TFD (talk) 06:59, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- IP, you have some strong misconceptions about capitalism and socialism that are not supported by reliable sources and therefore do not deserve a voice in Wikipedia. I would suggest learning about libertarian socialism instead of arguing your interpretation here. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 16:02, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- Your first couple of paragraphs make my case, ie that libertarianism means advocation of liberty, even if much of it is off point, and tells me what I "need to read" instead of trying to make your case legitimately. Your last paragraph is simply wrong. You have massively underestimated my understanding of this issue, but that's pretty irrelevant except to the extent that you offer advice for me to "learn about" things instead of explaining your case. You didn't, for example, name a single aspect of capitalism or socialism that I have a "strong misconception" about, much less explain how anything I said was incorrect in any way.
- But this article is about libertarianism, not capitalism or socialism. The fact remains that using force against others to impose and maintain a monopoly over the means of production is anti-libertarian by definition. That fact won't just go away because nobody wants to address it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.210.12.181 (talk) 11:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Even though I partially agree with you on the principles (I'd don't understand how libertarian & socialism could be successfully combined/reconciled) that is not what is relevant here. This article covers the highly varied (but related by common tenets) significant forms of libertarianism, as identified in sources, and it is our duty here to do that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 12:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Depriving people of property is only contrary to liberty if the person has rightful ownership. Courts for example routinely deprive thieves of property, and the U.S. freed slaves owned by planters. The U.S. actually began by depriving the King of his property, the thirteen colonies, yet the colonists claimed to fight for "liberty." TFD (talk) 23:46, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
- Apologies for discussing the topic rather than the article, but to me it seems that any practical implementation of socialism involves larger amounts of power and control by the government. Sincerely, (North8000) 03:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Since the government represents monopoly capitalism, it must be smashed, and power returned to the people. In the U.K. for example that means that there will no longer be "Her Majesty's government." The most radical anarchists assassinated state leaders, such as an American president and the Austrian Archduke, and blew up symbols of the state. Their anti-statism was the inspiration for Nolan, Rothbard, Hess and the other American "libertarians."
- The big difference is that left libertarians thought the masses would seize the means of production, while Rothbard believed that freed from government they would rally to protect private corporations, which under statism were threatened in the U.S., the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany.
- TFD (talk) 08:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- TFD, while I agree with your first statement, your last sentence just isn't correct in my view. It's true that recovering stolen property from a thief does not constitute depriving the thief of his property, it constitutes depriving the thief of someone else's property. (Ditto for freeing slaves.) But the same was true of the King. He was not deprived of "his" property, he was deprived of political power over the property of others.
- I think it's safe to say that most (real) libertarians determine "rightful ownership" of property in the same way described by John Locke during The Enlightenment, so there is no need to repeat it here, except to point out that it logically precludes socialism. And one can't help but notice the irony in using the term "progressive" to refer to people with a pre-Enlightenment view of property rights. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.120.33 (talk) 10:40, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Locke said that England had lawful ownership of the American colonies through settlement and planters had lawful owership of slaves, so your reading of Locke is selective. Left libertarians go farther than you rejected Locke's view that land could be alienated from common ownership.
- So really your only dispute with them is whether the means of production are rightly owned by capitalists or stolen from the people.
- TFD (talk) 16:53, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- IP and TFD, could you please take this discussion to an User_Talk page? It may be an interesting conversation, but Wikipedia is not a forum and this talk page should be reserved for discussion of article improvements. Thanks! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- At issue is whether the term "right libertarianism" makes sense, with the claim made that "left libertarianism" is something else entirely. And my point is that "right libertarianism" consciously drew on the (left) libertarianian tradition, adopting their literature, arguments and even their name. TFD (talk) 17:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Then I apologize, TFD. I think the IP user just wants to debate ("Apologies for discussing the topic rather than the article..."), and I assumed you were knowingly participating in this. My bad. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:33, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
- Oops, I apologize for off-topic discussion. Still just want to understand how using force to impose and maintain a monopoly on the means of production isn't directly contradictory to libertarianism. That seemed to lead to unnecessary discussion of the issue. I'll try to stay on-topic in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.120.44 (talk) 11:00, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- Not quite, TFD. My dispute with them is that I disagree that whether property is used for production or not is a legitimate factor at all in determining its rightful ownership, or that the "means of production" should be owned by anyone in particular in the monolithic sense used by socialists, or should be monopolized by anyone or any entity. Anyone should be free to build "means of production" and produce goods and services. That's the dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.120.26 (talk) 10:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
- Apologies for responding off-topic again, but yes, TFD, my agreement with Locke is selective. I agree with much but not everything he wrote, and will leave it at that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.147.120.29 (talk) 11:09, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Just as a quick question: Are there any traditional encyclopedias (not that "anyone can edit") that have articles or a section of their libertarianism article that mentions anything resembling "libertarian socialism" or "left libertarianism"? Other than within articles on Chomski and the like, where it is mentioned only as "self-identification"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.196.1.181 (talk) 03:35, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- Stanford Encyc of Phil gives it equal time. — goethean 13:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks, I just read their (very good IMO) article on libertarianism, but it defines "left-libertarianism" in the normal, traditional way, having nothing to do with socialism or "libertarian socialism" or anything resembling what Wikipedia is calling "left-libertarianism". Then it has a footnote about the term "left-libertarianism" being "also used to refer to political views, such as those of Noam Chomsky or Roderick Long, that are suspicious of concentrations of power in general (in government, in corporations, in social institutions, etc.)", which is still a far cry from Wikipedia's definition.
- It seems to treat the subject in the same way it's treated in any other legitimate source, instead of the way it's treated in Wikipedia. Not trying to slam Wikipedia, but what purpose is there to define terms differently than they are defined in all other legitimate sources?. (self-identification of self-serving groups aside). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.196.5.19 (talk) 06:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- It sounds like socialism to me. Incidentally, "left-libertarianism" is generally just called "libertarianism." "Right libertarianism" is a comparatively recent phenomenon. TFD (talk) 07:24, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- What "sounds like socialism"? Something in the Stanford Encyc of Phil article on libertarianism? It says nothing of socialism or anything similar. What it calls "left-libertarianism" is more like traditional libertarianism, not "libertarian socialism" or anything resembling it. Is that the confusion here, that you're confusing traditional "left-libertarianism", as defined by Stanford, with what Wikipedia calls "left-libertarianism"? That would explain a lot, incidentally, but they are not even close to the same thing. It's beyond the scope of this talk page to explain it, but it's obvious to anyone who bothers to read the articles.
- Also, incidentally, the term "left" historically just meant anti-authoritarianism, or anti-monarchy, a very different meaning than how it is used today, especially with economic issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.196.5.19 (talk) 08:08, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Is this ongoing discussion about article improvement? If not, please take this discussion to a User_Talk page; if so, please create a proposal so the rest of us know what you're suggesting. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- It's about improving article accuracy, yes. But my proposal would be a complete rewrite. It looks like such attempts have been made in the past only to be reverted, but I'll be working on it anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.196.8.3 (talk) 21:16, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'm curious as to how you would suggest rewriting it. For now, it seems like you have some misconceptions about socialism (e.g. your claim that it is "using force to impose and maintain a monopoly on the means of production"), and I, for one, would definitely argue against including any such errors in this article. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 21:42, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- Firstly, that claim is not a misconception. Socialism, in the normal sense, is exactly that, despite their refusal to word it that way. They just use words that sound "nicer" but mean exactly the same thing. Is it not obvious that when socialists use the phrase "ownership of the means of production", they mean exclusive ownership of all of them, at least in a particular area? An exclusive right to produce goods and services? That's what the word "monopoly" means.
- Secondly, any rewrite of this article I would propose would not mention socialism at all, for the same obvious reason that other legitimate encyclopedias do not discuss socialism in their articles on libertarianism. Even when they mention "left-libertarianism", they are not referring to any form of socialism.
- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.196.8.3 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 11 December 2013
- No, that is not what socialism means, and a perusal of any libertarian socialist or Marxist literature would set this straight. In fact, the "ownership of the means of production," in the sense you mean it, is called state capitalism, not socialism (the state is the private entity that owns the means of production). As to your second point, the article to which TFD referred you states that left-libertarians (aka libertarian socialists) "[hold] that unappropriated natural resources belong to everyone in some egalitarian manner", and then discusses three different ways in which this egalitarianism can operate (joint-ownership, equal share, and equal opportunity left-libertarianism). Gary Chartier says that, "[w]hile rejecting capitalism, left-libertarians share with other libertarians an enthusiastic recognition of the value of markets" (Chartier 2012). Matt Zwolinski states in the IEP (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy) that "Left-libertarians, such as Hillel Steiner, Peter Vallentyne, and Michael Otsuka, grant the self-ownership principle but deny that it can yield full private property rights in external goods, especially land (Steiner 1994; Vallentyne 2000; Otsuka 2003)" (emphasis added, Zwolinski 2008). So, yes, it is quite clear that they are talking about libertarian socialism, and not the authoritarian socialism of which you speak (i.e. Marxism/Marxism-Leninism/Trotskyism/Maoism). -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 23:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
- State capitalism and socialism are both monopolies, just different kinds. Both claim an exclusive right to produce goods and services. According to Wikipedia itself, a monopoly exists when a specific enterprise is the only supplier of a commodity, and is characterized by a lack of competition in the production of that commodity. Since we are referring to all commodities, a term like "mega-monopoly" might be more accurate here. As I mentioned before, an exception might be a voluntary commune that did not claim an exclusive right to produce, but that's not what we're talking about here.
- And I have no idea why you would call a state a "private entity". And "natural resources" and "means of production" are not the same thing. It seems obvious that disagreeing about how natural resources should be appropriated does not constitute socialism.
- Am I a socialist because I don't think a river, or any other scarce natural resource, can legitimately be claimed as private property by whoever sees it first? Are you going to claim next that "caring about people" constitutes socialism? Are we done with the silly and nonsensical sidetracking? Perhaps I should restrain myself from taking the bait? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.196.14.78 (talk) 00:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- IP, Wikipedia is not a forum, it's an encyclopaedia. Debating this with you could be entertaining, but it would be in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you would like to learn more about libertarian socialism, I would suggest reading some anarchist literature or starting a discussion on a forum for political philosophy. I could give you some recommended reading material if you'd like, otherwise I'm going to abstain from further discussion until there's a proposed edit supported by reliable sources. Thank you! -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Indeed. If the editor is not knowledgeable on the subject (Libertarian Socialism), then it's likely he/she needs to become so before suggesting edits, rather than engaging in a debate. --Bryon Morrigan -- Talk 20:00, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
If socialism is defined as state capitalism, then obviously libertarians cannot be socialists. However that is not the usual definition. TFD (talk) 21:13, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- I think that MisterDub is saying that libertarian socialism is not socialism. And 70.196.... is sort of say that socialism is not libertarianism. So with that clarification maybe no disagreement. So, 70.196, (and on to article content, and if nobody says that I heard that wrong), with that clarification, would you agree that we don't have a reason to exclude libertarian socialism from the article? North8000 (talk) 22:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- No, that is not even remotely close to what I said. -- MisterDub (talk |contribs) 22:17, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- Who defined socialism as state capitalism? I merely pointed out they they have in common their claim to an exclusive right to produce, ie that they are both examples of monopolies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.195.193.157 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 13 December 2013
- You did. You defined it as "using force to impose and maintain a monopoly on the means of production." That is state capitalism. What do you think legislators, judges, soldiers and policemen do? PS - sign your posts. TFD (talk) 00:30, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- No, I didn't, you just made an obvious logical blunder. I did say that both state capitalism and socialism "use force to impose and maintain a monopoly on the means of production." The fact that two different things have something in common does not mean those two things are the same thing. If I point out that a basketball is "spherical", would you claim that I defined a basketball as the moon, since the moon is also "spherical"?
To violate WP:NOTAFORUM for a moment (since everyone else is), the stumbling block that conservatives seem to have with understanding libertarian socialism is an assumption regarding property rights. To American conservatives, property rights and the status quo regarding current property claims are inalienable/sacrosanct and everything else is negotiable/negligible. This is not the case for libertarian socialists, who begin with philosophical first principles which question both property rights and the status quo regarding current property claims. Thus conservatives assume that the only way for equality to arise is for an external entity (government) to take things from the haves and to give them to the have-nots. This of course, is impossible in a libertarian context, so the conclusion is that libertarian socialism is an oxymoron. But libertarian socialism's questioning of the status quo regarding current property claims means that equality could theoretically be achieved without any external force, simply by agreement - by the public taking control (or by private groups releasing control) of the means of production. I'm no expert but this is my understanding. — goethean 22:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
- (added later)@ Goethean, using government to "to take things from the haves and to give them to the have-nots" in order for "equality to arise" does not sound like conservationism, at least not by the US meaning of the term conservative. Possibly it means that elsewhere? North8000 (talk) 12:08, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- I think your understanding of conservatives is deeply flawed, certainly that's not the philosophy of ("right-") libertarianism, nor is there a "stumbling block" with understanding "libertarian socialism". Failure to agree with a philosophy does not indicate ignorance of it.
- The point I was making is that other legitimate encyclopedic sources describe the difference between "left" and "right" libertarianism as merely a difference in how scarce natural resources may be appropriated, not who can or does "own the means of production". It's the same (legitimate) disagreement among libertarians that has always existed, and has nothing to do with socialism of any kind. According to every encylopedic source I can find, as well as many sources even linked here, both "right" and "left" libertarians agree that anyone should be free to produce goods and services, and own "means of production". In other words, "Chomskyism" is not a legitimate example of "left-libertarianism", it's merely a less socially authoritarian form of socialism, but still has the same economically anti-libertarian features of prohibiting private production of goods and services, prohibiting private employment contracts between citizens (wage-labor), etc.
- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.195.193.157 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 13 December 2013
- It says all not scarce resources. Since the means of production are created out of resources, the legitimacy of the appropriation of those resources draws into question the legitimacy of ownership of the means of production. TFD (talk) 00:21, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- Would you use the same logic to question the legitimacy of self-ownership of one's own body, since each human body is also composed of those same natural resources? Lockean One (talk) 08:16, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- I am not advocating anything, just explaining what the sources say. There are always conflicts. For example, when you are sentenced to the electric chair in your home state, does the right to self defense justify your killing the executioner? TFD (talk) 08:38, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- Many would agree with you, but that's not what "left-libertarian" means according to other legitimate encyclopedias. They do not "draw into question the legitimacy of ownership of the means of production", they only draw into question whether appropriating a natural resource is a basis for requiring payment to others (taxation) for its appropriation (regardless of whether it is used to build a "means of production" or not, since no such distinction exists in libertarianism).
- Also, "means of production" do not exist prior to their ownership, and their ownership by someone or some entity or group (or "collective") is a prerequisite to their being built at all. So the only question is who is "permitted" or free to own, and therefore might build, a "means of production". The libertarian (left and right) answer is "anyone", according to every other legitimate encyclopedia I can find.
- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.195.192.136 (talk • contribs) 05:39, 13 December 2013
- You need to sign your posts. We can all read John Birch Society websites, you need to provide reliable sources for you views. TFD (talk) 06:40, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I should and will create a user account, thank you. Edit: Done, my username is now, appropriately, Lockean One. As far as sources for my statements above (about various views, some of which are my own, some aren't, just to clarify), here are a few:
- Encyclopedia Britannica
- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
- Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
- My question that seemed to stir up so much angst was if anyone knew of any legitimate encyclopedias that discuss what Wikipedia calls "left-libertarianism" and "Libertarian Socialism" in their articles on libertarianism, or in separate articles. The only answer I got was Stanford's, linked above, but while it talks about "left-libertarianism", it defines it in the traditional way as I described above, not having anything relevant to do with socialist ideology, or who should be permitted to own property used as "means of production" or not, etc. The poster formerly known as "IP"...... Lockean One (talk) 07:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- You again did not sign your post. Editors have patiently replied to your queries. The article is sourced and if you want to change it you need to provide sources supporting your views. Believe it or not, there are countless editors like you from places like Texas who pick up views from fringe sources and valiantly try to persuade others to adopt their views. I noticed your user name. Locke made valuable contributions to philosophy although some are outdated. His support of slavery, for example. TFD (talk) 08:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- I have made no edits to this article and will not propose any without sourcing, but thank you for the reminder, anyway. I did provide 3 sources above for my claims regarding other encyclopedias. Which one are you referring to as a "fringe source picked up by people from Texas"? Or was that just a general statement unrelated to this discussion, just to take up more space on this page?
- Regardless, my recent query got one answer (that turned out not to be an answer, through no fault of the provider), but lots and lots of sidetracking with illogical nonsense, insulting non-answer replies, and assumptions of ignorance on my part as apparently the only possible reason for my refusal to adopt the language of socialism. Is that what "patiently replied to my queries" means? Lockean One (talk) 09:17, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
|
The following statement (now deleted) in intro, for starters, is extremely biased, to say the least: "While certain libertarian currents are supportive of laissez-faire capitalism and private property rights, such as in land and natural resources, others reject capitalism and private ownership of the means of production, instead advocating their common or cooperative ownership and management[14][15][16][17]".
The last part of the statement seems to be based solely on Noam Chomsky alone[16], while listing 3 other sources that contradict it, at least implicitly by not saying anything resembling "others reject capitalism....". Using the phrase "While certain libertarians are" to refer to the view presented by all of the listed sources except one, as well as the views presented as libertarianism in other mainstream sources too numerous to mention, is extremely biased to say the least. To put the views of one fringe source on equal footing with virtually all legitimate sources, like Stanford's, is extremely non-objective, to put it mildly.
The rest of the article is similarly biased, but deleting that sentence will be a modest start to making the article less so. Lockean One (talk) 00:36, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- Really, TFD? You're going to just close any discussion of this article's bias on the talk page? Section restored. Lockean One (talk) 04:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- For others, the above section of this talk page was restored exactly as it appeared when "closed" by TFD. Lockean One (talk) 04:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- Wow, the opposition to questioning the neutrality of this article is pretty extreme! I have no interest in an edit war for the article itself, but an edit war to prevent discussing the article's neutrality on the talk page? Really? Lockean One (talk) 07:31, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- My apologies Lockean One. I was patrolling recent changes, and saw where you had removed the ((hab)) template with no explanation. I did not intend to disparage your comments, nor to give you the idea that I am pushing for a certain point of view here. It was simply a recent change, that removed a template with no explanation in the edit summary. Josh3580talk/hist 07:41, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- No problem, I'll try to remember that edit summary in the future. Lockean One (talk) 07:55, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- Much appreciated. I didn't mean to "bite." But there are so many goofy kids just deleting stuff for kicks. That's what I am trying to stop, not people like you who are actually contributing to discussions. Once again, my apologies. Josh3580talk/hist 07:57, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- You made the same argument above at Talk:Libertarianism#Right libertarianism. Not sure what you mean by saying the view is only presented in one source (which btw was not written by Chomsky.) Whether or not a writer endorses a view is irrelevant. I could say for example. "Some people believe in ghosts." The truth of that statement does not depend on whether or not I believe in ghosts. TFD (talk) 10:12, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- I agree with the accuracy of all 5 of those sentences. None of them address my point, so I see no reason to respond further. Lockean One (talk) 11:00, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Lockean One, first you must realize the context here; this is an article what was in (now quenched) flames a few years ago, and is still a prominent article where there are lots of strongly differing viewpoints. That said, in the earlier section you had detailed discussions when they were not tied to any specific content proposals, and then now you are trying significant content changes with no detailed discussion on or justification for them. Fine to try (BRD) but it isn't flying. So now you are going to have to have specific discussions directly related to your proposed changes. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:32, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- That's exactly what I'm hoping for, thank you! Lockean One (talk) 11:37, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
It is a matter of fact, not point of view, that Libertarian Socialists, including Libertarian Marxists and anarchists / Libertarian Communists, reject capitalism as an authoritarian system of class domination and want to abolish the capitalist mode of production. In fact, as the article already explains, the origin of the word "libertarian" as a political label comes from a anarcho-communist. Please take time to read the respective articles. Finx (talk) 18:34, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- I have read them, you have just missed my point. I in no way suggested that "Libertarian Socialists", etc do not reject capitalism. My point was that legitimate (encyclopedic) sources do not refer to those rejecting capitalism as "types" of libertarians in the relevant sense (economically), even if they are socially libertarian. Legitimate sources, including Stanford listed at the end of that sentence, specifically define libertarianism (partially) as the right to own property, even if it is disputed whether the appropriation of (excessive) natural resources is a basis for requiring compensation to others (taxation), as in the case of what they call "left-libertarianism".
- And while rejecting authoritarian forms of capitalism (like state capitalism) may be considered libertarian, prohibiting libertarian capitalism (not an imposed system), prohibiting private production, prohibiting wage labor, etc are by definition anti-libertarian, according to legitimate sources (Stanford, Britannica, etc), since the right to own (productive) property and the right to contract with each other are being denied. Lockean One (talk) 20:50, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- Your argument is that libertarianism by definition would not prohibit capitalism. But that is OR, you need a source to support it. It could be that left libertarians assume capitalism cannot exist without the support of the state. TFD (talk) 21:06, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- It logically could not be that, since they would logically not advocate prohibiting things that "cannot exist", and prohibiting such things would be anti-libertarian regardless. We're not referring to just abolishing state capitalism, we're referring to prohibiting things like wage labor, property ownership, private production, free exchange of goods and services, etc. If they "cannot exist", it makes no sense to advocate their abolition. Being logically coherent is OR? Lockean One (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- This article summarizes reliable sources, not your personal musings. Get a blog. — goethean 21:49, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- I agree that this article should do so, but disagree that a blog is the proper place to discuss this article's neutrality and accuracy. Wikipedia policy specifically says I should do so here. Lockean One (talk) 23:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- Please assume good faith. I think Lockean One assumed that libertarian socialists concede that anticapitalism is "anti-libertarian" as they put it. If that was the case, the reasoning does make sense. Finx (talk) 22:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- You should check out the AFAQ if you want a mainstream lib-soc answer without having to do a lot of research. Basically, even if it's appropriate for this talk section, your argument isn't very coherent. First off, capitalism isn't "free exchange of goods and services" -- it's a mode of production and a set of generalized labor relations, which carry with them class divisions, hierarchy and bureaucracy. Just as liberals 'prohibit' chattel slavery, anticapitalists want to abolish that system, often with liberation as the moral imperative. In other words, the USLP argues that capitalism is a liberatory force, and leftists argue that it's an obstacle to liberty. On top of that, an effective way to prevent a future house fire might be to burn down the house, but that won't necessarily produce a desirable outcome. When anarchists say they want to create a stateless, classless society, that doesn't necessarily mean they think that the state spontaneously disappearing will produce the desired results, even if the private property system is unenforceable without state power. There are many possible (sustainable) outcomes in absence of liberal property rights that many would consider worse. This is not a case you can close with an overly simplistic "logical" argument. To keep our soapboxing off of the talk section, feel free to use my personal talk page if you want to discuss this further.Finx (talk) 22:02, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- With respect, you might try re-reading what I said. I agree that abolishing the authoritarian form of capitalism (state capitalism, etc) you speak of would be libertarian, and have already said so. Imposing any "mode of production" on people is anti-libertarian. But it was perfectly clear that I was specifically referring to prohibiting "free exchange of goods and services, etc", and specifically not referring to state capitalism or any other authoritarian form, as anti-libertarian, according to legitimate sources. Lockean One (talk) 23:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- "Economic libertarianism", by its original definition, would be abolition of private property and the state which enforces those property relations. The definition accepted the USLP, for example, is very different (extensive, unfettered concentration of power in private property). So, there are two definitions, which is what the introduction explains. Finx (talk) 21:37, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
- You got a source for that (definitions of "economic libertarianism", specifically)? :) Lockean One (talk) 00:45, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Even if that was the case, then "libertarianism" would have two mutually exclusive definitions, which would require separating them into two completely different articles, clearly defining the term "libertarianism" differently as it applies in each article (as well as on the disambiguation page). It seems obvious that discussing two completely different and mutually exclusive ideologies as if they were related via the common term "libertarianism" would be inaccurate and deceptive at best, purposeful fraud at worst, under the assumption that the term itself had such a fundamentally different definition for each. Lockean One (talk) 02:11, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- They are not "two mutually exclusive definitions". Rothbard, Hess and Nolan took libertarianism, including the name, and put an emphasis on property rights. However, that is a substantial difference, and accordingly we also have separate articles about each type. TFD (talk) 02:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- "Abolition of private property" and "extensive, unfettered concentration of power in private property" aren't mutually exclusive? Really? Lockean One (talk) 02:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- If you can think of a way to make even clearer that proponents of extreme, unimpeded capitalism and anticapitalists obviously want opposite things, please do so. So far as "anti-libertarian" -- I think there's a better case for neoliberalism fitting that label, but that's not for the article to decide. Finx (talk) 11:56, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- To your first question, why not just say the difference is whether capitalism should be "impeded" (prohibited)? That seems to be the real difference. And although you and I seem to agree that those two definitions are mutually exclusive, neither of them are definitions of "libertarianism", and if they were, it would preclude discussing them in the same article this way, anyway, as I explained above. Lockean One (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- I'll gladly continue this line of discussion with you on a personal talk page - mine or yours. It doesn't really belong here. You appear to be arguing your own views and badly misrepresenting (traditional) anarchism/libertarianism. Suffice it to say that opposing autocratic capitalist labor relations inherent in private ownership of the means of production, and many other facets of capitalism, was very much a core component of the 'liberty' they had in mind - just as those very property relations are central to the 'liberty' Ron Paul may have in mind. Anticapitalism is not a modular component. Furthermore, capitalism is not a synonym for 'free exchange' or 'markets' or what have you. Anarchists oppose the fabled "free-market" capitalism every bit as much as crummy actually-existing-capitalism (aka: 'state-capitalism'). It a critique of class domination, generalized wage labor, boss-worker power relations, etc - not state meddling in a perfect order from the left's point of view. There's anecdote that once anarchists had to explain that they don't want to only abolish capitalism, but also the state. Now they have to explain that they're not only against the state, but also against capitalism. I'll just repeat that none if this is a matter of anyone's point of view. It's on the record and thoroughly sourced throughout this article already. If you don't agree with it, that's another thing. Finx (talk) 00:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- That's "cherry picking". One could equally argue that because cats can be black or white and black and white are opposites, that there are two mutually exclusive definitions for cats. That's "cherry picking". One could equally argue that because cats can be black or white and black and white are opposites, that there are two mutually exclusive definitions for cats. But we have three articles: cat, black cat and white cat, since both black and white cats are types of cats. TFD (talk) 03:39, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Your analogy is bad, and I engaged in no "cherry picking". The definitions I referred to are the ones presented to me in the post I responded to. I believe both of them to be inaccurate, which is why my response started with "Even if that were the case...." after I asked for a source for those definitions. Reading more slowly might prevent such misunderstandings in the future. Lockean One (talk) 04:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- They are not definitions, they are differences among libertarians. Some cats are black, some libertarians support property rights. TFD (talk) 04:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- You seriously need to read slower. I'm not the one who claimed those were definitions of anything, I responded to a post that claimed that. You keep arguing with me against positions that I never argued for. Take your dispute with Finx up with Finx. How much more space here are going to waste with nonsense because you won't read slowly enough to comprehend what others are saying? Lockean One (talk) 04:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- Lockean One, I hear you and would like to have you here long term. I'd agree that (IMHO) there is a self-conflict in some forms of libertarianism, but that is not relevant here. What has been established and decided over the years here is that the significant meanings of "libertarianism" cover many widely varying things, but closely enough related with common tenets to be in the same article, and that we are to cover them in the article. Your proposal seems to be to exclude coverage of some strands of libertarianism that reject capitalism. Such would require you to (rather than debate their legitimacy) convince us that those strands don't significantly exist and haven't significantly existed. You have not even tried to do that, much less done that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:33, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- I would not exclude coverage of libertarians that reject capitalism, I would exclude referring to advocating the prohibition of capitalism as libertarianism. There's a big difference. It's like the difference between my rejection of pink shirts and a plan to outlaw pink shirts. Some libertarians reject pink shirts, but no one would define libertarianism as one who wants to outlaw pink shirts. Lockean One (talk) 23:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- I believe that the statement is essentially that some strands of libertarianism reject capitalism, not that such (flatl) is considered libertarianism. The question for the article is whether or not such a strand significantly exists, or has significantly existed, not whether you or I feel that their belief is self-conflicting.North8000 (talk) 23:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- The article does not say that they advocate the prohibition of capitalist behavior. They believe that capitalism would disappear without state support. TFD (talk) 23:57, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
- So by "reject capitalism" they mean merely that they would just hope it would "disappear"? Would they be content to tolerate and peacefully co-exist with capitalism in the meantime? Lockean One (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- I think that we are getting closer to a germane-to-the-article question here which is whether or not some strands of libertarianism specifically reject capitalism. North8000 (talk) 00:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- The answer would be the same for any ideology. Some people choose violence to achieve their ends, some abhor it. TFD (talk) 00:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Exactly right. There is no anarchist high priest that has ruled on the matter. I would guess that most of today's anarchists would say our current private property relations are just unenforceable and unsustainable should a state collapse, but without alternative forms of social organization to replace that state, other, er, more desirable things might collapse with it - like any economy to speak of, food production and access to potable drinking water. So, the differences in worldviews here aren't exactly what you'd call a footnote. Finx (talk) 01:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- It would seem obvious that "means of production" simply cannot exist at all without being protected, regardless of ownership. They couldn't even be built, much less operate, without some mechanism to protect them. And if that protection is compatible with libertarianism if built and operated by a "worker co-op", then it must be compatible with libertarianism if built and operated by non-socialists. It seems self-contradictory to use the term libertarian to mean to advocate that protection in one case while opposing it in the other. Again, it seems obvious that libertarianism, by definition, would have to tolerate the existence of both, instead of choosing between them.. Lockean One (talk) 02:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- I think that the core question for the article is whether or not rejection of capitalism is a tenet of some strands of libertarianism. Is it? North8000 (talk) 01:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- It does seem to be a tenet of "Libertarian Socialism" to not only reject capitalism themselves, but to prevent non-socialists from building and operating any "means of production", making economic agreements between themselves, and other "capitalist behavior". Under the reasonable assumption that capitalist behavior would not just magically cease to exist, their statements regarding capitalist behavior can only be interpreted to mean that they would use force to prevent such behavior. So the question isn't whether some groups have such tenets, but whether an encyclopedia should define such tenets as libertarianism, while simultaneously defining other, contradictory tenets as libertarianism. Lockean One (talk) 03:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- You need a source that supports your theory. AFAIK, libertarians believe that once the state is abolished, capitalism would disappear, because capitalism requires the state in order to survive. TFD (talk) 04:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Clearly, I was not referring to those types of libertarians, It's not anti-libertarian to just hope others won't do what you don't want them to. I was referring to the types that want to prohibit capitalist behavior, as described by Wikipedia in various articles on "left-libertarianism", "libertarian socialism", "anarcho-syndicalism", etc. In other words, I was talking about the same groups that everyone else here except you are talking about. Lockean One (talk) 04:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- They would not "prohibit capitalist behavior" because without government it would not exist. TFD (talk) 05:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- What would prevent it? Magical socialist fairy dust? And, again, it's obvious that I was not referring to those who would not "prohibit capitalist behavior", anyway. Seriously, read more slowly. Lockean One (talk) 07:19, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- You need to avoid personal attacks. What would prevent capitalism from disappearing? Magic socialist fairy dust? TFD (talk) 08:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- The existence of non-socialists, assuming that they are immune to fairy dust. Regardless, it's irrelevant anyway, as I was specifically referring to those advocating the prohibition of capitalist behavior, not those who believe it would just disappear otherwise. Lockean One (talk) 08:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Read the article libertarian socialism. Your assumption is that capitalism would survive the abolition of the state and therefore left libertarians would need to establish a new state to suppress capitalism. However, they believe that the purpose of the bourgeois state is to impose capitalism, which would disappear with the state's abolition. Whether or not that would happen or if it would be desirable is debatable, but it is what they believe. Therefore they have no contingency plans to suppress capitalism, and this article does not claim they do. TFD (talk) 09:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
- Already addressed repeatedly. Lockean One (talk) 09:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Someone might as well just delete this section since it's been overwhelmed by, and so thoroughly derailed with nonsense, as was the goal of some, no doubt. Lockean One (talk) 01:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
|