![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
We seem to be talking bigger and bigger picture here, which is cool but also could paralyze change which might need to be incremental to go anywhere. I've been thinking about the big-picture for about 7 years and here's what I think a goo big picture might be:
Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 22:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
I also don't understand why [JLMadrigal] and @ North8000: keep mentioning those so-called one fourth of Americans identifying as libertarians. I don't dispute that, but I don't see how that's relevant to the Right-libertarianism article, which I repeat is about a specific form of libertarianism that expanded worldwide since the 1970s and not just Libertarianism in the United States, or even what each responder understood libertarian to mean, or whether the responder was left-libertarian, right-libertarian, or any other type of libertarian. Indeed, there's literally a phrase in Libertarianism#American libertarianism stating: "However, a 2014 Pew Poll found that 23% of Americans who identify as libertarians have no idea what the word means". Source: Kiley, Jocelyn (25 August 2014). "In Search of Libertarians". Pew Research Center. "14% say the term libertarian describes them well; 77% of those know the definition (11% of total), while 23% do not (3% of total).-- Davide King ( talk) 04:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Now we have more folks and bigger ideas involved (Cool!). In all of the work we did so far above, there are some things that we did accomplish and a lot of things that we didn't accomplish. What we did accomplish is something that I don't think that anyone would fundamentally object to, although everyone would probably word it in different ways. It was:
So now, with the new participants and new ideas, where do we go from here? North8000 ( talk) 18:05, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
@ The Four Deuces: @ Pfhorrest: @ North8000: and all other users that have been involved: Could we please give a short definition of Right-libertarianism and what you understand the topic to be? I'd define it as the "libertarian political philosophy that supports, or finds it legitimate, the private ownership of both land and capital; laissez-faire capitalism and the total elimination of the welfare state, advocating in its place either a minimal state or no state at all". I also re-post this:
@ North8000: You seem to understand right-libertariansim as "[w]hat could be termed centrist or mainstream libertarianism, i.e. fiscal conservatives and cultural liberals who identify as libertarian." @ JLMadrigal: instead seems to understand it as "culturally conservative libertarians". @ The Four Deuces: @ Pfhorrest: and I seem to understand it in the first term (with The Four Deuces, Pfhorrest and I seem to disagree only on left-libertarianism), i.e. the Rothbard-Hess-Nozick et all school.
Or did I misunderstood any of you?-- Davide King ( talk) 21:10, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
While influenced by classical liberal thought, with some viewing right-libertarianism as an outgrowth or as a variant of it, [1] there are significant differences. Edwin van de Haar argues that "confusingly, in the United States the term libertarianism is sometimes also used for or by classical liberals. But this erroneously masks the differences between them". [2] Classical liberalism refuses to give priority to liberty over order and therefore does not exhibit the hostility to the state which is the defining feature of libertarianism. [3] Subsequently, right-libertarians believe classical liberals favor too much state involvement, [4] arguing that they do not have enough respect for individual property rights and lack sufficient trust in the workings of the free market and its spontaneous order leading to support of a much larger state. [4] Right-libertarians also disagree with classical liberals as being too supportive of central banks and monetarist policies. [5]
References
Since this discussion is taking place in several pages, I would suggest centralizing it in the Libertarianism's talk page. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир ( talk) 19:34, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
I have a question for those who have seen the term used. In a few places in the article they talk about it as being distinct from classical liberalism. Do the common usages/meanings of the term "right-libertarian(ism)" term exclude classical liberalism? North8000 ( talk) 21:55, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
merely tacitly accepts them as the normwhich is the right-libertarian criticism.-- Davide King ( talk) 14:51, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
the biggest form of libertarianism in the US (the 80 million person one), it's at Libertarianism in the United States. Maybe we should work on improving that, like creating a Philosophy or similar section that discusses that. Whether you think that's too
broad or vague, all libertarians agree with
more freedom, smaller and less intrusive government, they merely disagree on what exactly that means or entails. All ideology pages are like that, so I don't understand what's so special about the libertarianism you're referring to.-- Davide King ( talk) 18:34, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
I started from the research I did/ listed at the libertarianism article and then counted / added term usage numbers in wp:reliable sources. Recapping, I sampled by googling libertarianism (BTW googling "right-libertarian just returned Wikipedia and it's mirrors), leaving out Wikipedia and Wikipedia mirrors although I missed 1-2 and caught them later) and went up to 20 sources. I then checked that they were referring to what this article is calling "right libertarianism". In the next wave of work I counted references to it only in wp:rs's. Here are the results:
Results: I sampled 828 times that the subject of this article was referred to by & in wp:reliable sources:
I think that ZERO times out of 828 for wp:reliable sources to refer to the topic of this article is pretty much a slam dunk. And such is the relevant question for article naming.
Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 17:56, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
a whole lot of the sources for the article don't even use the term "right libertarian" or "right libertarianism". This issue also exists at Libertarianism, where many (a majority?) of the sources are about "Anarchism". - Ryk72 talk 23:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
a section in both Right-libertarianism and Left-libertarianism that talks about their relation to the libertarian right and New Right; and the libertarian left and the New Left, respectively; or creating a History section for both from the scratch that talks about the birth/separation of left and right libertarianism in the United States, the Movement of the Libertarian Left, etc.). Right-libertarianism could be expanded with In South Africa and In the United Kingdom section by merging Libertarianism in South Africa and Libertarianism in the United Kingdom since they seem to be referring to this, but no; we had to discuss for months about the name when the main issue was caused by the fork content from Libertarianism in the United States rather than the name itself, which was supported by many users and sources vis-à-vis other names. I also disagree that
[t]here is no such "battle" in play here; it may be true for you, Pfhorrest and I, but it certainly wasn't for PhilLiberty and JLMadrigal, whose comments and refusal to understand other libertarian positions clearly showed a POV. We should discuss how to improve these two articles and how to add more information to further legitimise having their own articles since there's no consensus for a new name or merge.-- Davide King ( talk) 18:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
the fundamental nature of libertarianism (which respect to effective coverage) is different in major blocks of the english-speaking world. In Europe, it can be well described as a set of philosophies. In the US, not, because the bulk of what it is in the US is a very large vague phenomena. The simplest concept of a distinct topic that exists, described but not defined by terminology breaks down for libertarian articles.
Sounds like this is describing a disambiguation page: If the term doesn't have one usage that outweighs all others, the term has no primary topic and should be disambiguated between all its uses. That doesn't preclude redirecting "left-/right-libertarianism" to a subsection of another article. And the article formerly known as " libertarianism" would still need to be re-scoped and re-titled. czar 19:45, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Despite these imprecise boundaries and some similarities, socialism and individualism within anarchism have a bifurcated tradition, the former associated with the history of socialism and the latter with classical liberalism and conservatism (also known as "right-libertarianism"). Even their shared belief in anti-statism does not provide a common identity, as both traditions differ in their interpretation state-rejection in spite of the common terms. (Franks 2013, p. 388)There's overlap between Right-libertarianism and Libertarianism in the United States, but Right-libertarianism is simply a part of that and not all libertarianism in the United States is right-libertarian. You seem to conflate the two, ignoring that the term isn't really controversial besides ideological POV-pushing for simply not liking the name.-- Davide King ( talk) 23:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
somebody coming to Wikipedia to learn about US style libertarianism will get confused, I don't think it's a big issue, or a problem big enough for us to change what we have now. That's exactly what Libertarianism in the United States is about. I'm sure an American searching Liberalism and Conservatism would imagine to find what we actually have at Modern liberalism in the United States and Conservatism in the United States. Same for Progressivism and Progressivism in the United States.-- Davide King ( talk) 20:49, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Folks, I think that you mis-understand my main short term priorities / motivations. The Libertarian articles have been lonely for years. Now some excellent editors (like y'all) show up. So now there is a team to make really good articles. But I think that there are many things about the largest libertarian phenomena in the world (that in the US) that you do not understand due to the lens that you see it through. And so my #1 goal is to pass along a few extra hopefully helpful insights to y'all. My #2 priority is to have a good process operating. A majority of the people who have participated on this topic in the last few months have said that the status quo is a problem. Some have faded out of the debate. And Davide has been reverting some small very much needed compromise edits. Basically ones that acknowledge that the term is not universal (a massive understatement, being used zero out of 828 times by wp:reliable sources in a random sampling) and used only be some. The implied "universal" is an extreme, unsupported position. So I do have a problem with the current process here. And so giving some support for efforts to resolve this (vs. just grinding everyone down to just leave the status quo in place) is in line with that goal. And so some compromise (such as wording that attributes usage instead of implying universality) represents good process. I feel that all of the above (including / especially the new good / active editors, possibly with their perspectives broadened a bit to at least acknowledge the unknown) will lead to good liberetarian articles and a fund active editing process at them. Beyond the above, I'm not currently arguing for any other article changes. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 14:02, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
But I think that there are many things about the largest libertarian phenomena in the world (that in the US) that you do not understand due to the lens that you see it through.North8000, what's exactly is missing? And there's already a page about
the largest libertarian phenomena in the world (that in the US), although I would say that mere numbers aren't everything and that the anarchists and libertarian socialists all over the world and their centenary history triumphs that. I also disagree that
the term is not universal (a massive understatement, being used zero out of 828 times by wp:reliable sources in a random sampling), for your sample was biased (most of sources referred to libertarianism in the United States or were libertarian themselves). I agree with what Aquillion wrote here. You and JLMadrigal simply don't seem to have the same understanding and knowledge that me and other users who reject your arguments have, conflating it with libertarianism in the United States and reducing sources that discusses it to nothing much. I'm all for compromise, but not when it's plain wrong. Could you please link me these users who actually said
the status quo is a problem? Why all the users who first rejected the move in July and now the merge in November and said there was nothing wrong with the title aren't counted? I think there's a consensus to keep the status quo. You're free to edit the articles if you feel there's something that could be clarified; you can create Libertarian (U.S. political typology) or simply add a section in Libertarianism in the United States that discusses it; there's already Libertarianism § Contemporary libertarianism in the United States that discusses polls.-- Davide King ( talk) 16:15, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
[t]he June RFC was about renaming it specifically to Libertarian Capitalism, not about whether or not the status quo was OK or other current questions, but these are some relevant comments that specifically saw nothing wrong with the status quo:
People described as being left-libertarian or right-libertarian generally tend to call themselves simply libertarians and refer to their philosophy as libertarianism. As a result, some political scientists and writers classify the forms of libertarianism into two groups,[27][28] namely left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism,[1][2][3][4][5] to distinguish libertarian views on the nature of property and capital.[29], what more do you want? There simply isn't no consensus to delete or rename this page as you wish so. The thing is that indeed there's
a clear division of the libertarian movement(not just in the United States; we're talking about broad libertarianism) between what reliable sources characterise as left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism.-- Davide King ( talk) 14:44, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
[right-libertarianism] is [just] a term used by some sourcesrather than
an established academic concept, it should indeed be deleted; but that isn't the case and there's no consensus to delete it or to not even discuss it anywhere. Reliable sources support the current naming; you simply want Wikipedia to delete any mention of right-libertarianism or right-libertarian, or reduce it just to
a term used by some sourceswhich simply isn't true.
I don't think it's reasonable or credible to argue that the term lacks widespread usage or that it can't support an article. Aquillion again made a good point here:
I'm just not seeing many people agreeing with you that there's a problem here. You've been arguing variations on this point for (as far as I can see) months, without getting anywhere. If you think you have a proposal that could reach a consensus, start an RFC; but otherwise, maybe it is time to WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on to other disputes. As it is, it seems to me fairly obvious from the sources that right-libertarianism is an established academic concept which the current article covers fairly excellently. -- Aquillion ( talk) 07:09, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
some "numerical numbers" to the contrarysince yours are either made up, based on guessing, or simply original research. Besides, that's not following Wikipedia guidelines. I repeat that these so-called
numerical numbersare worthless, besides being original research, because the centenary long, worldwide history and literature of
“anti-capitalist” libertariansspeaks for itself and your denialism doesn't help. Maybe Pfhorrest can tell you and explain you better than I could, if you don't believe me.-- Davide King ( talk) 20:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
You are trying to apply rules for article space to the talk page. If you do that 99% of everything on talk pages would be in violation of Wikipedia policies. A talk page discussion of the huge difference in numbers just reinforces / provides a backdrop for the more official numbers.....prevalence in wp:RS's, which was 0 out of 828 and a similar proportion in google scholar. I think it's time for a compromise. North8000 ( talk) 21:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
the largest libertarian phenomena in the world (that in the US), completely disregarding the centenary, long history of socialist libertarianism which still continues to this day.
it's [not] reasonable or credible to argue that the term lacks widespread usage or that it can't support an article, that
it's [a] pretty indisputably real term, so trying to argue that it isn't used is just wasting everyone's time. It's an established academic term with extensive usageand that it's
fairly obvious from the sources that right-libertarianism is an established academic concept, whether we like it or not. I could've understood if there was no article specifically about American-style libertarianism, but we have it.-- Davide King ( talk) 01:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
universality? There isn't a single mention of that anywhere in the text; it already reads
This position is contrasted with that of left-libertarianism which combines self-ownership with an egalitarian approach to natural resources, to which it is often compared, hence the name.and
People described as being left-libertarian or right-libertarian generally tend to call themselves simply libertarians and refer to their philosophy as libertarianism. As a result, some political scientists and writers classify the forms of libertarianism into two groups,[27][28] namely left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism,[1][2][3][4][5] to distinguish libertarian views on the nature of property and capital.[29]So I agree with what Pfhorrest just wrote and ask what more do you want us to do about it?
the term has microscopic usage. If you want it to read like this (
Some political scientists and writers classify the forms of libertarianism into two groups; "right libertarianism" and "left-libertarianism" to distinguish libertarian views on the nature of property and capital. Under this classification system right-libertarianism,[1][2][3][4] or right-wing libertarianism), that simply isn't going to pass. That wording would imply a support for either Right-libertarianism to be merged into Libertarianism, or for an article titled Left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism, but there's no clear support or consensus for either and I see no need for any of that. The current wording and Definition section make it abundantly clear. To quote Pfhorrest, we can't reasonably preface every use of right-libertarian with a repeat of that explanation; and we can't reasonably drop right- where it's needed without creating ambiguity.-- Davide King ( talk) 14:51, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
mis-statedwhat you said? Could you actually make a sandbox on how you would want the article to look like and show me some examples of changes (put them in bold) you would suggest? You want to remove the Schools of thought section? I would disagree with that. Both Left-libertarianism and Right-libertarianism have such a section to describe various philosophies that have been labelled left-libertarian or right-libertarian, or as part of either left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism.
This position is contrasted to left-libertarianism, a political philosophy that combines self-ownership with an egalitarian approach to natural resources, to which it is often compared, hence the name.This is expanded more in the Definition section. What more do you want? I didn't decide anything, reliable sources and other users did that through consensus. You're the one who actually need to get consensus to change that because for years it was like this and it was decided to keep it and not rename it. You also need to realise that this isn't just a term but a concept/topic too that is described in reliable and academic sources, so it's notable enough; and the best or most common name for this is right-libertarianism. There's already Libertarianism in the United States, why all these issues?-- Davide King ( talk) 03:38, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
While right-libertarianism does not fit on the political right - which would imply national/ religious identity, abortion and immigration restrictions, conformity, and the like, that shows your bias as there're indeed libertarians or libertarianisms that may support any of that, according to its proponents even on libertarian arguments. While both you and I may actually agree (finally) that there's nothing libertarian about any of that, we can't deny it's a thing too; indeed, that's the right-wing of right-libertarianism while you reduced all right-libertarianism to them, when as told my Pfhorrest,
it does have to do with the political right inasmuch as capitalism is usually reckoned to be on the right of socialism (even amongst laymen), so capitalist forms of libertarianism are more right than socialist forms of libertarianism.Just wanted to clarify this.-- Davide King ( talk) 00:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
[a] rejection of "capitalism" is typically seen as far left), Georgism/geolibertarianism and the Steiner–Vallentyne school representing the centre-left, but being seen still within left-libertarianism; and mainstream American-style libertarianism occupying the centre-right and libertarian conservatism on the right-wing, with anarcho-capitalism and paleolibertarianism on the far-right. To clarify, this is within the libertarian political spectrum and not the political spectrum as a whole.-- Davide King ( talk) 21:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I've just made some edits to the lede paragraph in an attempt to improve neutrality and hopefully satisfy everyone. The things I've tried to prioritize:
I hope this helps some. -- Pfhorrest ( talk) 21:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
is a political philosophy and type of libertarianismand there's no need for stating right before that
or often just libertarianism to its adherents. It's already stated next and it definitely shouldn't be bolded because it makes it look like Libertarianism redirects there. Another thing is that we should also mention libertarian socialism, or socialist libertarianism, since in that case left-libertarianism is used to refer to a specific, but by no means the, form of left-libertarianism, i.e. the Steiner–Vallentyne school.-- Davide King ( talk) 00:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
is a political philosophy,
is a political ideology,
is a political philosophy and variant of, etc. I think the wikilink to Libertarianism already does that job and I'm not sure libertarianism actually is
an anti-authoritarian political philosophy. It certainly is for anarchism and libertarian socialism, although even in the case of anarchism there're issues with that (namely that
anti-authoritarianism is a conclusion of anarchist thought, not an a priori statement) and many of these libertarians supporting capitalist social relations have no problem with authority and hierarchy caused by it. Indeed, it seems to be that
[a]narchist libertarians and modern economic libertarians share opposition to the state as their only commonality(McLaughlin 2007, pp. 165–166). As for the bolded part, in that case it makes more sense to have a wikilink to click on rather than something bolded that leads nowhere.-- Davide King ( talk) 05:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
often called just libertarianism by its adherentswhen it's already stated
Like libertarians of all varieties, right-libertarians refer to themselves simply as "libertarians". There's no need to add that because there's aready
a type of libertarianismfor that, where one can click on it to find out more (that's wikilink's purpose, no?). It's just seem to be unusual and unnecessary. We don't say in the lead that
Nazis refer to themslves as National Socialists. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article and there's already a Definition/Etymology section to discuss that deeply. I think
a type of libertarianismand
Like libertarians of all varieties, right-libertarians refer to themselves simply as "libertarians"is more than enough. It also seems to reduce the importance of reliable sources that use right-libertarianism and call or refer to them as right-libertarians. Right-libertarianism is clearly a thing and not just a term or disambiguation name. The sources who use right-libertarianism already made the disambiguaton for us, not viceversa, so that right-libertarianism, rather than libertarianism, is the common name to describe it.-- Davide King ( talk) 15:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
calling it a type of libertarianism, and then calling libertarianism a political philosophy, directly implies that it is a political philosophy itself; that's why I don't think it's needed to describe libertarianism (wikilinking to Libertarianism when writing it's a type of libertarianism is more than enough), especially when as you can see we have problem to define it. I just think that
is a political philosophy and type of libertarianismis more than enough and there's no need of bolding Libertarianism; we already say in the lead that its aderents simply call themselves "libertarians" and in the Definition section that they call it simply "libertarianism". I also don't think we should let us be too influenced by what "right-libertarians" may persoally say or think about it; what matters is what reliable sources say about it and they have to accept that, whether they like it or not. As of now, I think our edits made a good job in clarifying and describing the concept and various name issues. Either way, I hope @ Aquillion: and @ The Four Deuces: also state their opinion and thoughts on the lead.-- Davide King ( talk) 21:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Like libertarians of all varieties, right-libertarians refer to themselves simply as "libertarians".say so explicitly. I think something of that nature might be worth saying, but we should probably think more about how to word it and / or find sources that explicitly say "right-libertarians call themselves X" more specifically so we can use their wording. (Newman in particular, at a glance, says that right-libertarian is used to distinguish people who call themselves anarchists, not libertarians, at least at a glance.) Also, an important point in all of those sources is that right-libertarianism is relatively new as a movement -
The situation has been vastly complicated in recent decades with the rise of anarcho-capitalism, 'minimal statism' and an extreme right-wing laissez-faire philosophy advocated by such theorists as Rothbard and Nozick and their adoption of the words 'libertarian' and 'libertarianism'.So I feel that if we want to touch on where the term comes from in the lead, we also need to touch on that history briefly. Rothbard explicitly stated that he was proud of having "captured" the term libertarian from the left (
"One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, 'our side,' had captured a crucial word from the enemy. 'Libertarians' had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over."), and that context for how and why the distinguishing term became necessary should be at least lightly touched on. It doesn't need a massive amount of text in the lead, but a sentence explaining the 'capture' and how capitalists started calling themselves libertarians in a way that clashed with previous usage is necessary for the underlying language issue to make sense. Something like (very roughly, this isn't a literal suggestion) "around Rothbard's time, anarcho-capitalist movements started calling themselves libertarian, which led to the rise of the term right-libertarianism to distinguish them." This captures the essence of what they call themselves, but also provides at least some explanation for why. We might also highlight Rothbard's "captured" quote in the lead (just one or two words quoting the word "captured", not the whole quote) - it is an important quote about the history of the term, which establishes, more or less, what one of the main people involved in the language clash thought of the issue. -- Aquillion ( talk) 22:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
prevalence in wp:RS's, which was 0 out of 828 and a similar proportion in google scholar(most of these sources either referred to what we have a Libertarianism in the United States or were libertarian themselves). JLMadrigal seems to be biased towards this libertarianism, making argument such as this or similar denigratory comments towards anything but its own libertarianism. So honestly, I'm getting tired of this discussion when what you stated here is correct, but maybe we're finally going to reach an end. Therefore, Pfhorrest and I made this compromise (
Like libertarians of all varieties, right-libertarians refer to themselves simply as "libertarians"). I've no problem with that, although I agree with your perplexity and I hope you can find sources that explicitly say that. I also agree on touching more on the origins, which is what I did here (just one thing; was it in the 1950s or 1960s the Rothbard popularised "libertarian" for that? I think it was the 1960s but I want to be sure). It felt like it was missing something there and I think your proposal was really good. And since I'm here, I think we should also have a section about right-libertarianism and the New Right and likewise left-libertarianism and the New Left in the other article. Perhaps also its relation to the radical right (see The Radical Right in Western Europe: A Comparative Analysis and The Populist Radical Right: A Reader) and the far-right, if there're any reliable sources about it. Finally, I think we should merge (if they aren't deleted) Libertarianism in South Africa and Libertarianism in the United Kingdom because they use libertarianism in American terms and seem to be mainly related to right-libertarianism. I think it would be helpful also because so users won't be seeing Right-libertarianism as a POV fork from Libertarianism in the United States. I think that since the 1970s, right-libertarian ideas expanded worldwide and I believe this should be discussed more deeply. What do you think?-- Davide King ( talk) 04:45, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
type of libertarianism that strongly supports capitalist property rights and defends market distribution of natural resources and private property.[7] Like most forms of libertarianism, it generally tends to support civil liberties,[1] but also natural law,[8] negative rights[9] and a major reversal of the modern welfare state.[10] Right-libertarianism is contrasted with left-libertarianism, a type of libertarianism that combines self-ownership with an egalitarian approach to natural resources.[11] In contrast to socialist libertarianism,[4] right-libertarianism tends to support free-market capitalism.[1] Like libertarians of all varieties, right-libertarians refer to themselves simply as "libertarians".[2][3][5]makes it abundantely clear. That is despite Aquillion's legitimate concerns that we actually need sources explicitly saying that
Being the most common type of libertarianism in the United States,[4] right-libertarianism has become the most common referent of "libertarianism" there since the late 20th century while historically and elsewhere[12][13][14][15][16][17] it continues to be widely used to refer to anti-state forms of socialism such as anarchism[18][19][20][21] and more generally libertarian communism/libertarian Marxism and libertarian socialism.[12][22] Around the time of Murray Rothbard, who popularized the term "libertarian" in the United States during the 1960s, anarcho-capitalist movements started calling themselves "libertarian", leading to the rise of the term "right-libertarian" to distinguish them. Rothbard himself aknowledged the co-opting of the term and boasted of its "capture [...] from the enemy".[12]
right-libertarians refer to themselves simply as "libertarians". I don't know what more you want.-- Davide King ( talk) 20:53, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
People described as being left-libertarian or right-libertarian generally tend to call themselves simply libertarians and refer to their philosophy as libertarianism. As a result, some political scientists and writers classify the forms of libertarianism into two groups,[29][30] namely left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism,[1][2][3][4][5] to distinguish libertarian views on the nature of property and capital.[31]It seems to be more appropriate for a Definition or Political spectrum section. I think the lead now does a better job in saying that in shorter words.-- Davide King ( talk) 08:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
We seem to be making some progress, inching toward neutrality. But the following points still haven't adequately been addressed:
The term "Right-libertarianism", or "right-wing libertarianism", is used to differentiate a political philosophy and type of libertarianism that strongly supports property rights and defends market distribution of natural resources and private property from that of the more traditional socialist philosophy of libertarianism. While the "right" prefix typically implies endorsement of conservative social policies, this type of libertarianism does not lean to the right of center on the traditional scale.
JLMadrigal @ 16:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
FYI, the Nolan chart is of immense usefulness in defining the main form of libertarianism in the US. So immense and so widely used that it goes beyond just describing it, it actually creates and leads it. Far far more so than the detailed philosophies that this article seems to imagine as being the definition/ guide. North8000 ( talk) 14:24, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
[T]he chart that perfectly capsulizes, describes, and defines the ideology in question citation neededMy bad for actually following Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I'm always free to be corrected if wrong and provided with reliable sources to lear something new. Aquillion, could you find any sources that describe right-libertarianism and actually use the Nolan chart? If the Nolan chart and the ones from RationalWiki aren't notable enough to be discussed or appear at Political spectrum, I don't understand why they should be discussed here, rather then Libertarianism in the United States or not at all.-- Davide King ( talk) 18:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
This article whole is either about a term that is only used by a very small sect of people (people trying to create a certain taxonomy), or the bulk of libertarian world as viewed by that very small sect of people. And by it's definitional scheme, it purports to include the by far largest form of libertarianism, the large one-sentence-ideology US form. And while that taxonomy scheme may be useful in those limited circles to differentiate from rarer forms of libertarianism, it's pretty worthless and irrelevant for defining the largest form. Requests like Davide's saying that sources on the big topic can't be used unless the sources mention the small-minority name for the big topic is faulty. That's like saying that a New Guinea writer has defined Europeans as the "non-cannibal" people, and that saying in order to use a source about Europeans in the "non-cannibal people" article, the source has to specifically mention that it the info is about "non-cannibal people". (BTW I'm using "cannibal" in the sense of something that is a minority situation, not in the negative sense. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 18:10, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
it seems to me fairly obvious from the sources that right-libertarianism is an established academic concept which the current article covers fairly excellentlyand that
trying to argue that it isn't used is just wasting everyone's time. It's an established academic term with extensive usage.-- Davide King ( talk) 18:19, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
JLMadrigal, North8000 and Pfhorrest, I have added this. Can we finally remove the tag now? We already had a merge proposal and there was no consensus for that.-- Davide King ( talk) 03:52, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Right-libertarianism is contrasted with left-libertarianism, a type of libertarianism that combines self-ownership with an egalitarian approach to natural resources.[11] In contrast to socialist libertarianism,[4] right-libertarianism tends to support free-market capitalism.[1] Like libertarians of all varieties, right-libertarians refer to themselves simply as "libertarians".[2][3][5]already makes it abundantely clear. Also, Pfhorrest seemed to agree that it was better to have it in the Definition section. I think there're enough reliable sources that support the concept, rather than just a term used to distinguish various forms of libertariaism, that's there's no need to repeat that in the lead; that's what the Definition section is for. You also wrote here that
the article [...] does not use the WP:COMMONNAME for this philosophybut I thought we agree that it's actually the common name, whether you like it or not, as explained by Pfhorrest. You also made other questionable edits like:
It is used to quantify typical libertarian views that support both free markets and social liberties, and reject the economic restrictions of the left and the personal restrictions of the right.It should be made clear that's according to the chart.-- Davide King ( talk) 16:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
So, we've reached a stalemate. The article cannot exist in its current form. I'm starting to be swayed to Pfhorrest's idea of some type of merge. I'd like to take a North8000-style poll to see what direction we need to take. Here are the top four options discussed. Please rate each from 0 to 2, and sign below. I'll ping the editors who have put the most time and effort into resolving this dispute:
@ North8000: @ Pfhorrest: @ Work permit: @ The Four Deuces: @ Гармонический Мир: @ PhilLiberty: @ Davide King:
At this point, I give 1 - 4 each a "2" JLMadrigal @ 14:00, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Davide King is engaging in edit warring, and keeps prematurely removing the dispute template from the article. Something needs to be done. He has been banned from editing before, and it seems necessary to have him banned again. JLMadrigal @ 13:17, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm just not seeing many people agreeing with you that there's a problem here. You've been arguing variations on this point for (as far as I can see) months, without getting anywhere. If you think you have a proposal that could reach a consensus, start an RFC; but otherwise, maybe it is time to WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on to other disputes. As it is, it seems to me fairly obvious from the sources that right-libertarianism is an established academic concept which the current article covers fairly excellently; and it's been there since August 2019. You keep denying that it's a concept and a
real term, so trying to argue that it isn't used is just wasting everyone's time. It's an established academic term with extensive usage(as stated by Aquillion). Pfhorrest also argued that
[t]hings are fine enough as they are. This RFC is really unnecessary, something which I wholeheartly agree with. So it's not just me doing unilaterally things.-- Davide King ( talk) 13:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm not interested in complaints against individuals as much as resolving the matter. There certainly is an unresolved dispute of the nature described by the template. I value Davide as a libertarian editor, even if I don't like some of his "attack the editor" / wikilawyering conversational tactics employed here in the debate process. I mean this only in a low-key friendly-critique way. Also that he continues to over-repeat one of Aquillion's comments which I took issue with and which Aquillion dropped. I have no wish to get Davide in trouble. @ Davide King: can you please self-revert the removal of the template? This simply acknowledges the reality that the neutrality dispute does indeed exist. North8000 ( talk) 01:02, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
"attack the editor" / wikilawyering conversational tactics employed here in the debate process, for I don't believe that to be true. I'm the one who feels attacked by JLMadrigal's remarks above, especially considering my block was based mainly on my naivety and misunderstanding, not on edit warring, personal attacks, vandalism or sockpuppetry. As I said, I'm very passionate, but I'm also tired of this endless debate which I find unnecessary and unhelpful, for reliable sources support the article and that's all that matters; and I'm tired of both Pfhorrest and I having to repeat the same thing over and over again, especially when JLMadrigal, unlike you, continues to show a bias and not understanding of the topic, nor that of other libertarians. I also thought the name issue was finally over, that the article was going to stay; what was the point of all the additions to lead then? And I believe it still is, notwithstanding JLMadrigal's faiilure to realise that.
the neutrality dispute [still] does indeed exist, nor do I think the request for comments is necessary, for I thought we finally agreed to have an article titled like this and both Pfhorrest and mine's additions helped clarify the topic (JLMadrigal's proposal for the lead simply wasn't good; the lead is supposed to be a summary and I think it does a good job and explaining the naming issue clearly; I don't know what more you want us to add, that's better suited as it's now in the Definition section); a merging proposal was already rejected; and other users, including both Pfhorrest and I, saw it not just as term but as a specific concept and there was no consensus for the political typology, for that tally was made-up and against our guidelines, as correctly pointed out by Pfhorrest.
All of this can be fixed without deleting or merging this page; we can add informations to the Definition section, merge Libertarianism in South Africa and Libertarianism in the United Kingdom, or even simply creating this damned typology or disambiguation page as clarification without deleting or merging this or that article.I have no problem in self-reverting if other users also see the tag as still necessary. Pfhorrest seems to agree with me and Aquillion may too.-- Davide King ( talk) 04:16, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
This is done to distinguish libertarian views on the nature of property and capital, usually along left–right or socialist–capitalist lineson all three articles' lead section, what more do you want me to write that hasn't already been said in shorter terms? We already have Definition of anarchism and libertarianism that discusses all that in more detail.
People described as being left-libertarian or right-libertarian generally tend to call themselves simply libertarians and refer to their philosophy as libertarianism. As a result, some political scientists and writers classify the forms of libertarianism into two groups, namely left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism, to distinguish libertarian views on the nature of property and capitalseems to be the perfect way to start a Left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism article, but this ain't so; this is about right-libertarianism, so the lead should talk about right-libertarianism and the Definition about that (I think now it does a good job); and a merge was already rejected in November or there was no consensus for that; for why they may be discussed and mentioned together, they're still two different libertarian political philosophies worthy of having their own article. Maybe Left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism could be a short disambiguation page that literally reads like that and then lists Left-libertarianism and Right-libertarianism, but otherwhise the two articles are fine as they are now and should be kept.
editors disagreeing with [me] are mis-behaving or "just don't get it" or are being obstinate? That seems to be your own original research of my words and either way both Pfhorrest and I seems to agree that JLMadrigal is
being obstinatefor
going [back] in circles again. I'm all for compromise, but it has to be based on reality and reliable sources, not original research or synthesis. So while one doesn't have to provide sources on talk page, at some point one will have to, if it wants to add something to the article. This is clearly original research and not something that can be verfied. You write
Wp:ver applies to the presence of materiel [sic] in article space, not to points made in conversation on the talk page, but that's exactly my point! One is free to make such argument, but then one shouldn't be surprised when that isn't added to the article for being original research or not verifiable. I support the removal of the template not because
there is no dispute because my side is right and the other side is wrong, but because there doesn't seem to be consensus to have it in the first place! Arguing that right-libertarianism isn't a real thing or doesn't have widespread usage is just wasting everyone's time. Pfhorrest and I both seemed to think the naming issue was done.-- Davide King ( talk) 02:05, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
[t]his is done to distinguish libertarian views on the nature of property and capital, usually along left–right or socialist–capitalist lines, which is all in the lead for you and everyone else to read.
I'm not sure the sources for, yet I kept that wording there as part of a compromise when Pfhorrest and I worked together to make the current lead to clarify some concerns.-- Davide King ( talk) 05:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Like libertarians of all varieties, right-libertarians refer to themselves simply as "libertarians".say so explicitly. I think something of that nature might be worth saying, but we should probably think more about how to word it and / or find sources that explicitly say "right-libertarians call themselves X" more specifically so we can use their wording
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 |
We seem to be talking bigger and bigger picture here, which is cool but also could paralyze change which might need to be incremental to go anywhere. I've been thinking about the big-picture for about 7 years and here's what I think a goo big picture might be:
Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 22:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
I also don't understand why [JLMadrigal] and @ North8000: keep mentioning those so-called one fourth of Americans identifying as libertarians. I don't dispute that, but I don't see how that's relevant to the Right-libertarianism article, which I repeat is about a specific form of libertarianism that expanded worldwide since the 1970s and not just Libertarianism in the United States, or even what each responder understood libertarian to mean, or whether the responder was left-libertarian, right-libertarian, or any other type of libertarian. Indeed, there's literally a phrase in Libertarianism#American libertarianism stating: "However, a 2014 Pew Poll found that 23% of Americans who identify as libertarians have no idea what the word means". Source: Kiley, Jocelyn (25 August 2014). "In Search of Libertarians". Pew Research Center. "14% say the term libertarian describes them well; 77% of those know the definition (11% of total), while 23% do not (3% of total).-- Davide King ( talk) 04:01, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Now we have more folks and bigger ideas involved (Cool!). In all of the work we did so far above, there are some things that we did accomplish and a lot of things that we didn't accomplish. What we did accomplish is something that I don't think that anyone would fundamentally object to, although everyone would probably word it in different ways. It was:
So now, with the new participants and new ideas, where do we go from here? North8000 ( talk) 18:05, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
@ The Four Deuces: @ Pfhorrest: @ North8000: and all other users that have been involved: Could we please give a short definition of Right-libertarianism and what you understand the topic to be? I'd define it as the "libertarian political philosophy that supports, or finds it legitimate, the private ownership of both land and capital; laissez-faire capitalism and the total elimination of the welfare state, advocating in its place either a minimal state or no state at all". I also re-post this:
@ North8000: You seem to understand right-libertariansim as "[w]hat could be termed centrist or mainstream libertarianism, i.e. fiscal conservatives and cultural liberals who identify as libertarian." @ JLMadrigal: instead seems to understand it as "culturally conservative libertarians". @ The Four Deuces: @ Pfhorrest: and I seem to understand it in the first term (with The Four Deuces, Pfhorrest and I seem to disagree only on left-libertarianism), i.e. the Rothbard-Hess-Nozick et all school.
Or did I misunderstood any of you?-- Davide King ( talk) 21:10, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
While influenced by classical liberal thought, with some viewing right-libertarianism as an outgrowth or as a variant of it, [1] there are significant differences. Edwin van de Haar argues that "confusingly, in the United States the term libertarianism is sometimes also used for or by classical liberals. But this erroneously masks the differences between them". [2] Classical liberalism refuses to give priority to liberty over order and therefore does not exhibit the hostility to the state which is the defining feature of libertarianism. [3] Subsequently, right-libertarians believe classical liberals favor too much state involvement, [4] arguing that they do not have enough respect for individual property rights and lack sufficient trust in the workings of the free market and its spontaneous order leading to support of a much larger state. [4] Right-libertarians also disagree with classical liberals as being too supportive of central banks and monetarist policies. [5]
References
Since this discussion is taking place in several pages, I would suggest centralizing it in the Libertarianism's talk page. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир ( talk) 19:34, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
I have a question for those who have seen the term used. In a few places in the article they talk about it as being distinct from classical liberalism. Do the common usages/meanings of the term "right-libertarian(ism)" term exclude classical liberalism? North8000 ( talk) 21:55, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
merely tacitly accepts them as the normwhich is the right-libertarian criticism.-- Davide King ( talk) 14:51, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
the biggest form of libertarianism in the US (the 80 million person one), it's at Libertarianism in the United States. Maybe we should work on improving that, like creating a Philosophy or similar section that discusses that. Whether you think that's too
broad or vague, all libertarians agree with
more freedom, smaller and less intrusive government, they merely disagree on what exactly that means or entails. All ideology pages are like that, so I don't understand what's so special about the libertarianism you're referring to.-- Davide King ( talk) 18:34, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
I started from the research I did/ listed at the libertarianism article and then counted / added term usage numbers in wp:reliable sources. Recapping, I sampled by googling libertarianism (BTW googling "right-libertarian just returned Wikipedia and it's mirrors), leaving out Wikipedia and Wikipedia mirrors although I missed 1-2 and caught them later) and went up to 20 sources. I then checked that they were referring to what this article is calling "right libertarianism". In the next wave of work I counted references to it only in wp:rs's. Here are the results:
Results: I sampled 828 times that the subject of this article was referred to by & in wp:reliable sources:
I think that ZERO times out of 828 for wp:reliable sources to refer to the topic of this article is pretty much a slam dunk. And such is the relevant question for article naming.
Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 17:56, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
a whole lot of the sources for the article don't even use the term "right libertarian" or "right libertarianism". This issue also exists at Libertarianism, where many (a majority?) of the sources are about "Anarchism". - Ryk72 talk 23:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
a section in both Right-libertarianism and Left-libertarianism that talks about their relation to the libertarian right and New Right; and the libertarian left and the New Left, respectively; or creating a History section for both from the scratch that talks about the birth/separation of left and right libertarianism in the United States, the Movement of the Libertarian Left, etc.). Right-libertarianism could be expanded with In South Africa and In the United Kingdom section by merging Libertarianism in South Africa and Libertarianism in the United Kingdom since they seem to be referring to this, but no; we had to discuss for months about the name when the main issue was caused by the fork content from Libertarianism in the United States rather than the name itself, which was supported by many users and sources vis-à-vis other names. I also disagree that
[t]here is no such "battle" in play here; it may be true for you, Pfhorrest and I, but it certainly wasn't for PhilLiberty and JLMadrigal, whose comments and refusal to understand other libertarian positions clearly showed a POV. We should discuss how to improve these two articles and how to add more information to further legitimise having their own articles since there's no consensus for a new name or merge.-- Davide King ( talk) 18:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
the fundamental nature of libertarianism (which respect to effective coverage) is different in major blocks of the english-speaking world. In Europe, it can be well described as a set of philosophies. In the US, not, because the bulk of what it is in the US is a very large vague phenomena. The simplest concept of a distinct topic that exists, described but not defined by terminology breaks down for libertarian articles.
Sounds like this is describing a disambiguation page: If the term doesn't have one usage that outweighs all others, the term has no primary topic and should be disambiguated between all its uses. That doesn't preclude redirecting "left-/right-libertarianism" to a subsection of another article. And the article formerly known as " libertarianism" would still need to be re-scoped and re-titled. czar 19:45, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Despite these imprecise boundaries and some similarities, socialism and individualism within anarchism have a bifurcated tradition, the former associated with the history of socialism and the latter with classical liberalism and conservatism (also known as "right-libertarianism"). Even their shared belief in anti-statism does not provide a common identity, as both traditions differ in their interpretation state-rejection in spite of the common terms. (Franks 2013, p. 388)There's overlap between Right-libertarianism and Libertarianism in the United States, but Right-libertarianism is simply a part of that and not all libertarianism in the United States is right-libertarian. You seem to conflate the two, ignoring that the term isn't really controversial besides ideological POV-pushing for simply not liking the name.-- Davide King ( talk) 23:35, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
somebody coming to Wikipedia to learn about US style libertarianism will get confused, I don't think it's a big issue, or a problem big enough for us to change what we have now. That's exactly what Libertarianism in the United States is about. I'm sure an American searching Liberalism and Conservatism would imagine to find what we actually have at Modern liberalism in the United States and Conservatism in the United States. Same for Progressivism and Progressivism in the United States.-- Davide King ( talk) 20:49, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Folks, I think that you mis-understand my main short term priorities / motivations. The Libertarian articles have been lonely for years. Now some excellent editors (like y'all) show up. So now there is a team to make really good articles. But I think that there are many things about the largest libertarian phenomena in the world (that in the US) that you do not understand due to the lens that you see it through. And so my #1 goal is to pass along a few extra hopefully helpful insights to y'all. My #2 priority is to have a good process operating. A majority of the people who have participated on this topic in the last few months have said that the status quo is a problem. Some have faded out of the debate. And Davide has been reverting some small very much needed compromise edits. Basically ones that acknowledge that the term is not universal (a massive understatement, being used zero out of 828 times by wp:reliable sources in a random sampling) and used only be some. The implied "universal" is an extreme, unsupported position. So I do have a problem with the current process here. And so giving some support for efforts to resolve this (vs. just grinding everyone down to just leave the status quo in place) is in line with that goal. And so some compromise (such as wording that attributes usage instead of implying universality) represents good process. I feel that all of the above (including / especially the new good / active editors, possibly with their perspectives broadened a bit to at least acknowledge the unknown) will lead to good liberetarian articles and a fund active editing process at them. Beyond the above, I'm not currently arguing for any other article changes. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 14:02, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
But I think that there are many things about the largest libertarian phenomena in the world (that in the US) that you do not understand due to the lens that you see it through.North8000, what's exactly is missing? And there's already a page about
the largest libertarian phenomena in the world (that in the US), although I would say that mere numbers aren't everything and that the anarchists and libertarian socialists all over the world and their centenary history triumphs that. I also disagree that
the term is not universal (a massive understatement, being used zero out of 828 times by wp:reliable sources in a random sampling), for your sample was biased (most of sources referred to libertarianism in the United States or were libertarian themselves). I agree with what Aquillion wrote here. You and JLMadrigal simply don't seem to have the same understanding and knowledge that me and other users who reject your arguments have, conflating it with libertarianism in the United States and reducing sources that discusses it to nothing much. I'm all for compromise, but not when it's plain wrong. Could you please link me these users who actually said
the status quo is a problem? Why all the users who first rejected the move in July and now the merge in November and said there was nothing wrong with the title aren't counted? I think there's a consensus to keep the status quo. You're free to edit the articles if you feel there's something that could be clarified; you can create Libertarian (U.S. political typology) or simply add a section in Libertarianism in the United States that discusses it; there's already Libertarianism § Contemporary libertarianism in the United States that discusses polls.-- Davide King ( talk) 16:15, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
[t]he June RFC was about renaming it specifically to Libertarian Capitalism, not about whether or not the status quo was OK or other current questions, but these are some relevant comments that specifically saw nothing wrong with the status quo:
People described as being left-libertarian or right-libertarian generally tend to call themselves simply libertarians and refer to their philosophy as libertarianism. As a result, some political scientists and writers classify the forms of libertarianism into two groups,[27][28] namely left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism,[1][2][3][4][5] to distinguish libertarian views on the nature of property and capital.[29], what more do you want? There simply isn't no consensus to delete or rename this page as you wish so. The thing is that indeed there's
a clear division of the libertarian movement(not just in the United States; we're talking about broad libertarianism) between what reliable sources characterise as left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism.-- Davide King ( talk) 14:44, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
[right-libertarianism] is [just] a term used by some sourcesrather than
an established academic concept, it should indeed be deleted; but that isn't the case and there's no consensus to delete it or to not even discuss it anywhere. Reliable sources support the current naming; you simply want Wikipedia to delete any mention of right-libertarianism or right-libertarian, or reduce it just to
a term used by some sourceswhich simply isn't true.
I don't think it's reasonable or credible to argue that the term lacks widespread usage or that it can't support an article. Aquillion again made a good point here:
I'm just not seeing many people agreeing with you that there's a problem here. You've been arguing variations on this point for (as far as I can see) months, without getting anywhere. If you think you have a proposal that could reach a consensus, start an RFC; but otherwise, maybe it is time to WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on to other disputes. As it is, it seems to me fairly obvious from the sources that right-libertarianism is an established academic concept which the current article covers fairly excellently. -- Aquillion ( talk) 07:09, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
some "numerical numbers" to the contrarysince yours are either made up, based on guessing, or simply original research. Besides, that's not following Wikipedia guidelines. I repeat that these so-called
numerical numbersare worthless, besides being original research, because the centenary long, worldwide history and literature of
“anti-capitalist” libertariansspeaks for itself and your denialism doesn't help. Maybe Pfhorrest can tell you and explain you better than I could, if you don't believe me.-- Davide King ( talk) 20:34, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
You are trying to apply rules for article space to the talk page. If you do that 99% of everything on talk pages would be in violation of Wikipedia policies. A talk page discussion of the huge difference in numbers just reinforces / provides a backdrop for the more official numbers.....prevalence in wp:RS's, which was 0 out of 828 and a similar proportion in google scholar. I think it's time for a compromise. North8000 ( talk) 21:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
the largest libertarian phenomena in the world (that in the US), completely disregarding the centenary, long history of socialist libertarianism which still continues to this day.
it's [not] reasonable or credible to argue that the term lacks widespread usage or that it can't support an article, that
it's [a] pretty indisputably real term, so trying to argue that it isn't used is just wasting everyone's time. It's an established academic term with extensive usageand that it's
fairly obvious from the sources that right-libertarianism is an established academic concept, whether we like it or not. I could've understood if there was no article specifically about American-style libertarianism, but we have it.-- Davide King ( talk) 01:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
universality? There isn't a single mention of that anywhere in the text; it already reads
This position is contrasted with that of left-libertarianism which combines self-ownership with an egalitarian approach to natural resources, to which it is often compared, hence the name.and
People described as being left-libertarian or right-libertarian generally tend to call themselves simply libertarians and refer to their philosophy as libertarianism. As a result, some political scientists and writers classify the forms of libertarianism into two groups,[27][28] namely left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism,[1][2][3][4][5] to distinguish libertarian views on the nature of property and capital.[29]So I agree with what Pfhorrest just wrote and ask what more do you want us to do about it?
the term has microscopic usage. If you want it to read like this (
Some political scientists and writers classify the forms of libertarianism into two groups; "right libertarianism" and "left-libertarianism" to distinguish libertarian views on the nature of property and capital. Under this classification system right-libertarianism,[1][2][3][4] or right-wing libertarianism), that simply isn't going to pass. That wording would imply a support for either Right-libertarianism to be merged into Libertarianism, or for an article titled Left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism, but there's no clear support or consensus for either and I see no need for any of that. The current wording and Definition section make it abundantly clear. To quote Pfhorrest, we can't reasonably preface every use of right-libertarian with a repeat of that explanation; and we can't reasonably drop right- where it's needed without creating ambiguity.-- Davide King ( talk) 14:51, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
mis-statedwhat you said? Could you actually make a sandbox on how you would want the article to look like and show me some examples of changes (put them in bold) you would suggest? You want to remove the Schools of thought section? I would disagree with that. Both Left-libertarianism and Right-libertarianism have such a section to describe various philosophies that have been labelled left-libertarian or right-libertarian, or as part of either left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism.
This position is contrasted to left-libertarianism, a political philosophy that combines self-ownership with an egalitarian approach to natural resources, to which it is often compared, hence the name.This is expanded more in the Definition section. What more do you want? I didn't decide anything, reliable sources and other users did that through consensus. You're the one who actually need to get consensus to change that because for years it was like this and it was decided to keep it and not rename it. You also need to realise that this isn't just a term but a concept/topic too that is described in reliable and academic sources, so it's notable enough; and the best or most common name for this is right-libertarianism. There's already Libertarianism in the United States, why all these issues?-- Davide King ( talk) 03:38, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
While right-libertarianism does not fit on the political right - which would imply national/ religious identity, abortion and immigration restrictions, conformity, and the like, that shows your bias as there're indeed libertarians or libertarianisms that may support any of that, according to its proponents even on libertarian arguments. While both you and I may actually agree (finally) that there's nothing libertarian about any of that, we can't deny it's a thing too; indeed, that's the right-wing of right-libertarianism while you reduced all right-libertarianism to them, when as told my Pfhorrest,
it does have to do with the political right inasmuch as capitalism is usually reckoned to be on the right of socialism (even amongst laymen), so capitalist forms of libertarianism are more right than socialist forms of libertarianism.Just wanted to clarify this.-- Davide King ( talk) 00:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
[a] rejection of "capitalism" is typically seen as far left), Georgism/geolibertarianism and the Steiner–Vallentyne school representing the centre-left, but being seen still within left-libertarianism; and mainstream American-style libertarianism occupying the centre-right and libertarian conservatism on the right-wing, with anarcho-capitalism and paleolibertarianism on the far-right. To clarify, this is within the libertarian political spectrum and not the political spectrum as a whole.-- Davide King ( talk) 21:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
I've just made some edits to the lede paragraph in an attempt to improve neutrality and hopefully satisfy everyone. The things I've tried to prioritize:
I hope this helps some. -- Pfhorrest ( talk) 21:21, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
is a political philosophy and type of libertarianismand there's no need for stating right before that
or often just libertarianism to its adherents. It's already stated next and it definitely shouldn't be bolded because it makes it look like Libertarianism redirects there. Another thing is that we should also mention libertarian socialism, or socialist libertarianism, since in that case left-libertarianism is used to refer to a specific, but by no means the, form of left-libertarianism, i.e. the Steiner–Vallentyne school.-- Davide King ( talk) 00:32, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
is a political philosophy,
is a political ideology,
is a political philosophy and variant of, etc. I think the wikilink to Libertarianism already does that job and I'm not sure libertarianism actually is
an anti-authoritarian political philosophy. It certainly is for anarchism and libertarian socialism, although even in the case of anarchism there're issues with that (namely that
anti-authoritarianism is a conclusion of anarchist thought, not an a priori statement) and many of these libertarians supporting capitalist social relations have no problem with authority and hierarchy caused by it. Indeed, it seems to be that
[a]narchist libertarians and modern economic libertarians share opposition to the state as their only commonality(McLaughlin 2007, pp. 165–166). As for the bolded part, in that case it makes more sense to have a wikilink to click on rather than something bolded that leads nowhere.-- Davide King ( talk) 05:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
often called just libertarianism by its adherentswhen it's already stated
Like libertarians of all varieties, right-libertarians refer to themselves simply as "libertarians". There's no need to add that because there's aready
a type of libertarianismfor that, where one can click on it to find out more (that's wikilink's purpose, no?). It's just seem to be unusual and unnecessary. We don't say in the lead that
Nazis refer to themslves as National Socialists. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the article and there's already a Definition/Etymology section to discuss that deeply. I think
a type of libertarianismand
Like libertarians of all varieties, right-libertarians refer to themselves simply as "libertarians"is more than enough. It also seems to reduce the importance of reliable sources that use right-libertarianism and call or refer to them as right-libertarians. Right-libertarianism is clearly a thing and not just a term or disambiguation name. The sources who use right-libertarianism already made the disambiguaton for us, not viceversa, so that right-libertarianism, rather than libertarianism, is the common name to describe it.-- Davide King ( talk) 15:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
calling it a type of libertarianism, and then calling libertarianism a political philosophy, directly implies that it is a political philosophy itself; that's why I don't think it's needed to describe libertarianism (wikilinking to Libertarianism when writing it's a type of libertarianism is more than enough), especially when as you can see we have problem to define it. I just think that
is a political philosophy and type of libertarianismis more than enough and there's no need of bolding Libertarianism; we already say in the lead that its aderents simply call themselves "libertarians" and in the Definition section that they call it simply "libertarianism". I also don't think we should let us be too influenced by what "right-libertarians" may persoally say or think about it; what matters is what reliable sources say about it and they have to accept that, whether they like it or not. As of now, I think our edits made a good job in clarifying and describing the concept and various name issues. Either way, I hope @ Aquillion: and @ The Four Deuces: also state their opinion and thoughts on the lead.-- Davide King ( talk) 21:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
Like libertarians of all varieties, right-libertarians refer to themselves simply as "libertarians".say so explicitly. I think something of that nature might be worth saying, but we should probably think more about how to word it and / or find sources that explicitly say "right-libertarians call themselves X" more specifically so we can use their wording. (Newman in particular, at a glance, says that right-libertarian is used to distinguish people who call themselves anarchists, not libertarians, at least at a glance.) Also, an important point in all of those sources is that right-libertarianism is relatively new as a movement -
The situation has been vastly complicated in recent decades with the rise of anarcho-capitalism, 'minimal statism' and an extreme right-wing laissez-faire philosophy advocated by such theorists as Rothbard and Nozick and their adoption of the words 'libertarian' and 'libertarianism'.So I feel that if we want to touch on where the term comes from in the lead, we also need to touch on that history briefly. Rothbard explicitly stated that he was proud of having "captured" the term libertarian from the left (
"One gratifying aspect of our rise to some prominence is that, for the first time in my memory, we, 'our side,' had captured a crucial word from the enemy. 'Libertarians' had long been simply a polite word for left-wing anarchists, that is for anti-private property anarchists, either of the communist or syndicalist variety. But now we had taken it over."), and that context for how and why the distinguishing term became necessary should be at least lightly touched on. It doesn't need a massive amount of text in the lead, but a sentence explaining the 'capture' and how capitalists started calling themselves libertarians in a way that clashed with previous usage is necessary for the underlying language issue to make sense. Something like (very roughly, this isn't a literal suggestion) "around Rothbard's time, anarcho-capitalist movements started calling themselves libertarian, which led to the rise of the term right-libertarianism to distinguish them." This captures the essence of what they call themselves, but also provides at least some explanation for why. We might also highlight Rothbard's "captured" quote in the lead (just one or two words quoting the word "captured", not the whole quote) - it is an important quote about the history of the term, which establishes, more or less, what one of the main people involved in the language clash thought of the issue. -- Aquillion ( talk) 22:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
prevalence in wp:RS's, which was 0 out of 828 and a similar proportion in google scholar(most of these sources either referred to what we have a Libertarianism in the United States or were libertarian themselves). JLMadrigal seems to be biased towards this libertarianism, making argument such as this or similar denigratory comments towards anything but its own libertarianism. So honestly, I'm getting tired of this discussion when what you stated here is correct, but maybe we're finally going to reach an end. Therefore, Pfhorrest and I made this compromise (
Like libertarians of all varieties, right-libertarians refer to themselves simply as "libertarians"). I've no problem with that, although I agree with your perplexity and I hope you can find sources that explicitly say that. I also agree on touching more on the origins, which is what I did here (just one thing; was it in the 1950s or 1960s the Rothbard popularised "libertarian" for that? I think it was the 1960s but I want to be sure). It felt like it was missing something there and I think your proposal was really good. And since I'm here, I think we should also have a section about right-libertarianism and the New Right and likewise left-libertarianism and the New Left in the other article. Perhaps also its relation to the radical right (see The Radical Right in Western Europe: A Comparative Analysis and The Populist Radical Right: A Reader) and the far-right, if there're any reliable sources about it. Finally, I think we should merge (if they aren't deleted) Libertarianism in South Africa and Libertarianism in the United Kingdom because they use libertarianism in American terms and seem to be mainly related to right-libertarianism. I think it would be helpful also because so users won't be seeing Right-libertarianism as a POV fork from Libertarianism in the United States. I think that since the 1970s, right-libertarian ideas expanded worldwide and I believe this should be discussed more deeply. What do you think?-- Davide King ( talk) 04:45, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
type of libertarianism that strongly supports capitalist property rights and defends market distribution of natural resources and private property.[7] Like most forms of libertarianism, it generally tends to support civil liberties,[1] but also natural law,[8] negative rights[9] and a major reversal of the modern welfare state.[10] Right-libertarianism is contrasted with left-libertarianism, a type of libertarianism that combines self-ownership with an egalitarian approach to natural resources.[11] In contrast to socialist libertarianism,[4] right-libertarianism tends to support free-market capitalism.[1] Like libertarians of all varieties, right-libertarians refer to themselves simply as "libertarians".[2][3][5]makes it abundantely clear. That is despite Aquillion's legitimate concerns that we actually need sources explicitly saying that
Being the most common type of libertarianism in the United States,[4] right-libertarianism has become the most common referent of "libertarianism" there since the late 20th century while historically and elsewhere[12][13][14][15][16][17] it continues to be widely used to refer to anti-state forms of socialism such as anarchism[18][19][20][21] and more generally libertarian communism/libertarian Marxism and libertarian socialism.[12][22] Around the time of Murray Rothbard, who popularized the term "libertarian" in the United States during the 1960s, anarcho-capitalist movements started calling themselves "libertarian", leading to the rise of the term "right-libertarian" to distinguish them. Rothbard himself aknowledged the co-opting of the term and boasted of its "capture [...] from the enemy".[12]
right-libertarians refer to themselves simply as "libertarians". I don't know what more you want.-- Davide King ( talk) 20:53, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
People described as being left-libertarian or right-libertarian generally tend to call themselves simply libertarians and refer to their philosophy as libertarianism. As a result, some political scientists and writers classify the forms of libertarianism into two groups,[29][30] namely left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism,[1][2][3][4][5] to distinguish libertarian views on the nature of property and capital.[31]It seems to be more appropriate for a Definition or Political spectrum section. I think the lead now does a better job in saying that in shorter words.-- Davide King ( talk) 08:29, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
We seem to be making some progress, inching toward neutrality. But the following points still haven't adequately been addressed:
The term "Right-libertarianism", or "right-wing libertarianism", is used to differentiate a political philosophy and type of libertarianism that strongly supports property rights and defends market distribution of natural resources and private property from that of the more traditional socialist philosophy of libertarianism. While the "right" prefix typically implies endorsement of conservative social policies, this type of libertarianism does not lean to the right of center on the traditional scale.
JLMadrigal @ 16:36, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
FYI, the Nolan chart is of immense usefulness in defining the main form of libertarianism in the US. So immense and so widely used that it goes beyond just describing it, it actually creates and leads it. Far far more so than the detailed philosophies that this article seems to imagine as being the definition/ guide. North8000 ( talk) 14:24, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
[T]he chart that perfectly capsulizes, describes, and defines the ideology in question citation neededMy bad for actually following Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I'm always free to be corrected if wrong and provided with reliable sources to lear something new. Aquillion, could you find any sources that describe right-libertarianism and actually use the Nolan chart? If the Nolan chart and the ones from RationalWiki aren't notable enough to be discussed or appear at Political spectrum, I don't understand why they should be discussed here, rather then Libertarianism in the United States or not at all.-- Davide King ( talk) 18:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
This article whole is either about a term that is only used by a very small sect of people (people trying to create a certain taxonomy), or the bulk of libertarian world as viewed by that very small sect of people. And by it's definitional scheme, it purports to include the by far largest form of libertarianism, the large one-sentence-ideology US form. And while that taxonomy scheme may be useful in those limited circles to differentiate from rarer forms of libertarianism, it's pretty worthless and irrelevant for defining the largest form. Requests like Davide's saying that sources on the big topic can't be used unless the sources mention the small-minority name for the big topic is faulty. That's like saying that a New Guinea writer has defined Europeans as the "non-cannibal" people, and that saying in order to use a source about Europeans in the "non-cannibal people" article, the source has to specifically mention that it the info is about "non-cannibal people". (BTW I'm using "cannibal" in the sense of something that is a minority situation, not in the negative sense. Sincerely, North8000 ( talk) 18:10, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
it seems to me fairly obvious from the sources that right-libertarianism is an established academic concept which the current article covers fairly excellentlyand that
trying to argue that it isn't used is just wasting everyone's time. It's an established academic term with extensive usage.-- Davide King ( talk) 18:19, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
JLMadrigal, North8000 and Pfhorrest, I have added this. Can we finally remove the tag now? We already had a merge proposal and there was no consensus for that.-- Davide King ( talk) 03:52, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Right-libertarianism is contrasted with left-libertarianism, a type of libertarianism that combines self-ownership with an egalitarian approach to natural resources.[11] In contrast to socialist libertarianism,[4] right-libertarianism tends to support free-market capitalism.[1] Like libertarians of all varieties, right-libertarians refer to themselves simply as "libertarians".[2][3][5]already makes it abundantely clear. Also, Pfhorrest seemed to agree that it was better to have it in the Definition section. I think there're enough reliable sources that support the concept, rather than just a term used to distinguish various forms of libertariaism, that's there's no need to repeat that in the lead; that's what the Definition section is for. You also wrote here that
the article [...] does not use the WP:COMMONNAME for this philosophybut I thought we agree that it's actually the common name, whether you like it or not, as explained by Pfhorrest. You also made other questionable edits like:
It is used to quantify typical libertarian views that support both free markets and social liberties, and reject the economic restrictions of the left and the personal restrictions of the right.It should be made clear that's according to the chart.-- Davide King ( talk) 16:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
So, we've reached a stalemate. The article cannot exist in its current form. I'm starting to be swayed to Pfhorrest's idea of some type of merge. I'd like to take a North8000-style poll to see what direction we need to take. Here are the top four options discussed. Please rate each from 0 to 2, and sign below. I'll ping the editors who have put the most time and effort into resolving this dispute:
@ North8000: @ Pfhorrest: @ Work permit: @ The Four Deuces: @ Гармонический Мир: @ PhilLiberty: @ Davide King:
At this point, I give 1 - 4 each a "2" JLMadrigal @ 14:00, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
Davide King is engaging in edit warring, and keeps prematurely removing the dispute template from the article. Something needs to be done. He has been banned from editing before, and it seems necessary to have him banned again. JLMadrigal @ 13:17, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm just not seeing many people agreeing with you that there's a problem here. You've been arguing variations on this point for (as far as I can see) months, without getting anywhere. If you think you have a proposal that could reach a consensus, start an RFC; but otherwise, maybe it is time to WP:DROPTHESTICK and move on to other disputes. As it is, it seems to me fairly obvious from the sources that right-libertarianism is an established academic concept which the current article covers fairly excellently; and it's been there since August 2019. You keep denying that it's a concept and a
real term, so trying to argue that it isn't used is just wasting everyone's time. It's an established academic term with extensive usage(as stated by Aquillion). Pfhorrest also argued that
[t]hings are fine enough as they are. This RFC is really unnecessary, something which I wholeheartly agree with. So it's not just me doing unilaterally things.-- Davide King ( talk) 13:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
I'm not interested in complaints against individuals as much as resolving the matter. There certainly is an unresolved dispute of the nature described by the template. I value Davide as a libertarian editor, even if I don't like some of his "attack the editor" / wikilawyering conversational tactics employed here in the debate process. I mean this only in a low-key friendly-critique way. Also that he continues to over-repeat one of Aquillion's comments which I took issue with and which Aquillion dropped. I have no wish to get Davide in trouble. @ Davide King: can you please self-revert the removal of the template? This simply acknowledges the reality that the neutrality dispute does indeed exist. North8000 ( talk) 01:02, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
"attack the editor" / wikilawyering conversational tactics employed here in the debate process, for I don't believe that to be true. I'm the one who feels attacked by JLMadrigal's remarks above, especially considering my block was based mainly on my naivety and misunderstanding, not on edit warring, personal attacks, vandalism or sockpuppetry. As I said, I'm very passionate, but I'm also tired of this endless debate which I find unnecessary and unhelpful, for reliable sources support the article and that's all that matters; and I'm tired of both Pfhorrest and I having to repeat the same thing over and over again, especially when JLMadrigal, unlike you, continues to show a bias and not understanding of the topic, nor that of other libertarians. I also thought the name issue was finally over, that the article was going to stay; what was the point of all the additions to lead then? And I believe it still is, notwithstanding JLMadrigal's faiilure to realise that.
the neutrality dispute [still] does indeed exist, nor do I think the request for comments is necessary, for I thought we finally agreed to have an article titled like this and both Pfhorrest and mine's additions helped clarify the topic (JLMadrigal's proposal for the lead simply wasn't good; the lead is supposed to be a summary and I think it does a good job and explaining the naming issue clearly; I don't know what more you want us to add, that's better suited as it's now in the Definition section); a merging proposal was already rejected; and other users, including both Pfhorrest and I, saw it not just as term but as a specific concept and there was no consensus for the political typology, for that tally was made-up and against our guidelines, as correctly pointed out by Pfhorrest.
All of this can be fixed without deleting or merging this page; we can add informations to the Definition section, merge Libertarianism in South Africa and Libertarianism in the United Kingdom, or even simply creating this damned typology or disambiguation page as clarification without deleting or merging this or that article.I have no problem in self-reverting if other users also see the tag as still necessary. Pfhorrest seems to agree with me and Aquillion may too.-- Davide King ( talk) 04:16, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
This is done to distinguish libertarian views on the nature of property and capital, usually along left–right or socialist–capitalist lineson all three articles' lead section, what more do you want me to write that hasn't already been said in shorter terms? We already have Definition of anarchism and libertarianism that discusses all that in more detail.
People described as being left-libertarian or right-libertarian generally tend to call themselves simply libertarians and refer to their philosophy as libertarianism. As a result, some political scientists and writers classify the forms of libertarianism into two groups, namely left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism, to distinguish libertarian views on the nature of property and capitalseems to be the perfect way to start a Left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism article, but this ain't so; this is about right-libertarianism, so the lead should talk about right-libertarianism and the Definition about that (I think now it does a good job); and a merge was already rejected in November or there was no consensus for that; for why they may be discussed and mentioned together, they're still two different libertarian political philosophies worthy of having their own article. Maybe Left-libertarianism and right-libertarianism could be a short disambiguation page that literally reads like that and then lists Left-libertarianism and Right-libertarianism, but otherwhise the two articles are fine as they are now and should be kept.
editors disagreeing with [me] are mis-behaving or "just don't get it" or are being obstinate? That seems to be your own original research of my words and either way both Pfhorrest and I seems to agree that JLMadrigal is
being obstinatefor
going [back] in circles again. I'm all for compromise, but it has to be based on reality and reliable sources, not original research or synthesis. So while one doesn't have to provide sources on talk page, at some point one will have to, if it wants to add something to the article. This is clearly original research and not something that can be verfied. You write
Wp:ver applies to the presence of materiel [sic] in article space, not to points made in conversation on the talk page, but that's exactly my point! One is free to make such argument, but then one shouldn't be surprised when that isn't added to the article for being original research or not verifiable. I support the removal of the template not because
there is no dispute because my side is right and the other side is wrong, but because there doesn't seem to be consensus to have it in the first place! Arguing that right-libertarianism isn't a real thing or doesn't have widespread usage is just wasting everyone's time. Pfhorrest and I both seemed to think the naming issue was done.-- Davide King ( talk) 02:05, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
[t]his is done to distinguish libertarian views on the nature of property and capital, usually along left–right or socialist–capitalist lines, which is all in the lead for you and everyone else to read.
I'm not sure the sources for, yet I kept that wording there as part of a compromise when Pfhorrest and I worked together to make the current lead to clarify some concerns.-- Davide King ( talk) 05:30, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Like libertarians of all varieties, right-libertarians refer to themselves simply as "libertarians".say so explicitly. I think something of that nature might be worth saying, but we should probably think more about how to word it and / or find sources that explicitly say "right-libertarians call themselves X" more specifically so we can use their wording