Talk:Libertarianism/Archive 2

This page 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.

Political Spectrum

Mihnea, some of your edits in this section seem like a passive insertion of POV. Specifically, the article previously stated that libertarians "propose a propose a two-dimensional space with personal freedom on one Cartesian axis and economic freedom on the other." Inserting the modifier what they call in front of each proposed label seems both redundant and an attempt to cast doubt on those concepts or the group employing them. Similarly with putting what they see as in front of liberty and autonomy. Those words mean specific things in this context and I find these edits to be a bit calumnious (at the very least prejudicial), especially in light of the fact that you don't seem to see a need for inserting them in places like this: "...socialists who believe that economic regulation is necessary for personal freedom."

I might add that if we followed this pattern across the board, most articles would lose a significant degree of clarity in their slide toward an over-modified, indefinite mess. Every imaginable concept can be put in quotations and prefaced with "what they call". It's not a good practice. The concepts in question each have their own articles and disambigs; I think the proper thing to do is to make sure that there are links to them so that readers can make up their own minds. Ubernetizen 20:20, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

We have a many/most thing going on here, which I don't particularly feel strongly about, so we can just standardize on one I guess. The other edits are still unnecessary and carry a prejudicial taint IMO. I think we can take it for granted that libertarians (like any other group) employ concepts such as freedom, rights, etc., "as they see them", so pointing this out in the manner you have is of questionable utility. Furthermore, the article already touches upon these differences in several places. If you want to add a section that identifies every important concept on whose definition libertarians and other ideological groups deviate, knock yourself out. Personally, I think it's easier just to link to the articles about those concepts, which already do this. Ubernetizen 17:30, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Moderation is in the eye of the beholder

I removed "moderate" in discussing the degree to which modern liberals would use government. Some would certainly be "moderate," some would not. The article goes on to explain that some libertarians seek to differentiate themselves from liberals who are inclined towards a welfare state, etc., which involves degrees that might not be so moderate. Nowadays, some who would describe themselves as liberal would also say they are socialists, which would imply something more than moderate interference.icut4u

On the future of this article

Certainly, the recent additions by GreenPartyActivist/PoliticalNerd require a lot of NPOV work. However, his or her edits bring up a more significant point. So far, this article has specifically been about capitalistic libertarianism, with a disambiguation notice at the top for other meanings, but we have now introduced a fair amount of information about libertarian socialism and left-anarchism as well (so far none about philosophical libertarianism, don't know why). So, we should have a clear sense of what this article is supposed to be about. I invite suggestions. - Nat Kraus e 07:27, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nat Kraus - They were extreme pov and changed the articles focus from libertarians to market anarchists. I removed them for the moment until we decide how to work everything out. The majority of what they were posting seemed to be pov critiques on market anarchists instead of adding info about socialism libertarians. and looking at what greenpartyadvocate was doing with libertarian vs libertarianism it's obvious he was trying to mess with the actual Definitions of the words - Chuck

ok...

Is it too much too much to actually add real, hard facts about classical liberalism, classical libertarians, and measures of political ideology into this article? If you want to add more information and facts from the capitalist libertarian perspective, then go ahead and add it. You can't just delete information because it doesn't support your view. The only valid reason to delete information are because 1) It is false or very misleading and 2) It is redundant or isn't relevant to the article.

None of the stuff you just deleted meets those criteria. If you know of rebutals to that information, then by all means add them into the article. Don't shut down debate by whitewashing the article of anything which will raise questions though. It is not supposed to be a one-way street for a single ideology. You'll notice that I didn't delete anything that the capitalist libertarians wrote, though I did go through and clarify which libertarian each section was talking about.

Also, it is very misleading to simply call yourself a "libertarian" when you are a right-wing market libertarian (it completely ignores the original meaning of the word "libertarian") just as it would be misleading for a classical libertarian to describe themselves as a "libertarian" (many people would think they were a right-wing libertarian). You need to be clear about which kind of libertarian you are talking about at all times: Classical/anarchist libertarian or capitalist/market libertarian. From now on, everyone editing this article needs to be consistant about using the correct libertarian terms. Just saying "Libertarian" is too vague and will lead to confusion. It also ignores the history of the word libertarian- you know the people who coined and used the term for almost 90 years before it was hijacked by a completely different ideology circa 1960.

Nat Kraus had stated in the discussion about "Libertarian" that everything was going to be moved to this article since "Libertarian" is a noun which describes those who subscribe to "Libertarianism".

Since this one is getting long, if you guys want, we can break up the article on libertarians into several sections. Here's what I would propose. Tell me what you think.

-Libertarian (etymology, general meaning, variations)

-Classical Libertarianism (and capitalist critiques of classical libertarianism)

-Market Libertarianism (US Libertarian Party & its views , critiques of market libertarianism)

-Libertarians and Classical Liberalism

-Libertarianism on the political spectrum

Again, I want this article to be a two-way street (or 3 or 4 or 5 way), not a one-way street. You can't delete facts just because they raise questions about a particular view. You can (and should!) add a rebutal, though. -PoliticalNerd

Nat Kraus e: The article was split up, albeit not exactly along the lines you describe, and your edits have been moving in the opposite direction. What you call classical libertarianism already has an article called libertarian socialism. What you call market libertarianism had an article called libertarianism. Now, we are starting off the latter article with a bunch of information about the former.

__________________________________________

... You and green party activist are trying to hi-jack the term, This is an encyclopedia go search google for libertarian, Does anybody at all nowadays use libertarian for another term besides market libertarians (and btw what you posted about market libertarians was also was wrong, go read F.A. Hayek or Milton Friedman)

Taking up half an encyclopedia entry with a meaning that nobody uses it for is counter-productive, feel free to link to another term and write your stuff there(probly in the libertarian socalist entry which is already linked to) but libertarian now has it’s current definition, that’s the one we should use.. Plus you and green party guy turned the entire entry into a critique about market libertarians not being libertarians.

Let me just put an analogy here: starve use to mean to die of cold in old English, it'd be like taking up half the starve entry with stuff about dying of cold is the real meaning

One More thing to edit: the entire opinion that classical liberalism != contemporary libertarianism is a point of view, most assuredly not a neutral one, I've seen arguments on both sides of the spectrum. If you want to start mentioning classical liberalism you're going to need to put in a some critics believe that classical liberalism does not equal libertarianism, not just state it as fact.

And yet another edit:

I keep on relooking at the article and coming up with more things I want to add to this discussion, let me quote something you added:

"Today the wealthy use an insitution that is technically independant of the state- the corporation- to tyranize, while in classical times they used the state itself, which also chartered and ran corporations."

You didn't even attribute this to anyone, you just stated this as fact, which shows your true intentions in editing the entry. You can't state that the wealthy use a corporation to tyrannize in a neutral encyclopedia entry.

-chuck

Chuck,

First of all, there are still left-libertarians that use the term libertarian to describe themselves. Since they usually don't have a political party to affiliate with, they are not as well known as the right-libertarians. There's a guy in my city whose a big advocate for the legalization of marijuana. He runs in every election for various officies as a (small 'l') libertarian. He is definetly NOT a market libertarian though. He is a classical libertarian.

Nat Kraus e: Some people do still use "libertarian" that way -- when I was in college you could still get copies of Libertarian Labor Review in the hippy bookstore -- but they are increasingly few in the English-speaking world. Out of deference to the older meaning, we have a disclaimer in the very first line of the article pointing to libertarian socialism.

I am familiar with Friedman and Hayeck. I just have one question for you- have you ever studied any of the classical liberal thinkers? Locke, Jefferson, Smith, Paine, Rosseau, etc?

Smith, unlike today's right-wing libertarians, did not see a business market economy as a good thing (he never used the term capitalism, or laissez faire for that matter), he merely saw it as the least of possible evils- a neccessary evil. He loathed businessmen as well, and made many stern warnings against the danger of corporations and big business. His other major book besides The Wealth of Nations was the Theory of Moral Sentiments.

The entire idea of social saftey nets and the welfare state was invented by Thomas Paine. Read "The Age of Reason" sometime.

Locke's major emphasis was on democracy, not private property. Jefferson was a big fan of Locke, but proceeded (in the Declaration of Indpendance) to change Locke's phrase of "life, liberty, and property" to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", because the entire institution of private property was already being recognized by the classical liberals as a danger to liberty and democracy. Jefferson also advocated progressive taxation, and in a letter to James Madison reffered to the rising "aristocracy of our monied corporations."

Jean Jacques Rosseau made vicious attacks on private property and aristocracy. His writings are in many ways the predecessor to Socialism. He was also a classical liberal.

Nat Kraus e: Is this stuff important? Where exactly do you think that modern libertarianism did come from? It seems clear that it came from at least a segment of classical liberalism, i.e. Bastiat, Say, along with Smith, Locke, Jefferson, etc. when they were in a good mood. You are busily outlining the other strands of classical liberal thought that it did not come from. Just how relevant is this? And Rousseau, good lord, why would anyone want to be associated with Rousseau?

So I'd really like to know where right-wing "libertarians" (truth be told, they actually aren't even libertarians, they are Neoliberals) get the idea that somehow they are "classical liberals". Nothing could be further from the truth. Classical liberalism refers specifically to the historical political thinkers of the liberal enlightenment of the 18th century. Classical liberalism does not exist today outside of the history books. Today we live in a totally different society with a different POLITICAL ECONOMY, and different social and political conditions.

However, that does not negate the influence and tradition of the classical liberal ideology. If you would study the rise of mass movements such as Socialism and Anarchism during the 19th century, and the response of liberals and liberalism to it, you would quickly realize that liberalism was far from some pro-capital, crush-all-labor-uprisings-because-they-threaten-the-free-market ideology. The liberals were the ones that were more willing to listen to the will of the people, and be laisezz-faire in regards to the POLITY- the state of the politics. Thats what democracy is, and that is what classical liberalism is about.

I myself am not a Democrat, but the Democrats today indeed carry much of the political tradition of classical liberals in America. After all, it was Jefferson himself that founded the Democratic party. Talking about the rise of the Republican party (which was actually partially founded by Communists, the rest were radical liberals) and its eventual takeover by Wall Street, and the class politics that followed are a totally different topic which we won't get into here.

The fact is that the term libertarian is often misued in the United States. I would like this article to be academically accurate, and I'm sorry if my critiques of market-libertarianism hit a nerve with you, but they are the truth. As I have already stated, feel free to add your own rebutals backed up by facts. I will definetly remove that one you mentioned because it doesn't fall under the NPOV. However, the entire page in its current state does not either.

-PoliticalNerd

You cannot overturn the common meaning of a word just because you think it is being "misused". And your critiques have no place in this article...if you want to include a reference to views expressed in some published work, fine, but this is NOT a soapbox for disseminating your own. Ubernetizen 22:37, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

see this is what I don't get, it seems like you think the entry is false because libertarians use to believe that they were called liberals, so now all democrats/greens should be considered libertarians, and libertarians should be called market libertarians? There already exists the term liberal. today libertarian obviously means market libertarians in English speaking countries; Like I said look at google and amazon.com for the word libertarian it's all market libertarian-related books, in fact the only people I can find that use the word otherwise are ones that are obviously anti-current libertarians and don't want them to have it. We're not going to include inaccurate definitions of word just because you like that political philosophy better.

I also don't think unless an idea has been 100 percent proven to be untrue(even with nazism), that an encylopedia entry should be almost entirly criticisms of that idea. an entry is for basically defining what the poltical theory means, the link to criqtues of libertarnism exists for criticsims of the theory.

Nat Kraus e: Well said.

oh and you didn't so much as critique market libertarniasm as critquie the fact that they use the word libertarian.

-chuck

This article really needs to be split up into multiple entries if you're going to cover all the topics from a NPOV. The way it stands now, it is nothing more than a recruiting tool for the US Libertarian Party.

The article is split up. And what is this about a "recruiting tool"? I am curious as to what you mean. Instead of vague accusations, what specific problems are there with the article? - Nat Kraus e 09:25, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Isn't it obvious? The socialists are worried that if an article presents the reader with a correct understanding of libertarianism, they'll quite naturally decide it's the right thing. This must be avoided, by filling the article with snide comments to the effect that it sounds good, but it's all an evil capitalist plot to enslave the poor reader. 218.101.84.152 11:33, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"Smith, unlike today's right-wing libertarians, did not see a business market economy as a good thing (he never used the term capitalism, or laissez faire for that matter), he merely saw it as the least of possible evils- a neccessary evil." He saw his system as described in Wealth of the Nations as the system of natural liberty, not a neccessary evil. The invisible hand is the "laissez faire" doctrine.

"Jean Jacques Rosseau made vicious attacks on private property and aristocracy. His writings are in many ways the predecessor to Socialism. He was also a classical liberal." Although he contributed into a classical liberalism (social contract theory), he was not an classical liberal as I pointed out allready in other post.

" After all, it was Jefferson himself that founded the Democratic party." Jefferson founded the Republican Party, not to be confused with the modern Republican Party. Indeed, the name Democratic-Republican did not come into use until the time of Andrew Jackson. Previously, the party was always known as the Republican party. The anachronistic use of Democratic-Republican for pre-Jacksonian politicians is merely for the sake of convenience, to prevent confusion with the modern Republican party, and does not reflect the actual usage of the time.

"However, that does not negate the influence and tradition of the classical liberal ideology. If you would study the rise of mass movements such as Socialism and Anarchism during the 19th century, and the response of liberals and liberalism to it, you would quickly realize that liberalism was far from some pro-capital, crush-all-labor-uprisings-because-they-threaten-the-free-market ideology." You know then nothing about liberal thinkers like Bastiat, Destutt de Tracy, Jean-Baptiste Say and other French Liberal School and counterparts of the British Manchester School theorists who opposed collectivists of the 19th century.

"Thats what democracy is, and that is what classical liberalism is about." Woodrow Wilson, in Division and Reunion (pg 12), wrote that "The Federal government was not by intention a democratic government. In plan and in structure it had been meant to check the sweep and power of popular majorities..." (27) Professor John D. Hicks in his book on The Federal Union said "Such statements could be multiplied almost at will." Immanuel Kant, among the leading thinkers of the German Enlightenment (a classical liberal), voiced essential criticism against the "democratic" form of state, which is, according to him, "necessarily a despotism" (as distinguished from the "republican" form of state).

"Locke's major emphasis was on democracy, not private property." For John Locke private property was more important than the right to democracy, and that's why he never accepted democracy as aceptable form of govenment.

"he never used the term capitalism, or laissez faire for that matter" Neither did Marx in his critique of capitalism, but that doesn't change the fact that he was anti-capitalist.

Although it is not completely clear who used the word in its current, systemic context first, it was coined and introduced into the economic discourse by Werner Sombart in his 1906 classic, Modern Capitalism. --Stratofortress 18:46, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Problems with this article

In regards to both the NPOV and significant omissions.

First off, whats up with this quote- "These classical liberal thinkers therefore came to call themselves libertarians; and from the United States the term has spread to the rest of the world."

We have already been over this. Classical liberalism refers specifically to the thinkers of the liberal enlightenment of the 17th century. 20th century is not CLASSICAL, so no 20th century thinker can rightly claim the label "classical liberal". The correct term is Neoliberal.

I can't believe this stuff and what follows are really the biggest problems you could come up with. As for the quote above, who cares? Just two sentences earlier, we defined "these classical liberals" as "20th century thinkers who saw themselves as continuing the classical liberal tradition of the previous century." Then the next sentence talks about a different group of modern liberals. What else do you propose to say? "Neoliberals" doesn't work because we are trying to distinguish them from a different group which is also "neo". - Nat Kraus e 15:06, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In addition, it is pure propoganda to claim, It has few commonalities with modern "new" or "welfare" liberalism or socialism. To begin with, Liberalism is not the same thing as Socialism.

a) the sentence says "liberalism or socialism"; b) the very next sentence goes on to explain purportedly idiosyncratic usage of the word socialism by libertarians. - Nat Kraus e 15:06, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Socialism is a specific political tradition that grew out of the radical labor union movements of the 19th century. In addition, there is nothing "new" about "modern welfare" liberalism.

So, it's modern but not new? The article goes so far as to put "new" in scare quotes for you anyway. Regardless of your theories explained below, "new liberalism" is one of the things that political scientists call it, and it's the name of the relevant Wikipedia article. If political scientists called in rhinoceros liberalism, then this article would say "rhinoceros" or "welfare" liberalism. It has nothing to do with this article. - Nat Kraus e 15:06, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It is the same political tradition as inherited from the liberalism of the late 18th and early 19th century. The welfare state was simply an adaptation that liberalism made to changes in the political economy and polity during the early 20th century. It is entirely accurate to say that liberalism was influenced by Socialism in doing this, but they are still entirely distinct ideologies and traditions. It also fails to mention the many, many, MANY areas in which right-wing libertarianism comes out in stark opposition to the tenents, ideals, and views of the classical liberals.

It also leaves gapping holes with regards to classical libertarians. The word libertarian is not exclusive to the right-wing economic views of the United States Libertarian Party, even within the United States. The term was in fact hijacked by the right-wingers. Emma Goldman, the most famous American anarchist, often refered to herself as a libertarian half a century before Friedman, Nolan, et al came along. The simple fact that this article fails to deal with classical liberatianism and still refer to itself as simply "libertarianism" (no modifiers) is reason enough to call foul. Why, must I ask, does "libertarian socialism" relegated to a seperate entry, but "libertarian capitalism" isn't?

This is the separate article. - Nat Kraus e 15:06, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If anything, libertarian socialism is a FAR MORE libertarian ideology than libertarian capitalism and thus should rightly claim the title "libertarian".

That is an irrelevant opinion. - Nat Kraus e 15:06, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

In addition, it fails to mention the serious shortcomings of the Nolan chart,

It says this The validity of the Nolan Chart is disputed by many non-libertarians. Socialists, modern liberals and conservatives often argue that the libertarian definition of "freedom" is flawed or incorrect. In addition, the placement of Communism and Fascism so close together is controversial, and some critics may see this as evidence for their view that the Nolan Chart is overly simplistic. For more information, see main article: Nolan Chart What more do you want? - Nat Kraus e 15:06, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

and makes misleading claims about the Whigs (the Whigs were the party opposed to royal power. Edmund Burke, the father of modern conservatism, was a Whig)

I don't get it. Where does the article say that the Whigs supported royal power? - Nat Kraus e 15:06, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Something needs to be done about this article, but as soon as I tried injecting some truth into it, the right-wingers starting whining and deleted everything. This article cannot stay in this manner and claim to follow the NPOV. It either needs to be 1) made into an entry which is explicitly about right-wing libertarianism

We had already settled on 1. The article begins by saying, that is, the very first line of the article says: This article deals with libertarianism as understood in the United States. For a discussion of the meaning of the term libertarian that is traditional in continental Europe, see libertarian socialism. - Nat Kraus e 15:06, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

or 2) edited to include classical libertarianism, differences with classical liberalism, and deficiencies of the Nolan Chart.

Your choice. I think just changing the title to "Right-wing Libertarianism" would be easiest (there are still a few edits that would need to be made) If we did that, the Libertarian article could just be a page that links to the various pages on different types of libertarians.

-Political Nerd

We've been through this, words change their meaning look at every other encyclopedia/dictionary in the English language, none of them cover libertarian as you want to cover it. Simply because libertarians today are what this article describes as libertarians(hence in this discussion I'm no longer using the term right-wing libertarian or market libertarian)

You're obviously a far left person that doesn't believe libertarians should have a name about freedom. I mean come on, what is this that you're using to defend your reasons " If anything, libertarian socialism is a FAR MORE libertarian ideology" there's no objective way you can argue that, that is your personal ideology. Libertarian socialism gets a separate entry because it's not the major definition of the word.

What you are doing is equivalent to someone trying to hijack the liberal entry and just make it entirely about libertarianism or calling it left-wing liberalism

I also changed the section about socialism and liberalism to give it a source, Hayek made all those connections in The Road To Serfdom. And just re-looking at this book, it was written in 1940(American publication in 1944) and consistently uses the term liberal to describe the beliefs of libertarians today free-markets and limited government(heck, in the forward to the 1994 edition it even has a page about when he uses liberalism it’s not in the twisted sense of the word today which is "almost the opposite meaning of the orginal liberalism term"), might you know when you believe that libertarians took over the term liberal and started using it for themselves? because it's at least before 1940.

Again you completely ignored Nat Krause: where exactly do you think modern libertarianism came from? I don't think it's a poltical idelogy that was invented in the 1960's (btw what liberals described as corporations back in the 18th century are not anything like our corporations today, i think you are again trying to play with definations there)

-chuck

Chuck-

And Hayeck is a right-wing libertarian. He and von Mises were among those that erroneously equated fascism with socialism.

Along with the fascists themselves I guess. Fascism was a marriage of socialism and nationalism. Read the source texts written by those in the Italian and German fascist movements. Ubernetizen 22:05, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

And yes, Libertarian Socialism IS a far more libertarian ideology than libertarian capitalism by any scientific measure, for the simple reason that it opposes ALL authority. See for yourself- http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/analysis2.html

You'll notice this part-

"The usual understanding of anarchism as a left wing ideology does not take into account the neo-liberal "anarchism" championed by the likes of Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and America's Libertarian Party, which couples law of the jungle right-wing economics with liberal positions on most social issues. Often their libertarian impulses stop short of opposition to strong law and order positions, and are more economic in substance (ie no taxes) so they are not as extremely libertarian as they are extremely right wing. On the other hand, the classical libertarian collectivism of anarcho-syndicalism (libertarian socialism) belongs in the bottom left hand corner."

So yea, libertarian socialism is far more libertarian than libertarian capitalism. Thats a fact, its not just my opinion.

My opinion is that someone who claims his blatantly POV opinions are scientific fact should not be surprised when his contributions are edited out of an encyclopedia. - Nat Kraus e 15:44, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I second that, Nat. Ubernetizen 22:06, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Modern right-wing libertarianism originates from the marginalist school of thought during the mid 19th century. Basically the whole purpose of it was to whitewash popular perceptions of Smith, discredit his underlying theory of value and economics, and undermine the rising currents of radical movements in the working class. The mariginalist school was heavily funded by the wealthy corporate aristocracy and was most definetly considered a conservative ideology in its day. It wasn't until the mid-20th century that its ancestors began calling themselves "libertarian".

Again, I'm not playing with any definitions. It is your side that has been doing that since the 1800s. Whatever happened to the "political" in political economy, or to the "polity" in politics? These were all things the classical liberals spoke of, but the conservative reaction to labor radicalism eliminated them from the vocabulary of political discourse.

If you want to know the differences between corporations 200 years ago and today, its simple. Back then, a corporation was kept on a tight leash and chartered for a specific purpose to serve the public interest. One corporation could not own another. Any important decisions were made democratically by the share holders, while today they are made by secret boards. Corporations were also considered an extension of the government- a "republic within a republic" as Hobbes put it. But most importantly, today corporations are legally personified- they are considered to have the legal rights of an individual. In 1800, only a person could be considered a person by the law (though of course, many people weren't considered a person- thats a different topic)

And again, the word libertarian, even today, is not exclusive to the right-wing brand. I know of a guy who regularily runs for city officies and describes himself as a libertarian- he's not a market libertarian though. Just because these libertarians don't have an organized political party officially recognized by the FEC doesn't mean that their ideology is irrelevent, as you seem to think. This article as it stands is a one-sided ideological soapbox. It needs to be changed. If someone doesn't fix it, I will.

"And Hayeck is a right-wing libertarian. He and von Mises were among those that erroneously equated fascism with socialism."

He's pretty much been shown as being right with that belief, The road to serfdom is generally considered to be an accurate book to everyone except the far left, which you seem to obviously be considering all your views on corporations and other such. Also as the article states, ayn rand did not consider herself a libertarian

Moreover, neither Rand nor Milton Friedman are "anarchists" in any sense of the word, contrary to what this website says. - Nat Kraus e 15:44, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I also have heavy issues with your poltical compass link, I read through it and it's obviously a page built on anti-corporation http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/faq.html take a look at #16 there. Plus just out of my own curiosity here: how in the world can someone possibly place on the bottom right corner of that scale? it looks like a scale created just to place libertarians closer to authororian and greens closer to liberty. Plus even the page you linked is full of innaccurcies about the libertarian party and such.

Anyway your such a radical that sees the world thourgh shaded glasses that the only way to compromise is to take this up to higher discussions, my view is simple typical North Americans nowadays see libertarian as what this article says they are(back-ed up by the fact that every other encylopedia/dictonary follows that markert libertarans are libertarians) what you are talking about is anarchy/anarchists. If you change the page we're just going to get in an edit war so I suggest we go to Wikipedia:Requests for comment.(which I've done)

"Modern right-wing libertarianism originates from the marginalist school of thought during the mid 19th century." Modern Libertarianism comes from French Liberal school and British Manchester School, both supported radical liberalism in economic policy: laissez-faire, free trade, government withdrawal from the economy, and an optimistic stress on the "harmonious" effects of free enterprise capitalism.--Stratofortress 10:57, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Seriously...

Do you need to keep calling me "far left", "radical", and trashing the political compass? The political compass is a non-ideological group. http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/faq.html#why In addition, Hayeck is only considered to be right by the right-wing libertarians. Fascism and socialism are VERY different (read the article on Fascism, and don't even think about defacing it with more of your "far-right" ideological crap)

I think that last post of yours only demonstrates your close-mindedness and ideological rigidity. I am not here to trash right-wing libertarians, I am here to make this article neutral and include all libertarian persepctives. The term libertarian is NOT universally understood today to mean right-wing libertarian, so why do you keep insisting that it is.

You guys are clearly intent on shutting down any libertarian perspectives that do not fit your narrow right-wing ideological view, and I am going to take this up with the webmasters if it continues.

I'm not sure which webmasters these are that you are planning on taking things up with. You may wish refer to this. - Nat Kraus e 15:44, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

-Political Nerd

"The term libertarian is NOT universally understood today to mean right-wing libertarian, so why do you keep insisting that it is."

Let me go to google here: "Libertarian socialist": 8700, "libertarian capitalist": 570, "right-wing libertarian": 2,040. In English-speaking countries libertarian = capitalist libertarian to the majority of people. libertarian socialists must add on socialist to differnate themselves, this is why we add a link to libertarian socialist. Every other dictonary-enclyopedia also refers to libertarians as the proper term. when people look up libertarian they are going to be looking up based on the majority opinion of to what libertarianism is; talking about right-wing libertarniasm vs left, will just confuse people and make them wonder why this is the only place they've heard of capatalist libertarianism vs regular.

you want to add in something about previous users of the word or something... okay, but It's unacceptable to change the entire article to replace the world libertarianism with right-wing libertarianism. as libertarian now means right-wing libertarianism.

Check amazon.com : http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/ref=pd_kk_sr_1/103-0962038-5756664?index=blended&field-keywords=libertarianism all thoese books are right-wing, I've looked thourgh several pages of books and failed to see a single-left wing libertarniasm book.

Check google: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=libertarianism&spell=1 (heh even the critique page doesn't refer to it as right-wing libertarnaiasm)

and I think that pretty much sums up my case well here, I'm done and hopefully other people can weigh in on this issue.

-chuck

Agreed, Chuck. Libertarianism, as CURRENTLY understood in the U.S., means something pretty specific. There are fringe groups who have combined the term libertarian with all sorts of modifiers (e.g., "socialist", etc.) but these are not the norm. What GP and PoliticalNerd call "market" or "right-wing" libertarianism is BY FAR the predominant interpretation. The article should reflect this, and a mere mention of and link to these other ideological permutations should be sufficient here.

I am very troubled by the apparent desires of some to put their own personal beliefs about libertarianism, about what it is or isn't, ahead of the overwhelming consensus of (a) public opinion, and (b) all contemporary libertarian theorists/authors of any prominence. Ubernetizen 22:25, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Well, what we are calling "libertarian" here is a modern term referring to an anti-libertarian philosophy. "Libertarian" was long a synonym for "anarchist" and it's still often used in that way. --Tothebarricades.tk 02:06, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Note: Majority does not mean all

I think the results of the google search only confirm what I am saying. There are more then 2,000 examples of "right-wing libertarian" and "libertarian capitalist".

Not that google is the end-all-and-be-all definitive answer, but there are over 200,000 entries for "libertarianism" and over 1,000,000 for "libertarian", so none of these qualified terms in very substantial at all relatively. - Nat Kraus e 15:44, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, that is not as many as libertarian socialist, but that doesn't negate the fact that libertarian has more than one meaning. Just because the right-wing view is currently in the majority does not mean it is the only one, as this page would have you believe.

It's true that it would have you believe that, if you missed the prominent explanation in the first sentence of the article. - Nat Kraus e 15:44, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Again, this is an example of ideological manipulation and distortion of truth by the capitalist "libertarians". They have become quite adept at doing that over the course of the last 150 years, since they first began claiming that wealth can exist without labor- all it takes is "marginal utility".

This is an encyclopedia, and as such, it must include all views and be acedemically accurate and honest. This article as it stands is one-sided and uses misleading defenitions. I am going to edit and clarify it when I have the chance. -political nerd

Don't. Instead put a disambiguation page which links to Libertarianism (Left-wing) and Libertarianism (Right-wing) or whatever the pages will be called. There is no need for either side's exclusive claims to the name to be deemed correct in this case. Slizor 19:21, 2004 Sep 8 (UTC)

PS: Google is Americo-centric. "Libertarianism" is an American ideology. Do I need to spell it out?

Exactly, I agree with Slizor, and that is what I have been trying to say. This page just claims libertarian in the right-wing sense as if all libertarians are that type. It needs to be clear that these are right-wing libertarians it is talking about. It also needs to stop falsely claiming the label of "classical liberal", and needs to include more than just token problems with the Nolan Chart.

-Political Nerd

Libertarian Socialism=Orwellian Newspeak

Nothing could be more inimical to liberty than to expropriate a person's fairly acquired property, including his labor, an extension of the property a person has in himself, or to prevent him from using or exchanging his property as he sees fit, assuming he does so without harming others. No ideology that would steal a person's property or his labor ought to characterize itself as allied with liberty. And as for authority, I would agree, one ought to look upon it with great suspicion, especially the monopoloy power of governments. Corporate monopolies are undesirable, too, but they tend not to last long in open markets. icut4u 02:50, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Just for the record, Orwell was definitely not a libertarian socialist. He was a Marx-influenced state socialist with libertarian inclinations that were constantly in a state of tension with his socialist ideas. And I do not agree that "Libertarian Socialism" is newspeak; it's actually a quite old usage, meaning roughly the same thing as leftwing anarchism. Certainly, in my opinion, it's deeply flawed, but from the encyclopedia's perspective, it's as valid an ideology as any other. - Nat Kraus e 05:47, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nat, my own take on Orwell is that he was primarily concerned about the abuse of power in any economic or political arrangement. He can be forgiven for his naievete on economic theory. His difficulty reminds me of Bertrand Russell's struggles with reconciling liberty and socialism (of course, he detested both Marxism and it's variant, Lenninism). In any case, while I would not quibble with the issue of its longstanding usage, a useful lexicological and historical point, I would still say the meaning of the two concepts remain utterly incompatible, which is very much an aspect of newspeak. I do not disagree that it might have a place in an encyclopedia, but I would respectfully submit that it is not appropriate for this particular article. But it is not important enough for me to carry on about it. icut4u 06:24, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

George Orwell was a Libertarian Socialist

Thats right. He was. Orwell was a leftist. See for yourself- http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/Jorwell.htm http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/libLeftBooks.html

(scroll down)

In addition, you said- "Nothing could be more inimical to liberty than to expropriate a person's fairly acquired property, including his labor". If this is the case, then how can you support the capitalist economic system and be a libertarian? The whole basis of capitalism is that those who control capital expropriate a profit by paying those who labor to create wealth less than the value of their labor. If the laborers were paid the real value of their labor, there would be no profit. Again, this goes back to the marginalist school of thought which negated Smith's claim that labor was the root of all value, and instead claims that the subjective marginal utility to the owner is what creates value. Your above statement about labor actually seems to support Smith's theory, so that would make you at odds with capitalist libertarianism.

And lets be clear about something- Adam Smith was not a capitalist and did not advocate capitalism. He never used the term capitalism in any of his works, though he did refer to the social classes of "labor" and "capital". Smith advocated the abolishment of merchantalism. This was actually the basis of his labor theory of value, because he believed, contrary to the merchantalists, that labor and not gold was the way that economic wealth should be measured. It was the marginalists and right-wing neoliberals, as most exmplified by von Mises, who wanted to go back to the merchantalist belief that gold was relevant to economic value.

In my view, there is nothing libertarian about capitalism. Capitalism is a system based on exploitation of laborers, an entrenched class system, economic dictatorships otherwise known as corporations, and authoritarian relations where the state as controlled by the bosses surpress the working class from resisting the system which holds them down. Now you may disagree, but the fact is that the use of the word libertian to describe the socialist variant is almost a century older than the use of libertarian to describe the capitalist variant.

You right-wing libertarians are only proving how brainwashed and uninformed you are. It does not surprise me, however. It is typical of all right-wingers, regardless of their particular orientation.

Let me ask you something, do you even know what Socialism is, and how it is supposed to be created according to Marx? Do you know what historical materialism or class struggle are?

And no, I am not a socialist. I am more along the lines of Social Democracy to Liberalism than Socialism. BUT AT LEAST I KNOW WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT!! That is alot better than any of the other people that have posted here can say.

-Political Nerd

"The whole basis of capitalism is that those who control capital expropriate a profit by paying those who labor to create wealth less than the value of their labor." Laborers enter into a voluntary contract with their employers - that hardly constitutes an "expropriation" or "exploitation". The fact is that capital (and the successful, productive use of same) is more scarce and thus more valuable than is labor - if it were the other way around, the laborers would be paying the owners of capital a fixed wage and taking home the profits. I could go on, but this is not the place to debate these issues or your confessed contempt for the free marketplace. Suffice it to say that your opinion of yourself as expressed in your last two sentences is a bit on the charitable side, and provides inadequate justification for infusing the article with your POV. Ubernetizen 05:01, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Adam Smith was not a capitalist" Well, that's rich...

"right-wing libertarians are only proving how brainwashed and uninformed you are." "BUT AT LEAST I KNOW WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT!!" You show a real sence of reasoning.

"He never used the term capitalism in any of his works" Neither did Bastiat or any other capitalist, because the term capitalism was coined in 1905, but that doesn\t change the fact they were capitalist economist.

"Let me ask you something, do you even know what Socialism is, and how it is supposed to be created according to Marx?" If you know what socialism is, then you would know that Marx never made such stupid arguments that Smith was not an bourgeois (capitalist) economist.

"That is alot better than any of the other people that have posted here can say." You seem to have a real superiority complex towards other people.--Stratofortress 15:22, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

"In my view, there is nothing libertarian about capitalism. Capitalism is a system based on exploitation of laborers, an entrenched class system, economic dictatorships otherwise known as corporations, and authoritarian relations where the state as controlled by the bosses surpress the working class from resisting the system which holds them down."

If you would know anything about Marx and socialism then their main critique was that liberalism is bourgeois freedom and not for the benefit of the proletarian (if you or I agree on this analasys is another thing) and their critique was directed against liberalism and they didn't make some absurd claims of connecting liberalism with socialism.

"Now you may disagree, but the fact is that the use of the word libertian to describe the socialist variant is almost a century older than the use of libertarian to describe the capitalist variant."

I agree that lable "libertarianism" belongs to libertarian socialist, but arguments like liberalism has any connections with libertarian socialism is wrong.

--Stratofortress 22:22, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ad hominem after ad hominem

I did not say that I subscribed to Orwell's entire weltanschauung, or anyone else's for that matter, though I do agree with his trenchant analysis of statism...I meant only to suggest that his descpritive word "newspeak" characterizes the frequent misuse of the word liberty and its various derivitives. I am quite familiar with Marx's Kapital and his labor theory of value (which is mistaken from the get go). And, I, for one, am no right winger, for unlike right wingers and left wingers, I do not feel compelled to tell others how they ought to order their lives, and I certainly do not want them telling me how to arrange mine. I have no use for ideologues or true believers of any stripe. When they tire of civil argument, they resort to invective, rage, and name calling, some of which has been evident here, and when they have the power, they like to put people who disagree with them in camps. icut4u 04:47, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hello

First off, all the libertarians that have posted here, save me, are right-wingers, so don't try denying that you're not left or right. If you subscribe to Friedman, Hayeck, von Mises, etc... then you are a right-wing libertarian. I happen to believe that the capitalist marketplace is an incredibly authoritarian institution, so I would question how "libertarian" these thinkers really are. That fact is that the term libertarian does not only refer to the right-wing brand.

In addition, it is not me who is injecting political views into this article. As it stands, this article is a one-sided ideological rant on the part of the right-wing libertarians, and completely ignores the libertarians who describe themselves as anti-authoritarian or anarchist. It does not even come close to the NPOV, and completely ignores the gapping holes in many of the claims made, most importantly the Nolan Chart and the horribly erroneous claim that right-wing libertarianism is the same thing as classical liberalism.

You don't have to agree with the views I have expressed regarding capitalism within this discussion thread, but you cannot continue manipulating the content of this article to suit your own ends. The word libertarian is not exclusive to the capitalist brand, and everytime you whitewash this article to remove any information which doesn't fit your views, it only proves how bent you are on the ideological agenda that so many of your stripe are fanatical about. STOP IT!

As I have said upthread, the only valid reason to delete information is because 1) It is false or misleading or 2) It is irrelevant or redudant. None of the information that I have added to this article meets either of these criteria. If you have a rebutal to the facts I added, then by all means add your information in as well, and point out that it is the rebutal to the criticism. But you cannot just go around deleting perfectly valid information because it raises questions about your particular viewpoint.

I am not trying to deny that I am right or left....I am denying it. Moreover, I am not a libertarian. I subcribe to no overarching view of the world that purports to have all of the answers. I do not need a religion. And I would suggest that you have added very few facts to rebutt, so do not flatter yourself. You are intent on convincing people of your POV with quaint phrases from the Marxist playbook of the 60s in an article that is merely supposed to describe libertarianism viz. as the theory is commonly, though perhaps not exclusively, understood. As is the case with most true believers, right or left, you simply cannot stand it when others disagree with you. Deal with it.icut4u 16:11, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"Quaint phrases from the Marxist playbook of the 60s..." Whats that supposed to refer to? Can you point out a specific phrase from me that is from the Marxist playbook of the 1960s? I have quoted Jefferson and Smith. What is so Marxist about that? That sounds more like Liberalism to me than Marxism.

I happen to agree with you that it is a mistake to subscribe to an overarching view of the world that purports to have all the answers. That, in my opinion, is one of the problems with both right-wing libertarianism and Marxism.

Judging from what has been going on here, it is the right-wing libertarians who can't deal with it when others disagree. I have been trying to neutralize this article so that it deals with all libertarian views, but they have continually reversed my changes without any valid reason.

-PoliticalNerd

IMPORTANT: Please read this before making any changes

I have left Libertarianism intact instead of having a seperate article for Market Libertarianism. I hope this makes the right-wing libertarians happy, since they seem to turn into a vicious pack of wolves everytime I change anything.

PLEASE DO NOT DELETE ANYTHING I HAVE ADDED! I have carefully gone through and added information carefully, and maintained a NPOV throughout. There is absolutely nothing in this article that warrants removal. IF YOU WANT TO ADD MORE INFORMATION, THEN BY ALL MEANS DO SO! But please do not delete any of the new information, as I have not deleted anything.

-PoliticalNerd

These amateurish edits are appallingly biased. It is an embarrassment and ought not to be allowed to stand. icut4you is correct: you simply cannot tolerate disagreement and you are obviously contemptuous of anyone who thinks differently, so you call them names. And I have news for you, a good many libertarians do not defend their acceptance of capitalism on utilitarian or economic grounds (what is most efficient), but on moral grounds, and that is because they think it is wrong to take someone else's property. In other words, they are not libertarians because of capitalism, but they accept capitalism because liberty requires it. You really need your own article where you can set forth your own views. Ockham 16:32, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Why is it everything you quote for your arguments is from the political compass? Just because something says it's non-ideological doesn't mean it is, swift boat veterans for truth also say they are a non-ideological non-political group. As I stated before, the poltical compass seems to actually be a bit biased, It is absoulty impossible to be far-right and libertarian on that chart, Michael badnarik is bloody on the borderline between authoritarian and libertarian, not too mention that page seems to have a different interperation of neo-liberal and libertarian then the rest of the world Chuck F 03:33, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Excuse me

Excuse me, but I am not the one engaging in censorship here. Who is it that cannot tolerate other viewpoints?

I challenge you to find specific examples of what is "amateurish" or biased about anything I wrote. Don't delete anything until you can back up your claims with specific examples.

The arguements that have been put forth by opponents of including all libertarian views so far are completely deviod of any substance. The only semi-valid arguement I have seen so far is that libertarian in the United States usually refers to the right-wing form, so the article should only speak about that view. No arguement whatsoever has been put forth about why my additions about classical liberalism and the Nolan Chart should not be included.

Stop censoring this article please.

-Political Nerd.

I have not changed a thing of yours. I would not waste my time trying to convince you of anything. After all, as you point out incessently, you know everything. As for the Marxist playbook stuff that you denied "capitalism is based on exploitation of labor" "entrenched class system" "economic dictatorship otherwise known as corporations," ad nauseum....all similar to the rhetoric of wide-eyed college students in the 60s who fell under the spell of a few authors and professors, but who thought very little. I know, I was one of them, and your rants are very familiar to me. Again, you should simply produce your own article....Political Nerd's Views on Right-winged Libertarianism,--- etc) and leave this one alone.Ockham

PoliticalNerd, your changes are hopelessly POV and much of it simply does not belong in this article (e.g., discussions of labor theory of value and marginal utility, etc). This is not the place to advance your views; go start a blog or as Ockham suggests your own article. Go wild on the Libertarian Socialism entry or whatever, but stop using this article as your personal mouthpiece. Again, if you add something here that is based on published works or factual information (something relevant and substantive), fine, but injecting your own beliefs and your own bias will not do. You cannot hijack this article and turn it into PoliticalNerd's Treatise On Libertarianism. Ubernetizen 19:43, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thats RIGHT-WING libertarianism, Ubernetizen, and I've tried changing this article to include the view of left-wing libertarians, but it was promptly deleted. Then I tried making it a seperate article on Market Libertarianism so that it was not falsely making sole claim to the term "libertarian", but again it was promptly reverted. Then I tried clarifying that there is more than one type of libertarianism, but that this article deals with the right-wing brand, and again it is being reverted. I keep making efforts to further compromise with you guys, but nothing is good enough for you. You will not be satisfied unless the article is a one-way ideological platform for right-wing libertarianism. Also, what gives on the deletions of my additions to the classical liberalism and Nolan Chart sections? -Political Nerd

The word Markert libertarianism doesn't exist besides for people who have tried to con the term to try and newspeak attack present-day libertarians. it'd be as if I started a trend calling modern democracts, commie democracts then changing the the use of the word democracts in the democrats entry to commie democracts. Don't try and change entire defentions of words/create new ones and get rid of the pov plus the stuff that is entirly illrelevant and then your edits will go over better Chuck F 20:04, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

So should I just change "market libertarinaism" to "right-wing libertarianism"? Or to be even more accurate, the correct term is "NeoLiberal". In fact, calling Neoliberals "Libertarians" is newspeak. The trend of calling NeoLiberals "Libertarians" is no different than calling democrats "commie democrats". The only difference is that the Neoliberals were successful at conning their way into people calling them "libertarians", but "commie democrats" was never so successful. -PoliticalNerd

PN, "libertarian" in its present usage means something specific. Your views belong on the Libertarian-Socialist article or on another if you prefer to call it something else. They are fringe. If I approached the communism article the way you have approached this one and started wholesale editing and ranting about "Right-Wing and Left-Wing Communism", I'd be laughed off. We're talking about views that are not in any conceivable sense mainstream; that warrant a mention and a link from this page and no more. As it is, again, you're putting your own personal beliefs about libertarianism, about what it is or isn't, ahead of the overwhelming consensus of (a) public opinion, and (b) all contemporary libertarian theorists/authors of any prominence. Get over yourself. In my opinion your additions concerning the origins and past usage of the term libertarian have some merit, but that's about it. Since your contributions here are highly controversial, I think the proper Wiki-spirited thing to do would be to present proposed changes here for discussion and debate instead of insisting on a revert war. Ubernetizen 20:30, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Whose to judge "mainstream" and "fringe". Noam Chomsky is pretty mainstream in that he is widely read and well known, and he is a libertarian- a classical libertarian. There are plenty of anarchist-libertarian publications and books, they just are underground so you don't often see them in the mainstream media culture. But here's the important thing: I HAVE NOT INSERTED A SINGLE VIEW OF MY OWN INTO THAT ARTICLE. If you can find ONE, just ONE example of me inserting my own view in, then go ahead and quote it here, then delete it. But the article as it stands is totally FACTUAL and NPOV. Just because it doesn't give right-wing libertarianism a free pass to promote its particular variant of libertarianism as the sole truth about libertarians doesn't mean it is wrong. -PoliticalNerd

Here are a few examples where you've inserted views of your own, picked at random. They aren't necessarily the only or even the best examples. Let's start with this one:

Market Libertarianism refers to the capitalist form of libertarianism, and in political science is known as market liberalism, or an extreme form of Neoliberalism. Its adherents may also be described as right-wing libertarians or capitalist libertarians.

This is absolutely false. "Market liberalism" describes an approach to economics; libertarianism on the other hand is a complete ideology. "Neoliberalism" is a term chiefly used by leftists decrying Reaganomics and Thatcherism and does not describe truly laissez-faire markets but rather state intervention in the form of Keynesian policies and a post-Bretton Woods international economic order - libertarians (as commonly understood) advocate markets free of all state intervention, which differentiates them from neoliberalists, "extreme" or otherwise. It doesn't matter what libertarianism "may be" called...this is passive POV.

Well, according to this site (which is completely non-ideological) Neoliberalism describes right-wing economics http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/analysis2.html

Finding a website that agrees with you is not research. Ubernetizen

Take it up with the political compass. I think they know what they are talking about a lot better than either of us since they are experts in the field. Unlike most of the sites you probably read, they have no ideological baggage or agenda. You might also want to read this from their FAQ- http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/faq.html#libandleft

FAQ: You can't be libertarian and left wing

A: This is almost exclusively an American response, overlooking the undoubtedly libertarian tradition of European anarcho-syndicalism. It was, after all, the important French anarchist thinker Proudhon who declared that property is theft.

Sounds like important information for the Anarchism article. Not this one. Ubernetizen

On the other side of the Atlantic, the likes of Emma Goldman were identified as libertarians long before the term was adopted by some economic rightwingers. And what about the libertarian collectives of the mid-late 1800s and 1960s?

What about them? We're in the 21st century. Ubernetizen

Americans like Noam Chomsky can claim the label 'libertarian socialist' with the same validity that Milton Friedman can be considered a 'libertarian capitalist'.

Milton Friedman is commonly referred to simply as a libertarian. There is a reason for that. Chomsky can claim whatever label he wants, but I've never heard him referred to as a libertarian by anyone. Ubernetizen

The assumption that Social Darwinism delivers more social freedom is questionable. The welfare states of, for example, Sweden and The Netherlands, abolished capital punishment decades ago and are at the forefront of progressive legislation for women, gays and ethnic minorities - not to mention anti-censorship. Such established social democracies consistently score highest in the widely respected Freedom House annual survey on civil liberties. Their detailed checklist can be viewed at http://www.worldaudit.org/civillibs.htm . Similar social developments would presumably be envied by genuine libertarians in socially conservative countries - even if their taxes are lower.

Interestingly, many economic libertarians express to us their support for or indifference towards capital punishment; yet the execution of certain citizens is a far stronger assertion of state power than taxation

It might be noted that market libertarianism is not as incredibly libertarian, in the sense of anti-authoritarian, as it is incredibly economically right-wing. Most right-wing libertarians would argue, in opposition to classical left-wing libertarians, that this is only natural since most human societies have some forms of authority. The question for a right-wing libertarian is if one is able to freely choose which authority one submits too.

This is passive POV in "It might be noted" clothing (from the same factory as "It may be argued"). This is YOUR PERSONAL interpretation and it is in no way widely accepted. This entire paragraph is something like a thesis statement and does not belong in an encyclopedia.

Again, this is not POV, this is fact. Left-wing libertarians oppose authority in all its forms, while right-wing libertarians only oppose authority coming from the traditional nation-state. See that same link above- The usual understanding of anarchism as a left wing ideology does not take into account the neo-liberal "anarchism" championed by the likes of Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and America's Libertarian Party, which couples law of the jungle right-wing economics with liberal positions on most social issues. Often their libertarian impulses stop short of opposition to strong law and order positions, and are more economic in substance (ie no taxes) so they are not as extremely libertarian as they are extremely right wing. On the other hand, the classical libertarian collectivism of anarcho-syndicalism (libertarian socialism) belongs in the bottom left hand corner.

So called "Left-wing libertarians" are very careless with the use of the word "authority"...by your rationale they would also reject the authority of nature. But that is neither here nor there. What matters is that you're just offering more POV to support the original statements. Ubernetizen

So I would challenge you to find a non-ideological, objective source which claims that right-wing libertarianism is more libertarian than left-wing libertarianism. We are talking about politics here. Any authority that creates authoritarianism is neccisarily a political authority. Nature is not an authority, by almost any definition of the word. It has no purpose, intentions, goals, or wants to control another individual. Any human authority does.

I think the consensus on this issue is self-evident. Ubernetizen

Unlike the classical liberals, modern libertarians tend to be very pro-business. They generally view the very wealthy as having earned their place, while the classical liberals were often skeptical of the rich, businessmen, and corporations seeing them as aristocrats with desires to tyranize the people ... The modern understanding of private property by libertarians is also much different than the way classical liberals understood it. In the classical times, the right to private property was a means by which farming peasents freed themselves from oppressive feudal landlords, and not to justify very large accumulations of private property in a few hands.

Libertarians are not pro-business per se, but pro-liberty. The above reads like an Op-Ed column chock full of apocryphal declarations, and adding a sprinkling of favorable quotes doesn't excuse it.

Thank you for pointing this out. You are right about this one. I will change that ASAP.

In addition, the Nolan chart fails to account for varying degrees of authoritarianism and libertarianism that are exclusively on the left or right...

All blatant POV. Another thesis statement.

I will fix that one too. - PoliticalNerd

Ubernetizen 00:13, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)