Talk:List of libertarian political parties

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

2004 comments[edit]

Talk about it here, you two. The revert war is simply stupid. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 07:09, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Apparently, no one seems willing to discuss this, they just like having edit wars. I suggest removing protection and simply hoping that tempers have cooled: it's been over two weeks. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:21, Dec 23, 2004 (UTC)

Constitution Party[edit]

Should they be listed under the "libertarians without using the name" section? Harvestdancer 17:34, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not unless our article on them is wildly inaccurate: "…holds that American laws have origin in the Bible. … has a strict approach to moral and personal issues, especially homosexuality and abortion, and seeks to encourage the role of religion in American life." Doesn't sound at all libertarian to me. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:56, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I ask is because the article also says "...It advocates a stricter adherence to what it claims to be the original intent of the United States Constitution and the principles of the U.S. Declaration of Independence...
Members support reducing the role of the United States federal government through major reductions in taxes, regulation and spending. Its leaders are among the strongest advocates of abolishing most forms of federal taxation, especially the income tax. They view most current regular federal expenditures (such as those for healthcare, education, welfare, etc.) as unconstitutional per the Tenth Amendment.
Additionally, they favor a noninterventionist foreign policy. In such, they advocate reduction and eventual elimination of the role the United States plays in multinational and international organizations such as the United Nations and favor withdrawal of the United States from most current treaties. The party takes paleoconservative positions in supporting protectionist policies on international trade. They are steadfastly opposed to illegal immigration and governmental welfare, and they also seek a more restrictive policy on immigration.
The party also generally views the Second Amendment to the Constitution as securing broad rights to own guns."...
Many commentators say they are somewhere between the LP and the GOP in ideology. Paleoconservativism, mentioned as their ideologi, is considered by many the form of conservatism most similar to libertarianism. Harvestdancer 21:29, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Two comments: (1) Anyone who doesn't believe in separation of church and state is no libertarian. (2) You said it yourself: they are paleoconservatives. Yes, that has some views in common with libertarianism, but it's a distinct ideology, with some traditionalist and communitarian aspects that are very alien to libertarianism. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:05, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You convinced me. I just thought the question should be asked.Harvestdancer 17:40, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

List of parties[edit]

The parties you say are libertarian but not in name should be considered for great changes or even deletians. Most of these mentions are classic liberal parties, not libertarian. GANDALF1992 03:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's the difference? RicoRichmond (talk) 19:45, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, the difference is mostly one of degrees. Classical liberals are essentially moderate libertarians; some also identify as "constitutionalists" (at least in the United States or other countries with fairly libertarian constitutions). They typically favor a greater role for the State than more radical libertarians, who are more likely to also identify as "anarchists", "minarchists", "voluntaryists", or "anarcho-capitalists".
As a concrete example, if a party's platform favored the legalization or decriminalization of cannabis, allowing same-sex marriages, sharply reducing government taxes and spending, and ending military conscription, the term "classical liberal" might best describe the party; if it went further and called for the legalization or decriminalization of all banned drugs, eliminating government's role in licensing marriages altogether, making taxation voluntary, and abolishing a standing government military or shifting major defense responsibilities to civilian militias, the party would be better described as "libertarian".
I do think political parties with a classical liberal or moderate libertarian character should be included in the list of libertarian political parties, along with libertarian-socialist parties whose ideologies reflect the more left-anarchist historical roots of the word libertarian. Starchild (talk) 23:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Imperium Europa[edit]

To the best of my knowledge, neither Imperium Europa nor Viva Malta is libertarian. I have removed them. (From what I can tell, they are downright wacko.) Is there a citation on their being, in a any meaningful sense, libertarian? - Jmabel | Talk 05:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exchange between Drew88 and Jmabel[edit]

The following exchange between Drew88 and Jmabel occurred on our respective user talk pages

They claim to be libertarian, and a lot of their views are libertarian in nature. Gun rights, civil rights, drug legalization etc. How exactly are they wacko and how exactly aren't they libertarian? Drew88 10:07, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the just wacko side:

  • You go to their web site and the splash screen looks more like a bad video game than a political party.
  • Imagining that Malta will transform Europe is pretty wacko.
  • "It is at this point that European-Americans, besieged in their redoubts in the North, will perforce ask to join Canada and form a new nation including Alaska. The new state will form part of Greater Europe."

On both "wacko" and not libertarian:

  • For starters, they are explicitly racialist, definitely not a libertarian position. (Also, it seems, implicitly anti-Semitic -- e.g. " Jews, which of their own admission form a distinct racial group, are prone to some 102 inherited diseases", "…who were those traitors in their vast majority? Well; Chambers, Hiss, the Fuchs, the Rosenbergs, the Cohens, the Sobells…" -- similarly emphatically not a libertarian position.)
  • Similarly on "insulated from the alien billions"
  • "enforced by the The Elite"???

On the whole, they (if there really is a "they", not basically one guy with a web site) seem to me to be sort of dime-store Nietzschean. This may have a point or two in common with libertarianism (mainly a focus on the individual) but it is a very different beast. - Jmabel | Talk 18:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"You go to their web site and the splash screen looks more like a bad video game than a political party. "
Obviously, you haven't seen websites of other Maltese political parties, such as: Alpha Party Website. Seriously, check that out. And by the way, the real website of the political party is Viva Malta, which also includes a forum. The Imperium Europa website is basically Norman Lowell's website and not really the party's, as you probably noticed, since there is even a section with his own paintings for sale.
"Imagining that Malta will transform Europe is pretty wacko. "
That was never said. The party is Maltese so obviously they are concentrating primarily on how to change Malta first.
""It is at this point that European-Americans, besieged in their redoubts in the North, will perforce ask to join Canada and form a new nation including Alaska. The new state will form part of Greater Europe."
I don't know what so wacko about this.
"For starters, they are explicitly racialist, definitely not a libertarian position."
The idea is to unite all native Europeans, yes. But in Malta, the political ideology would be primarily libertarian:
How are the above not libertarian positions? You can't just take one aspect (the Pan-europeanism aspect, and say they're not libertarian simply because they're racialist.
Drew88 09:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying; your explanation makes sense to me. These parties may have some libertarian positions, but if they are advocating for a "racially pure" Europe in which freedom of movement, specifically the migration of non-indigenous Europeans is restricted, that is a strongly anti-libertarian position on a major public policy issue that in practice arguably tends to make a group more conservative than libertarian. Starchild (talk) 23:29, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would add that "free access to IVF (in-vitro fertilization)" is not a libertarian position either, if "free" in this context means taxpayer-subsidized and not simply legal.
Supporting government subsidies of test-tube babies (as an alternative to adopting children, perhaps of other ethnicities) is the kind of stance I would expect from a right-wing racialist party. The Nazis also supported state subsidies to encourage reproduction by ethnic Germans of non-Jewish ancestry. Starchild (talk) 23:36, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sure you can. One of the premises of Libertarianism is that all people have equal rights. A racialist party is inherently not libertarian. I am by no means a libertarian, but I do share a common tradition with them in the principles of the Enlightenment. It is very obvious that this party does not.

The Alpha Liberal Party site looks perfectly normal except for some slightly unusual wallpaper.

As for Malta transforming Europe: the following is verbatim from their site: "Our aim is that Malta, this Sacred Island of Melita, this land of honey, will be the first liberated nation in the whole, White World - liberated from the enemy within and the enemy without. Malta, at the southernmost tip of Europe, could ignite a flame that would set Europe ablaze."

Since Norman Lowell's name is all over the Viva Malta site, the other's being his personally would still reflect heavily on the party. And there is nothing on their site that is inconsistent with the Imperium Europa site: just toned down.

It is obvious that I am not going to convince you, and you are not going to convince me, so I have no interest in discussing this further. - Jmabel | Talk 16:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"A racialist party is inherently not libertarian"

That's like saying that a racist is inherently a Nazi. To be fair, you're kinda right, racialism and libertarianism are somewhat contrasting ideas, but that doesn't necessarily mean that a party cannot advocate ideologies from both. Let's end this here. Drew88 19:34, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Italian Radicals[edit]

I changed the description of Italian Radicals from left-libertarian to moderate-libertarian. Another user correctly added that presently they are members of the centre-left coalition and reverted the label to left-libertarian. I added that, while being presently allied with Romano Prodi, until recently they were allied with Silvio Berlusconi. This fact alone seems to me enough to support the view that they are not left-libertarian, it would be quite difficult to imagine how a left-libertarian party could ever ally with a coalition of Christian right-wing parties, among which a preminent role is given to the former Neo-Fascist party AN.

The stance of this little party in the last few years has been:

  • Strongly in favour of the USA and especially George W. Bush.
  • Strongly in favour of privatization and laissez-faire policies.
  • Strongly against leftist social demands and virtuallly always on the opposite side than the unions and Social Democrat or Communist parties.

They even published on important daily papers an appeal, specifically aimed at entrepreneurs, for financial support.

I know that Marco Pannella and his followers have been for a long time considered a weird fringe of the left wing, but it's quite obvious to everybody in Italy that the situation changed. They are a moderate party with a liberal flavour on issues like drug consumption, Church-state relationship etc. This hardly make them leftists, though I'm conscious that there's no clear definition about what the so-called "left wing" is. --MauroVan 11:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the Italian Radicals to left-libertarian for three reasons:
  1. to distinguish them from other classical libertarian parties, which espouse Nozickean, minarchist ideals. I think we can all agree that the Italian Radicals are different from these parties.
  2. to distinguish them from the other party listed as 'moderate libertarian', I think we can all agree that they differ from the Independence Party of Minnesota.
  3. because they are left-libertarian. For several reasons: they are currently a member of the leftwing alliance l' Unione; they are closely allied to the Italian Democratic Socialists in Rosa nel Pugno, which mentioned ; they opposed the War in Iraq (I don't understand how they can be called supportive of Bush' policies); Emma Bonino one of the party's faces has led campaigns against nuclear energy and for the eradication of world hunger; their current page on wikipedia calls the party "left-libertarian", "anarchist" and "social-liberal" amongst other things.
Note that they were allied with Berlusconi between 1994 and 1996 only, but in both elections they campaigned separately. Their application to the House of Liberties was rejected in 2005
Enough reasons to class it as left-libertarian here.
C mon 13:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I like to talk like this. Not all users here are rabid flamers when somebody disagrees with them! Fine.
  1. They are extreme laissez-faire libertarian. I dare tell that they are the most laissez-faire party in Italy. I don't know how I can find a proof of this in English, if you can read Italian just go to their site. In the front page today you can find a proposal to abolish compulsory retirement (!), a proposal to allow a new business to be started in 7 days almost without any state control, a proposal for more privatization in the telecommunication services industry, an appeal to the center-left government not to accept any pressure from the trade unions etc.
  2. I don't know much of the Independence Party of Minnesota, what I read on the WP article makes it look very similar to the Italian Radicals, especially this definition fits very well with them too: "fiscally conservative and socially liberal" (Jesse Ventura). I'm afraid you got confused between the Italian Radicals and the Italian Left-Wing Radicals, the latter being a split from the former: the reason of the split was exactly the departure of the mainstream Radicals from the previous sort-of-leftist attitude they had.
  3. The center-left alliance is made of many different groups, among them a lot of centrist parties and many former center-right politicians. In Italy it's quite usual for politicians in the middle of the political spectrum to be very opportunist and change their uniform very often (yesterday Berlusconi declared that 20 MPs are about to defect to the opposition, and simultaneously the opposite is happening to other MPs). The Italian Socialists the Radicals are merging with are very different from other Socialists, since the Eighties they gradually turned into secular laissez-faire centrists, you can hardly define them a part of the Italian left wing. They did not oppose the war in Iraq and they are pro-Israel hardliners (once more, check their website, you can notice that even if you don't read Italian! Israeli flags are everywhere, they even propose that Israel become a member of the European Union etc.). They talk about the need for "the United States of Europe and America" and they demand "an American reform of Italy".
Therefore, I think we should call them "moderate-libertarian". --MauroVan 15:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Could you settle for "moderate left-libertarian"? C mon 22:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BTW: In response to your points, I'll grant you their libertarian and liberalista (in favour of free trade); according to the current wikipedia article they opposed the war in Iraq; as I understand the English version of their statement, they favour peace in the middle east (who wouldn't?) and also support the inclusion of Turkey in the EU; Rosa nel Pugno claims to be inspired by Blair, Zapatero and Fortuna, all (moderately) leftwing politicians.

Can I just say that as an American (and a leftist) that MauroVan's examples of "extreme laissez-faire libertarian" are pretty amusing from this side of the Atlantic? We don't have compulsory retirement, you can pretty much start a new business in about 30 seconds without bothering to tell the government (although it's different when you start actually hiring) and if our telecommunication services industry were much more privatized or our trade unions any weaker, the former wouldn't need licenses and the latter wouldn't exist. - Jmabel | Talk 20:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:-) That's exactly what I meant. Demanding American-like policies in Europe is considered rightist. --MauroVan 11:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As an American myself, I would say that presents an unduly rosy picture (from a libertarian point of view) of policies in the United States.
Compulsory taxation to finance retirement is mandatory for most workers in the U.S. via Social Security; to even work legally in many occupations (e.g. realtor, cosmetologist, lawyer, accountant, engineer, etc.), never mind start a business that employs others, requires mandatory training and licensing that are often time-consuming and expensive, regardless of the requisite skills a person may possess. Many workers are compelled to join unions or pay dues to them as a condition of working, even if they do not support the unions. And the telecommunications industry is regulated to the degree that I understand cell phone service is more expensive than in most other parts of the world.
I believe that opposing such state regulations and mandates is accurately described as libertarian, not right-wing. While many grassroots conservatives favor lower taxes and less regulation in a broad, vague sense, this is often more about opposing how they perceive the left as using these things to advance a particular agenda. Right-wing parties generally have no fundamental philosophical objection to a "managed economy", as long it serves what they perceive to be the "national interest" and reflects what they see as correct moral or cultural values. Starchild (talk) 23:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The burden of evidence[edit]

WP:BURDEN is clear, it's up to the editor adding content to provide sources. No links to a Google search, no assertions that because there are other unsourced entries they get to add one of their own. No reliable source = no addition. WP:ABOUTSELF doesn't allow self-serving claims to be made by UKIP either. 2 lines of K303 21:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see we now have this which is only a quote by UKIP MEP Roger Helmer, who isn't an independent source obviously, and worse still "Alexandra typifies the new wave of young, bright, focused young people who believe in freedom, democracy and a Libertarian approach" doesn't even source that UKIP are themselves libertarian. 2 lines of K303 21:42, 31 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request[edit]

Please remove the disputed and incorrect addition made in this edit. Per above, the source doesn't even say the party are Libertarian, only that a party member (not even an elected politician) is described by another party member as "Alexandra typifies the new wave of young, bright, focused young people who believe in freedom, democracy and a Libertarian approach". That is not calling the party Libertarian by any stretch of the imagination. 2 lines of K303 09:56, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

UKIP are a Libertarian party as described on their website, why are you on a mission to try to make it seem like they are not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JasonnF (talk • contribs) 21:34, 1 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please make yourself familiar with Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view and based on reliable, i.e. independent third-party sources. If UKIP claims to be a libertarian party, that does not make it one, according to Wikipedia's principles. It would only to be considered one, if independent, reliable (preferrably scholarly) sources agreed with this classification. Even though several editors have tried to link UKIP with libertarianism (you could say that some of them were "on a mission" to do so), no one has been able to cite a reliable independent source verifying this description. User:One Night In Hackney is right to undo edits that link UKIP with libertarianism unless the necessary reliable sources have been presented. --RJFF (talk) 11:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. It isn't "List of political parties that claim to be libertarian". 2 lines of K303 13:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, this list article is WP:Original research from A to Z as it does not cite any sources. Perhaps it should be deleted altogether, to avoid further conflicts over unverifiable information. --RJFF (talk) 12:25, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's one way. Or people could stop gaming the system by claiming the existence of unsourced information gives them the right to add more. 2 lines of K303 13:53, 3 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leading paragraph[edit]

"...not all of the support all elements of the libertarian agenda." THE libertarian agenda? Come on, there's no single libertarian agenda, that's why they don't all support "it." I believe this should be changed, maybe by vote (or would that be against "the libertarian agenda"?!) Epigrammed (talk) 19:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation for revert[edit]

One source (BBC News) reports a statement of a UKIP representative who identifies the party as libertarian, not the view of the source's author (not NPOV). The second source (Searchlight Magazine) says that UKIP leader Farage "has tried to recast UKIP’s ‘independence’ as (...being...) about a broader libertarian conception (...)" However, it does not classify UKIP as a libertarian party, but as a "right-wing populist eurosceptic" one. --RJFF (talk) 10:56, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

None of the other parties on here have sources, I suggest you delete the whole article if you won't accept UKIP. JasonnF (talk) 20:24, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The classification of the other parties is obviously not as controversial as UKIP's. But, yes, I think it's a problem, and I have already tagged the article as possible WP:Original research. But I advise you to read WP:BURDEN. If you are the one who wants to add UKIP (and UKIP's listing is challenged), you have to provide the (adequate) sources. --RJFF (talk) 20:32, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
UKIP were on here until you removed them, your reasoning for removing them should be applied to the whole article shouldn't it?JasonnF (talk) 22:01, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I have already told you: UKIP's classification as libertarian is dubious, therefore reliable sources are required, the other parties' is not, so there is no problem. As soon as someone doubts the veracity or verifiability of a fact, the one who wants to keep it, has to provide the references. If no one doubts an unsourced statement, nothing happens. --RJFF (talk) 06:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The new source added by User:JasonnF again only reflects UKIP's self-identification, but does not verify it. "Nigel Farage promoted the party as a libertarian band of bureaucracy-busters" Farage promoted them as being libertarian. That is not new. But still no analyst or researcher outside the party agrees that they actually are. --RJFF (talk) 10:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Brand of libertarianism[edit]

Lead needs to make clear that this list and the "agenda" mentioned pertains to right-wing/neoliberal/propertarian/whatever-you-wish-to-call-it libertarianism, and not the traditional, anti-capitalist kind. --Finx (talk) 18:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think most of us simply call it "libertarianism". While I recognize the anti-capitalist roots of the word "libertarian", that historical legacy is increasingly out of step with the contemporary meaning and usage of the word, which is perhaps best understood by a quick look at the Nolan Chart.
Wikipedia needs to get with the times and update its relevant pages to reflect how the term is most commonly used today. Starchild (talk) 00:07, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unlike libertarians and classical liberals, neoliberals support using large, governmental, and even international institutions to forward their agenda.  Such institutions include the U. N., N. A. T. O., the World Bank, the I. M. F., the W. T. O., the Federal Reserve Bank, &c.  Libertarians, like classical liberals, are sceptical that these things will aid in the production of peace and prosperity; rather, libertarians and classical liberals prefer a decentralised approach that includes radical trade liberalisation.

Unlike libertarians and classical liberals, right-wingers are collectivists who love the state.  One unambiguously right-wing party, the Fascist Party, categorically rejected the individualism of libertarians and classical liberals, claiming that the individual has no inherent worth, and only possesses worth insofar as she or he is an asset for the glory of the state.  And, although I know some might regard this a controversial claim on my part, I would also argue that the likes of Joseph Stalin and Pol Pot were also right-wing.  Libertarians thoroughly reject the trappings of the right-wing, whether they be militarism, homophobia, racism, censorship, sexism, collusion of church and state, corporatism, protectionism, chauvinism.

Libertarians are indeed propertarians, but even the "traditional, anti-capitalist kind" of libertarian were propertarians.  In 1888, Benjamin Tucker (e.g.) wrote an essay titled "State Socialism and Anarchism: How Far They Agree, and Wherein They Differ" in which he distinguishes two types of "socialism," the one being dictatorial and the other being libertarian.  And, yet, in defending this libertarian form of so-called "socialism," he clearly and unambiguously advocated free-market anarchism.  Here's one of the paragraphs from said essay:

The development of the economic programme which consists in the destruction of these monopolies and the substitution for them of the freest competition led its authors to a perception of the fact that all their thought rested upon a very fundamental principle, the freedom of the individual, his right of sovereignty over himself, his products, and his affairs, and of rebellion against the dictation of external authority.  Just as the idea of taking capital away from individuals and giving it to the government started Marx in a path which ends in making the government everything and the individual nothing, so the idea of taking capital away from government-protected monopolies and putting it within easy reach of all individuals started Warren and Proudhon in a path which ends in making the individual everything and the government nothing.  If the individual has a right to govern himself, all external government is tyranny.  Hence the necessity of abolishing the State.  This was the logical conclusion to which Warren and Proudhon were forced, and it became the fundamental article of their political philosophy.  It is the doctrine which Proudhon named An-archism, a word derived from the Greek, and meaning, not necessarily absence of order as is generally supposed, but absence of rule.  The Anarchists are simply unterrified Jeffersonian Democrats.  They believe that "the best government is that which governs least," and that that which governs least is no government at all.  Even the simple police function of protecting person and property they deny to governments supported by compulsory taxation.  Protection they look upon as a thing to be secured, as long as it is necessary, by voluntary association and coöperation for self-defence, or as a commodity to be purchased, like any other commodity, of those who offer the best article at the lowest price.  In their view it is in itself an invasion of the individual to compel him to pay for or suffer a protection against invasion that he has not asked for and does not desire.  And they further claim that protection will become a drug in the market, after poverty and consequently crime have disappeared through the realization of their economic programme.  Compulsory taxation is to them the life-principle of all the monopolies, and passive, but organized, resistance to the tax-collector they contemplate, when the proper time comes, as one of the most effective methods of accomplishing their purposes.  (Emphases added.)

Tucker lambasts the state socialists for believing that "[a]ll freedom of trade must disappear", that "[c]ompetition must be utterly wiped out," and that "[a]ll industrial and commercial activity must be centered in one vast, enormous, all-inclusive monopoly."  Of the state socialist programme, he writes, "Individuals not being allowed to own capital, no one can employ another, or even himself.  Every man will be a wage-receiver, and the State the only wage-payer.  He who will not work for the State must starve, or, more likely, go to prison."  This prospect horrified libertarians.

For these and other reasons Proudhon and Warren found themselves unable to sanction any such plan as the seizure of capital by society.  But, though opposed to socializing the ownership of capital, they aimed nevertheless to socialize its effects by making its use beneficial to all instead of a means of impoverishing the many to enrich the few.  And when the light burst in upon them, they saw that this could be done by subjecting capital to the natural law of competition, thus bringing the price of its own use down to cost,—that is, to nothing beyond the expenses incidental to handling and transferring it.  So they raised the banner of Absolute Free Trade; free trade at home, as well as with foreign countries; the logical carrying -out of the Manchester doctrine; laissez-faire the universal rule.  Under this banner they began their fight upon monopolies, whether the all-inclusive monopoly of the State Socialists, or the various class monopolies that now prevail.  (Emphases added.)

Although Tucker called himself a socialist, there is almost nothing here with which modern anarcho-"capitalists" would disagree, and the few disagreements that do exist are either rhetorical or a result of the modern libertarian's more-developed understanding of value and interest; in either case, the disagreements are not significant.  (Although the interest rate may very well drop in a libertarian society, Tucker seems to think that competition will "reduce the price of lending money to the labor cost"; modern libertarians, taking into account the time-preference theory of interest, tend to think it won't drop as far as Tucker anticipates.  But, what difference does that make?  None.  The modern libertarian agrees with Tucker that what he calls the "money monopoly" needs to be abolished, so a minor disagreement about the result is inconsequential.  Tucker also predicts that abolition of the money monopoly will allow labour to "be in a position to dictate its wages, and will thus secure its natural wage, its entire product."  Although wage rates may very well increase in a libertarian society, it's unlikely that it will rise to the amount of the entire product.  Back when libertarians thought that the labour theory of value was correct, they thought labourers were being robbed of their rightful property whenever they did not retain the full value "intrinsic" in their product, but whence they accepted the subjective theory of value, their emphasis shifted and they stopped talking about the full product of labour.  But, again, they never ceased opposing the "money monopoly"; all that changed in this regard was their perception of the results of ascending into a libertarian society.  (Tucker also talks of a "tariff monopoly" and a "patent monopoly," both of which modern libertarians still wish to see abolished, and of a "land monopoly," about which the modern libertarian stance is slightly different from Tucker's but not altogether foreign.))

It may be interesting to note that, in light of Tucker calling himself a socialist despite being a market anarchist and thus a libertarian, some modern libertarians (e.g., Brad Spangler) have actually taken to reviving the tradition of calling themselves socialists.  Spangler, for example, even writes,

I[t] is my contention that Rothbardian anarcho-capitalism is misnamed because it is actually a variety of socialism, in that it offers an alternative understanding of existing capitalism (or any other variety of statism) as systematic theft from the lower classes and envisions a more just society without that oppression.  Rather than depending upon the the labor theory of value to understand this systematic theft, Rothbardian market anarchism utilizes natural law theory and Lockean principles of property and self-ownership taken to their logical extreme as an alternative framework for understanding and combating oppression.

I'll say it - although his cultural roots in the Old Right would, if he were still alive, admittedly cause him fits to be characterized as such, Murray Rothbard was a visionary socialist.  …

In conclusion, lack of adherence to the labor theory of value does not mean Rothbardian market anarchists are not socialist.  The labor theory of value served as an attempted illumination of the systematic theft the lower classes have always suffered from under statism.  Rothbard's natural law theory and radically anti-state version of Lockean property rights theory serves the same role.

While not many libertarians have taken to referring, as Spangler does, to market anarchism as "a new variety of socialism - a stigmergic socialism" (emphasis in original), this example nevertheless does help to illustrate that the trending rhetorical differences between nineteenth and twenty-first century libertarians is really mainly just that: rhetorical.  Believing in property rights is nothing new to libertarianism.

Respectfully yours,
allixpeeke (talk) 06:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Greek parties[edit]

I will be removing the Greek party Drasi from the list as a) there is no source to back up its listing b) the party is centrist-liberal, not libertarian c) the party in no way self-identifies as libertarian. Druworos (talk) 14:46, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of a Libertarian party[edit]

I wanted to ask people on the watchlist of this page whether we should add a one paragraph explanation on what are the main principles that parties have to espouse to be considered libertarian. I know that the first sentence of this article states that hereafter not all parties espouse all of the elements of libertarianism but still I think that we should state what agendas these parties must follow to be on this list, such as freedom of speech, movement of people, legalization of drugs, privatization of education/ health sector, etc.

I asking this since I am not sure whether we should include parties with an anti-immigration, immigrant "integration" policies and that want to create sovereign wealth funds from shale gas tax receipts.

Costa Rican ML[edit]

The Libertarian Movement (Costa Rica) does not even claim to be a libertarian party (except in its name). In its current statutes, it describes itself as a centrist liberal party([1]). From outside observers it has however been noted that the party has recently taken a turn to social conservatism, influenced by defectors from the Social Christian Unity Party, who have influenced the party's platform into a "social-Christian" direction.([2], [3]) For example, the ML has now —contrary to its earlier libertarian stances—rejected the right of homosexual couples to marry ([4]) No one would still describe the party is libertarian, it is "libertarian" in name only. --RJFF (talk) 10:23, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Still, I think they ought to be mentioned somewhere on the page. The notes could describe them as "formerly considered libertarian, now supporting Christian conservatism" or something like that if the sources (such as those cited above) support that description. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:49, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not keen on it's inclusion.  The only way they should be mentioned is if they appeared in a separate ==Formerly-libertarian parties== section.  allixpeeke (talk) 06:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

German article[edit]

Hi, I want to create a corresponding German list. (de:Liste libertärer Parteien, see e.g.) -- Cheers, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 15:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Um, go for it?  allixpeeke (talk) 06:48, 21 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of libertarian political parties. 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) 04:22, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_libertarian_political_parties&oldid=1208257044"