Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Market libertarianism
delete - word doesn't actually exist, somebody trying to play with orewellian newspeak
- (Note: The above comment was added by User:203.112.19.195.) --Ardonik.talk() 19:42, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)
- Not sure which article is up for VfD Market libertarianism or Market Libertarianism or both (histories show duplication and redirects added). Looks like an edit war going on. In either case, it seems this information belongs in libertarianism, and I do get some Google hits for the phrase, so redirect (both) there, and protect the pages if the anon IP users continue to edit war. -- Netoholic @ 18:10, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- None of these redirects are helpful in seeing what the problem was. Here is the "original" version of Market Libertarianism, and here is the original version of Market libertarianism (and by original, I mean before VfD and redirects.) I can't get an exact diff, but both look identical, so if we vote to keep, we'll obviously redirect the former into the latter. The question then boils down to whether or not the content of the article (and I will use the singular here) is factual; the one who contested its factual nature was the anonymous user 203.112.19.195 who also nominated the page for VfD. Can anyone else verify that the term was made up? Can the anonymous contributor clarify his or her reasons for nominating the page?
Abstaining for now. --Ardonik.talk() 19:40, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC) - I think this is probably a legitamite term, but it still makes more sense to redirect it (both) to Libertarianism generally and explain the nuances there.--Samuel J. Howard 02:56, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
- To expand/clarify User:Chuck F's comments (unless I'm mistaken, Chuck F is the same person as User:203.112.19.195). This VfD listing and the market libertarianism page originate because of an edit war ongoing on the libertarianism page. One of the participants, User:PoliticalNerd feels that the libertarianism page should be about a variety of definitions of that word, and so he created the market libertarianism as an alternative article specifically about what the libertarianism page used to be about. It's true that the expression "market libertarianism" is very rare ("market liberalism" is much more common). Most listings for "market libertarian" on google are actualy part of "free-market libertarian" which seems to be a little more common, but even then it is usually in the form of "free-market/libertarian opinions", etc.; i.e., two separate, redundant ideas connected with a hyphen, slash, or comma. However, obscure or not, the intended meaning of the phrase is pretty clear (although there could hypothetically be some confusion with various historical libertarian socialists who favored market processes), so I vote to keep and redirect to libertarianism.
- In light of Nat Krause's explanation, I'm changing my vote from abstain to keep (as a redirect to Libertarianism.) --Ardonik.talk() 23:40, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
Look at Libertarianism this one user has been trying to vandalize several libertarian phrases(with more then 10 reverts in a 12 hour period) , as I explained in the talk for libertarianism, market libertarianism is a real term as much as the phrase "commie democrat" is a real term. Market Libertarianism is only used by random people on the web ideologically opposed to libertarians and is most assuredly a pov Definition. (not all libertarians in that "Market liberation" definition are entirely free-market based. If this term is an acceptably entry, then going out and creating an entry called commie democrat and just putting the definition of democracy in there but replacing every instance of democracy with commie democracy is also acceptable (look on the google, the term commie democracy also has some entries). Hope that clarfaction helps Chuck F 03:18, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Minor nitpick: the opposite terms are actually communism and capitalism; it's just as possible to have a totalitarian one-party regime in favor of unbridled market capitalism as it is to have a republic where the state owns everything. Economic systems, political systems: two different animals. --Ardonik.talk() 04:23, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)
- The opposite pairs are socialism and capitalism, as well as communism and fascism. This is the way these words are used.
- What, User:Daesotho? You could not be more wrong if you tried — you can have a socialist state with a market economy (some who are not fond of liberal programs like public schooling might argue that the US falls into this category!), or a fascist state where the government owns/steals all property (this was a fairly common phenomenon.) What on earth are you talking about? Do you have some definition of those four words that I am not aware of? --Ardonik.talk() 02:40, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
- Socialism and capitalism are opposing economic philosophies. Fascism and communism are political. Communism is not totalitarian one-party rule, totalitarian one-party rule is an aspect of both communism and fascism. Socialism is not totalitarian one-party rule either, being an economic philosophy. Surely you do not suggest that capitalism is necessarily one-party totalitarian or democratic or aristocratic or monarchic (the conditions under which capitalism developed)? Socialism and capitalism are economic, communism is totalitarian, one party rule by left-wingers, fascism is totalitarian, one-party rule by right-wingers. --daesotho
- We're veering off topic.
- Communism - Economic system characterized by state ownership of property and economic equality.
- Capitalism - Economic system characterized by individual ownership and free market economics invariably leading to economic inequality.
- Fascism - Political system characterized by authoritarian rule, strong appeals to nationalism, and often by state-sponsored racism.
- Democracy - Political system characterized by elections and a government subservient to its citizens.
- Hence my original point -- it is communism and capitalism that are opposed to one another. A government cannot be a pure communism as defined by Karl Marx and a pure capitalism as defined by Adam Smith at the same time. Something must give! Incidentally, a purely fascist democracy is also a contradiction in terms (totalitarians rig elections, when they bother holding them at all), though fascist governments the world over invariably call themselves democracies. "Socialism" is simply a term describing government ownership of one institution or another; public schools in the United States are socialistic, and universal health care would be, too, if our politicians had enough courage to propose it. Socialism and capitalism are not "opposing economic philosophies"; modern capitalist societies are all socialistic to varying degrees. Medicare is socialistic. --Ardonik.talk() 04:44, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
- The terms have been used in enough different ways that we can't treat them like mathematical entities -- to call them opposites is oversimplifying. We could further note that while Marx's idea of Communism is not compatible with Marx's idea of Capitalism, there are other systems, both within and outside of Marx's imagination that are incompatible with both. In essense, Ardonik, you're oversimplifying. Improv 19:14, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- That's fair. Personally, I thought that it was the definition of "socialism" (which means different things to different people) that was the point of contention. Still, I don't think my oversimplifications above are overtly inaccurate, and I will stand by them. http://www.politicalcompass.org, in addition to being an interesting survey, has an accessible yet in-depth treatment of the modern usage of these terms. --Ardonik.talk() 20:54, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
- We're veering off topic.
- Socialism and capitalism are opposing economic philosophies. Fascism and communism are political. Communism is not totalitarian one-party rule, totalitarian one-party rule is an aspect of both communism and fascism. Socialism is not totalitarian one-party rule either, being an economic philosophy. Surely you do not suggest that capitalism is necessarily one-party totalitarian or democratic or aristocratic or monarchic (the conditions under which capitalism developed)? Socialism and capitalism are economic, communism is totalitarian, one party rule by left-wingers, fascism is totalitarian, one-party rule by right-wingers. --daesotho
- What, User:Daesotho? You could not be more wrong if you tried — you can have a socialist state with a market economy (some who are not fond of liberal programs like public schooling might argue that the US falls into this category!), or a fascist state where the government owns/steals all property (this was a fairly common phenomenon.) What on earth are you talking about? Do you have some definition of those four words that I am not aware of? --Ardonik.talk() 02:40, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)
If I created a page, say 'Hexaform Rotary Surface Compression Unit', and made it a redirect to 'Nut (hardware)', as I understand the rules, it would be deleted. If this 'Market Libertarianism' page is simply a redirect from an awkward neologism to a preexisting page, then I think it should be deleted.
delete Excatly my point! if I create a page called commie democracts(again search google, the word has about the same amount as market libertarianism (when you take out the free-market/libertains refrences)) and then just redirect to democracy or the demorcactic party, would that phrase stay or be deleted? please look at this term in that light.
- delete. I agree with User:daesotho and User:Chuck F, it's an awkward neologism. Also, it doesn't make sense as a home for any of the conflicting meanings of libertarian. BCoates 08:08, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - Tεxτurε 18:55, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)