Talk:Libertarianism in the United States/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Early commments

Errr ... isn't this just propaganda/boosterism? As stand-alone article, that is.

Charles Matthews 09:17, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I would've expressed my criticism slightly differently. The most charitable view is that it is not encyclopeadic, but rather represents the development of someone's argument to a conclusion. I had considered nominating this page for WP:VFD, but thought I'd let it slide for the time being. --SilasM 09:36, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It was part of the original libertarianism article but was removed for space reasons. I'd like to keep it, though if you want to balance or rename it, that's cool. I think it could be encyclopedic to have a list and/or discussion of what libertarians have applauded (and maybe condemned) over the years. Dave 16:44, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

So what do libertarians think on the growth of habeas corpus? OK, that's tendentious, but perhaps it makes the point that this is wildly imbalanced. Charles Matthews 13:35, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
A better title would be something more like Libertarian strands in U. S. public policy. That's still not quite right, though. Could we discuss a possible title change for this page? Charles Matthews 09:42, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm open to suggestions. I'll admit I didn't pick the best title when I made this. Dave (talk)
Say U.S. public policy and libertarian ideas? It limits the scope slightly, compared to having a free discussion on the international stage. But I would say that the focus is much better. Charles Matthews 14:28, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
The best solution may be merging it with an article on the libertarian movement. It needs to be somewhere. I don't think it needs to be restricted to the U.S.—there's stuff on Costa Rica and Britain, too. Dave (talk)

This article is poor

I think it is still sub-standard, a cherry-picking of political themes with no attempt at balance. Charles Matthews 11:12, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

I added the NPOV tag because this article excludes radical libertarian thinkers in favor of listing people and organizations whom many radical libertarians would not even consider libertarian. I have added the Ludwig von Mises Institute and Murray Rothbard to the list of influencial libertarians, though I still don't believe that this article is npov at the current moment. Life, Liberty, Property 02:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Would those so called "radical" Libertarians, who are not considered Libertarians be exempt from the Libertarian Movement list? If in fact a consensus is insinuated among Libertarians that they are not Libertarian? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.217.78.208 (talk) 01:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Another argument about what Libertarianism is. Wasting time and energy on a NPOV tag because you have your ideas about what a Libertarian is.Jon3800 (talk) 21:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

When it started

When I read the article, I'm getting the gist that the libertarianism movement started in the 1980's, when, really, it should have started with the American Revolution with roots back to Locke, right? Fephisto (talk) 20:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Not really, it began pretty much as a minority movement as an offshoot of the Capitalist Anarchist movement, which never really went anywhere. Unlibertarian beliefs of the founders include, the institution of slavery, land theft of the Indians and so on. I would say, that the seeds of the current Libertarian movement where sown when Communism started to become a clear threat to Capitalism and Individualism on various fronts.

I think it's more or less a counter-Government movement. Where Government becomes more and more intrusive The Libertarian Movement becomes stronger. When Government fails at everything they do, the Libertarian Movement and the Party itself grows stronger a little. Thats my two cents, anywho. Point is, it's rather intellectually dishonest to say the Libertarian Movement started at the American Revolution anywho since the Founding Fathers like Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and so on where influenced heavily by European thinkers and so on.Jon3800 (talk) 21:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Renaming Article "Libertarian Movement in the United States"

  • That's what the article is about now.
  • There is a Libertarianism in the United Kingdom
  • The libertarianism article needs to have a lot of US only stuff purged to give it a better worldwide view and this is a good place to move it to create a better article
  • That article also is going to have a good section on world libertarian movement which no one may want to replicate and expand upon here
  • There is lots of information about Lib Movement in US only

Anyway, do reply soon. I do intend to move a lot of material over here, one way or the other. Carol Moore 04:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

I agree. It mostly talks about the United States. PublicSquare (talk) 14:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Can't repeat policy violations of Libertarianism article in this one

I.e., violating policies regarding WP:Verifiability, WP:NPOV, WP:No Original Research, and of course purging the various left libertarian/libertarian socialist groups. You guys play with it for a while and then I (or others) will come in at some point and clean up the worst of it. :-) CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Ref'd info only please

Since the current Libertarianism article (or the talk page or archives) contains lots of info to ref statements, there's no reason to include non ref'd ones. On the other hand, if someone puts up a tag that it should be ref'd and no one does so, it can be removed. CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Concur. Incidentally there is great room for expansion of this article with high quality referenced material. Fifelfoo (talk) 04:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Removal of well-cited info

Not editing for ~two months is probably not going to change the fact that the discussion of left-libertarianism in articles on "libertarianism" has been deemed valid in MULTIPLE talk page RfCs (including:here, here, here, and here, the results of which can be seen in this diff). I'd submit that a protection on the Libertarianism page should not be taken as an indicator to restart that battleground topic over here.

Including information about anarchism and minarchism is NOT mutually exclusive of the existing information. If any editors desire to DELETE well-cited info, then present a decent WP rationale, please. Thanks. BigK HeX (talk) 04:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I guess Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Refusal_to_get_the_point still rules. :-( Not looking forward to February! CarolMooreDC (talk) 06:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
Agreed. Although, I have no doubt that the end results would be the same. BigK HeX (talk) 13:32, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Merge proposal (Libertarian movement in the U.S. into here)

I second. I didn't even realize there were two, though I have them both bookmarked. Go for it! CarolMooreDC (talk) 19:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm willing to do it. Hearing no dissent, will do so soon. CarolMooreDC (talk) 00:35, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
Hearing no objections, Gonna do it!! Note this is per similarly named articles about UK and SA. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
Unclear what the target was, but I've placed a tag. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 16:03, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
The merge was Libertarian movement in the U.S. into t his article, and I did it. (Copied to archive and will delete this after you have chance to read.) CarolMooreDC (talk) 04:38, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Libertarianism in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:13, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Libertarianism in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Libertarianism in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Young Americans for Liberty

Young Americans for Liberty and Students for Liberty deserve a mention in this article. Benjamin (talk) 00:20, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Good idea. North8000 (talk) 04:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Libertarianism in the United States. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:21, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

There was / is an exchange at my talk page regarding this article

There was / is an exchange at my talk page regarding this article. North8000 (talk) 13:16, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

POV concern

Does this statement "Although the word libertarian continues to be widely used to refer to anti-state socialists internationally, its meaning in the United States has deviated from its political origins to the extent that the common meaning of libertarian in the United States is different from elsewhere" really belong immediately after the lead sentence of the article? It reads, almost glaringly, like a poorly veiled POV attempt to scream to the reader, "This is not real libertarianism! No, no, no!" It seems the format would be cleaner and better suited if that statement was inserted as the final paragraph of the header, rather than as its lead.

--Adam9389 (talk) 14:45, 05 September 2019 (UTC)

   The amount of lipstick you put on factional differences cannot conceal that they are just factional disputes, and not even objective facts about things in what some of us, however dully, call the real world. The effort to settle these internicean battles on WP does nothing to improve WP, and reeks of seeking to exploit WP to create the appearance of a consensus on the most politically correct flavor of fringe political nostrums. Nobody really remembers the miracles of the Soviet worker state, nor the benefits of Mao-tse Tung Thought, but every political grievance gets a name, or five, and you’ve no chance of avoiding forty years in the wilderness unless you’re serious about WP:RS. JerzyA (talk) 01:39, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Article title

Is this topic not more commonly known as simply the "libertarian movement"? "Libertarianism in the United States" makes this sound like the American subset of a Libertarianism when the lede introduces the concept foremost as a movement that happens to be predominantly American in background. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 21:43, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I Support @Czar:'s suggestion. The previous title, "libertarian movement" clarifies that it is more than just a US phenomenon, which the current title implies. The previous title should definitely be restored. JLMadrigal @ 01:10, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  • JLMadrigal, as the name imply, this is about only libertarianism in the United States (the origin, history and development of libertarianism in the United States, just like Conservatism in the United States, Liberalism in the United States et all. Right-libertarianism is supposed to be the movement that happens to be predominantly American in background but that has spread beyond North America via think tanks and political parties [since the resurgence of neoliberalism in the 1970s], so it isn't just an American phenomenon. I think that's also what Pfhorrest understood the article to be about.--Davide King (talk) 02:40, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
I think that both articles should exist, for the reasons that ALL THREE of you gave.North8000 (talk) 13:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
"Right-libertarianism" needs to be treated as the specialized term used by taxonomists - which doesn't seem to justify an entire article. Perhaps, as a compromise, that article could be kept mostly intact, and renamed "Libertarian movement", and the USE of the term "right-libertarian" clarified. JLMadrigal @ 13:43, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
JLMadrigal, right-libertarianism is used to refer to a specific type of libertarianism, so it isn't just a term; the name itself is based on that (we use right-libertarianism to distinguish from a general libertarianism and another type that is called left-libertarianism, hence why they're titled like that, but all three refers to different, albeit correlated and with some overlap, concepts, hence why they're separate articles to better discuss each one), but you fail to realise that Right-libertarianism is or refers to a specfic concept that the articles discusses and talks about; right-libertarianism simply is the most common name used by sources to refer to it. As things stand now, Libertarian movement should be a redirect to Libertarianism and Libertarian movement in the United States should redirect here (as it already does; I wasn't sure it existed yet). Right-libertarianism is supposed to be a certain type of American-style libertarianism, or whatever you want to call it, that has expanded outside the United States since the 1970s and thus is distinct from Libertarianism in the United States. You seem to have understood it backwards.--Davide King (talk) 20:21, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

If I were king, I'd:

  • Cover the right/left taxonomy system in a section in the Libertarianism article. Then I'd delete/merge the right/left articles. Other than the taxonomy aspect, they just contain coverage of the so-grouped philosophies which are already covered in their individual articles and summarized in the Libertarianism article.
  • Leave this article roughly as-is. It has a lot more in it (e.g. history, other specific strands that exist in the US) than just the current numerically-large libertarian movement.
  • Create a "libertarian movement" article. The large vague form that is big in the US but has traveled elsewhere.

North8000 (talk) 16:32, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

North8000, a merge was already rejected and I still reject the view of merely taxonomy systems. They refer to a concept, a type of libertarianism. Just like we have Liberal conservatism, Social conservatism, Social liberalism, etc. It's useful to have two separate articles that better discuss the topic and concept, just like Populism (Left-wing populism and Right-wing populism). Why not simply add a section titled Political typology? Since that's what actually you're referring to when talking about that vague libertarianism. What should be done is improving things, not deleting them. [F]orm that is big in the US but has traveled elsewhere, which is exactly what Right-libertarianism is about. And no, Libertarian movement should simply be a redrect to Libertarianism (see Google Scholar and JSTOR).--Davide King (talk) 20:21, 30 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose, as the "libertarian movement" can be not only in the USA, but also outside. Yours sincerely, Гармонический Мир (talk) 10:01, 1 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per consistency with similar titled articles and because this article is and should be about libertarianism in the Unted States only. Right-libertarianism is supposed to be the movement that happens to be predominantly American in background but that has spread beyond North America via think tanks and political parties [since the resurgence of neoliberalism in the 1970s], so it isn't just an American only phenomenon. Libertarian movement also seems to be better used as a redirect for Libertarianism or a disambiguation page like I've done at Libertarian movements since a good number of sources also use the term to refer to the Spanish movement and/or other anti-capitalist/left/socialist-aligned ones.--Davide King (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Current damaged state of the article due to edit warring in disputed material

There is a an ongoing dispute centered at Right libertarianism regarding the term "right libertarianism". (and indirectly/secondarily "left libertarianism") Raised issues regarding the term including it being only the product of a small group of taxonomists creating a particular grouping and a particular name for it, that the name is an oxymoron, that the name is a pejorative for the group that it purports to identify, and that the term is overwhelmingly not the common name as used in wp:reliable sources for any of the strands of libertarianism that it refers to. This is not to say that those particular persons making such a grouping and naming of the group do not use the term, thus being primary sources on themselves. One might also consider those persons to be sources, but in my view they are actually creators of such a grouping and concept, not persons/sources covering it nor what terminology is commonly used, and thus primary sources on themselves. . The dispute recently got clarified as being an impasse, with a well-structured RFC being the identified next step. Simultaneously, with the recent clarification-as-an-impasse, with the dispute being open elsewhere, one editor recently made a substantial injection / spreading of the disputed term into this additional article.

The editor has declared on their user page that they live in Italy, and that their political ideals are based on anarchism (anarcho-communism) social anarchism), communism (left communism), Marxism (classical, humanism, libertarian, neo and revisionism) and socialism (democratic socialism, liberal socialism, libertarian socialism and social democracy) plus other libertarian strands. This is all cool, but does present some challenges on perspective of covering Libertarianism in the United States including use of sources to do so. In particular, misuse of works by persons creating the grouping (=primary sources on themselves) as being "sources" on what actually exists and is in usage and acceptance.

The material was inserted into to the article, and then removals based on it it being in dispute were reverted 4 times (3 times by the original inserter and once by another editor who works closely with them) which means that the current state of the article is the result of the disputed material being edit warred (aggressively inserted) 5 times, (re-inserted 4 times) into the article. This is NOT to claim that any editor violated the bright line 3RRR rule, nor even to take this to the point of claiming a wiki-behavorial issue by any editor as I avoid such until it is last resort because it is not my dance. This is more to state that the article is temporarily in a badly damaged disputed current state, the current state created by an edit warring process to insert disputed material 5 times within a few days (which I declined to carry further) with no consensus, (or even discussion) plus ignoring requests to take it to talk before re-inserting the disputed material. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 23:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

You have yet to reply to this comment by Pfhorrest which contained several important and interesting points. I specifically structured that section to treat it exactly as you wanted, a terminology and taxonomy. The primary sources are related to a few American libertarians, how they use such terminology and they're all attribuited (i.e. according to, etc.), but the rest aren't. To further clarify, I actually reverted it only twice and just because Pfhorrest agrees with me, it doesn't mean [the] editor [...] works closely with [me]. You and JLMadrigal also did the same thing at Right-libertarianism by inserting your lead proposals without reaching a consensus, edit warring, etc., but this was never referenced here (why?); only what Pfhorrest and I did was. Clarified this, let's work to solve this issue together.--Davide King (talk) 00:23, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
My focus is on the proper process side and how it relates to the current status of the article. And so (for anybody reading this) I am not alleging conduct issues by anybody....that is not my dance. You put the disputed material (already in dispute at the other article) in and then reverted removals three times and Pfhorrest reverted removal once. The current state of the article is determined by those 5 insertions of the same disputed material: 4 by you, one by Pfhorrest. I'm not going to get into here your misleading discussion of happenings at other articles. Except to say that there were widely spaced sporadic attempts to boldly insert different pragmatic compromises to see if they would fly, and so you are mis-describing the situation. My insertions at the other article were identified as such, as attempts to see if y'all were where you might let the compromise solution stand while not being to the point of explicitly agreeing with it, and were clearly worded as such. North8000 (talk) 13:04, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Again, please stop repeating that [I] put the disputed material (already in dispute at the other article) in and then reverted removals three times; it was only reverted two times by me (first, because you were wrong about the terms not being used; and second, because it actually wasn't related to the issue at the other page; indeed, the main debate is whether the first two sentence should be inverted, etc., not whether it isn't a real thing). I don't see or understand how they were attempts to see if we let it stand when your so-called pragmatic compromises had several issues both Pfhorrest and I discussed at length, so it was inevitable they were going to be reverted. Either way, my additions here were based on the same boldness to see if it was let stand; and I thought that I worded it in a way that wasn't like the other page, so I didn't think there was an issue. Anyway, now you should be replying there, where is the main discussion.--Davide King (talk) 15:08, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
You are right about the number of times you put it in and I was in error. I was correct on the 5 times total, but 3 by you (initial and 2 reverts of removals) and 2 were reverts of removals by Pfhorrest. I don't agree with the rest of the description in your post. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:39, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Joe Exotic

Should Joe Exotic be on this list? He ran for Governor of Oklahoma in the 2018 Libertarian primaries. I believe that his views expressed in Tiger King may have a influence on American Libertarianism. GamerKiller2347 (talk) 21:23, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I think not. Owing to his newfound widespread fame, it is true that he may influence some people's perception of libertarianism. However, he came in third (last) place in the 2018 Oklahoma Libertarian Party (OKLP) gubernatorial primary which you mention. That same year, OKLP censured him for promoting policies which were opposed to the party platform. The following year, they rescinded his party membership. He has no significant influence on either libertarian philosophy or politics. Rishodi (talk) 01:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Libertarianism_in_the_United_States/Archive_1&oldid=1147472967"