Talk:Libertarian socialism

Oxymoron

Libertarian Socialist is an oxymoron, two words which seem opposite but make since in a certain context, like Jumbo Shrimp, for example. Most people confuse socialism with Marxist-Leninism, which is not an authentic form of socialism because it does not allow for democratic control of the means of production or egalitarianism. Most people also confuse libertarianism with objectivism and out of context reconstructed classic liberalism, neither of which are libertarian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.77.229.128 (talk) 01:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC) I don't think so Tim. LamontCranston (talk) 23:10, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. Libertarian socialism is a widely accepted term for a doctrine. And Marxist-Leninists do think that their poliatical theory do allow for democratic control of the means of production and egalitarianism. --83.253.13.76 (talk) 06:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't bother trying to change anything here. The whole place is heaving with leftists trying to trade off of the positive cachet associated with the term "libertarianism". There is no libertarianism in socialism because as Friedman always noted, you have to force people to give up their property.

Then the socialists just run off into the high grass of the Church of Latter-Day Morons and babble about "psychological repression of true class interests" etc.

Ie, we're all crazy!

Fact is it is obviously an oxymoron but a lot of "intellectuals" paid out of the public purse have careers tied up in this vacuous waste of time.

x

Jstriker (talk) 01:28, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Erm, what Friedman didnt note is that the property which marxists leninists take by force was actually created by force in the first place. And who is forced to give up their property? A very small elite which by the very action of them owning property, deny it from the vast majority. Thats important to realise if you are trying to criticise the methods of an ideology. ValenShephard 13:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs)

Not only is "Libertarian Socialism" ridiculously oxymoronic, but, the "group of political philosophies" in question appears to have virtually nothing in common with Libertarianism or Socialism. Indeed, the article's definition of Libertarian Socialism appears to be founded upon a deliberate and conscious opposition to Socialism and Libertarianism. Whoever came up with this ideological label should be shipped off to Siberia for an exercise in "counting trees". BlueRobe (talk) 10:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

BlueRobe & Jstriker: before editting the talk page, please review its headers. This matter has been discussed EXTENSIVELY. Regardless of what contempt you may hold for the idea of Libertarian Socialism, both the sources contained within the article and the community have deemed the label appropriate.

Dear anonymous, "the community" can be wrong. Especially when it has been hijacked by ideologues. Regardless of what "the community" says, and regardless of how I feel about the political philosophies that fall under that heading, the label of "Libertarian Socialism" is utterly absurd in a variety of ways, (see my comment above). It's almost like the name "Libertarian Socialism" was chosen as philosophy's version of Andy Warhol's Campbell's Soup Cans (read: someone was taking the piss). BlueRobe (talk) 11:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Just because some of the editors here cannot grasp that socialism is a much wider ideology than simply Soviet authoritarianism or Stalinism, doesn't mean there is a problem with the label of Libertarian Socialism. You are arguing against one type of socialism, which is not very popular among even most socialists, who are often amongst the most passionate critics of the Soviet Union and Stalin's policies, for example. Libertarian Socialism is perfectly apt. It is socialism with an emphasis on personal freedom. This is easily possible because deep down in its roots, socialism is a mass movement i.e. by definition it is a democratic movement. ValenShephard (talk) 01:04, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Socialism is the antithesis of "personal freedom". Socialism is all about control. The only way that revisionist philosopher's have been able to thread "liberty" into their spin on Socialism is using Isaiah Berlin's concept of "Positive Liberty", which has little in common with real freedom, (read: Negative Liberty). And I have no idea why you think liberty goes hand-in-hand with Democracy. The history of the last two centuries is dominated by Democratically-elected governments, and the will of the majority/plurality, coercing individuals and minority groups for their own vested interests. Face it, the label of "Libertarian Socialism" is little more than an example of Orwellian Newspeak designed to fool unsuspecting political newbies.

Ironically, I am very partial to "Libertarian Socialism". However, only a complete fool would fail to recognise how utterly inappropriate that label is for the philosophy is represents - it attacks the core values of Libertarianism and Socialism. BlueRobe (talk) 06:59, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I have noticed libertarian socialist is more prevalent in the libertarian articles, than socialist. in 2 of the talk pages it is suggested the name be reversed, to socialist libertarian. since so many other terms are considered synonymous, why not change the title to anarchist socialist, or libertarian Marxist, or left-libertarian?

The reason that references to Libertarian Socialism are more prevalent in the Libertarian articles is that those articles have been hijacked by left-wingers who insist in misusing the label "Libertarian" as some sort of synonym for Anarchism. Welcome to the Orwellian Doublespeak that is Wikipaedia.

After a few weeks of witnessing the behind-the-scenes ideologically-driven revisionism at work in every article that is even remotely political, I completely understand why references to Wikipaedia are prohibited in every respectable educational institute. BlueRobe (talk) 15:13, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

This is not a forum, and do not make any bad faith accusations against other editors. Libertarian socialism is a part of life which you will have to deal with. ValenShephard (talk) 17:03, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Wow. There's a lot of ignorant soapboxing in this talk page section. BigK HeX (talk) 10:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

If people want to write about what libertarianism means to them then there are plenty of websites where they do that. If they want to redefine libertarianism in the literature, then they should switch their majors from computer science to political science and write articles for political science journals. TFD (talk) 17:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The funny thing is, some editors have no actual evidence or sources that socialism is incompatible with libertarianism except "Them communists in Russia was evil!" ValenShephard (talk) 17:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

if you mean the Proudhon libertaire' of the french communist variety, correct. if you mean the modern widely accepted libertarianism which has several hundred thousand voting members in the usa alone, then maybe i could make a few points to the contrary, of which do you speak? Darkstar1st (talk) 18:32, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Well of course, the part of the more 'commom' libertarianism that favours private property is incompatible, but I think most of their views on freedom of speech, conception of the individual etc are compatible. ValenShephard (talk) 18:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Darn, you took out the elegant part, ignore the next 2 sentence. thank you! my 1st encounter with civility on this topic, noted and appreciated. before i returned to editing this article, Joseph Déjacque, a french communist, was incorrectly credited with coining the term libertarian in his letter to Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon. in short, proudhon was all for liberty, unless you meant women. ergo, ""libéral et non LIBERTAIRE", or "liberal but not LIBERTARIAN." Déjacque was noting that while Proudhon was a liberal in that he was an opponent of conservatism and on the Left-wing of the political spectrum, his support of social and cultural oppression of women meant that he was not a true friend of freedom. Later, when government censorship banned anarchist works, libertarian became a common euphemism for anarchism. Even today, the term libertarian in Europe is commonly synonymous with anarchist unless the debate has been influenced by American usage of the word. http://freedomdemocrats.org/node/3823. so as history has obliterated the European practitioners of dejacques variety, and replaced it with the modern majority understanding, which was hatched in the 70's usa, the historical use of the term is relevant, but not to the point of displacing the modern understanding by the most people. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkstar1st (talk • contribs) 19:01, 21 August 2010

In other words you believe that libertarians should promote an activist state that restricts the freedom of individuals to enter into traditional marriage contracts. TFD (talk) 03:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

uh, where did you get that idea? all libertarians i know could care less who marries what, thus what you and others consider "left". but libertarians consider "anti-authoritarian". ". If the Socialism is Authoritarian; if there are Governments armed with economic power as they are now with political power; if, in a word, we are to have Industrial Tyrannies, then the last state of man will be worse than the first. At present, in consequence of the existence of private property, a great many people are enabled to develop a certain very limited amount of Individualism. They are either under no necessity to work for their living, or are enabled to choose the sphere of activity that is really congenial to them, and gives them pleasure. These are the poets, the philosophers, the men of science, the men of culture - in a word, the real men, the men who have realised themselves, and in whom all Humanity gains a partial realization.", Oscar Wilde Darkstar1st (talk) 07:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum. Please stick to discussing specific improvements to the article, backed by reliable sources. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 07:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

my effort is the same as many others in this talk page, please review. to change the name of the article to it's correct title. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:40, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

If that's your goal, then you need to go change the Wikipedia policies on reliable sources and verifiability, because the reason we have the current title is that "Libertarian socialism" what the reliable sources cited here call this set of political ideas. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 08:55, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

no, actually there is much debate on this very talk page about those sources, and others, and weight/reliability. please review, then return to comment should you object to the arguments made for changing the title. Darkstar1st (talk) 09:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The debate to change the name of this article has been going on for a long time yes, but only because people who want to change the name cannot actually find any sources to back themselves up. According to reliable sources, this ideology exists and it is referred to as Libertarian Socialism. Pretty simple really. ValenShephard (talk) 18:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing oxymoronic really about the term libertarian socialism. The problem that some of you think so dates back to the 70´s when free market cultists were too lazy to make up a name for their new cult so they hijacked a word instead. I think the problem also lies in the word socialism. The word does not imply authoritarian leadership itself. Communism conceptually does, but socialism does not. This is all about the words and their meaninigs, not the concepts built up around them. Grindsprint 21:25, 23 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Grindsprint (talk • contribs)

Article Disorganization

I think the article could use better organization. For example the Libertarian_socialism#Notable_libertarian_socialist_tendencies section should be reorganized using a set criteria; right now it seems random and overly emphasizing Mutualism and Proudhon. As well the Libertarian_socialism#Libertarian_socialist_periodicals should possibly exist as a separate article since it has grown to a monstrous size.

I think the article as a whole should be rationalized, ie. reduced in size, with the extraneous content moved to sub-topical articles of libertarian socialism eg. anarchist communism, anarchist collectivism, anarcho-syndicalism, mutualism, etc etc. That would better reflect the diversity in libertarian socialist thoughts.

Please let me know what you think. Maybe I'm being too harsh... Tony Kao (talk) 22:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

No I do not think that you are necessarily being too harsh. Nevertheless I do not think that reduction in size is necessarily the answer- the real answer is the same as always, to come up with a cogent representation of what libertarian socialism has been historically, its philosophy, its contemporary manifestations and momentum, and its theoretical possibilities. While I agree that that the largely historical mutualist/Proudhon viewpoint is over-represented, I think the new left and associated modern movements require more expansion. Libertarian socialism is supposed to be opposition to illegitimate authority without limits- not only in the spheres of politics and economy but also opposition to illegitimate hierarchy in kinship relations and in race (culture) relations for example- even in a utopian society libertarian socialism is presumed to supply a vital critical and progressive element.BernardL (talk) 01:44, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

"Conflict with Marxism"

I've changed the title of this section to "Relationship with Marxism". The content itself demonstrates that there is no inherent conflict between Libertarian Socialism and Marxism; even if their is a conflict between Anarchists and Marxists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.252.140.195 (talk) 21:16, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Redirect

Why does "Social Libertarian" redirects to libertarian socialism (this article) and not to the "Social liberalism" -article? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism How would you call a person who follows the ideal of "Social liberalism"? --Englishazadipedia (talk) 19:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

A social liberal? In practice, they're simply called liberals, at least in the USA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.247.85.103 (talk) 17:57, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

If someone is calling for liberalization of the market, then he may also be a conservatives. For example in your country, now many republicans call for freedom of the market concerning the health care system, however many democrats are for SOCIAL reforms, even though many call them liberals because (for instance) some call for legaization of canabis, for respecting mexican imigrants and so on.... Social liberalism is the idea that you need good social structures, and a regulated market for the sake of justice and to avoid companies becoming too powerful (Just now discussion: Should big companies be allowed to aid their candidates by spending billions of dollars on their campaigns: A "left wing/social liberal" would say no--> dangerous for democraty, a right wing liberal or an old fashion liberal would say yes--> freedom of speech). However they also believe that people and the system should be as free and liberal as possible, above all personal rights. Well, and obviously this very article doesn't have anything to do with Social liberalism. We have to distinguish here. Isn't a Social libertarian someone who follows the idea of social liberalism, and a Libertarian socialist someone who follows the idea of "libertarian socialism?"--Englishazadipedia (talk) 00:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Wording is bias

I think this article needs a good bit of rewriting to be sure it is more neutral. I forget the wiki lingo for this. here is an example: "Libertarian socialists seek to replace unjustified authority with direct democracy". I know that "unjustified" is probably dificult to replace here but as someone that even agrees strongly with Libertarian socialism I find reading the article to be a bit obviously biased. So, such words should be replaced or this article should be marked by wikipedia as in conflict or questionable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.212.190.142 (talk) 11:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

according to libertarian socialist writings probably the only appropriate substitute for the phrase "unjustified authority" would be "illegitimate authority". Is that any better? It seems pretty much the same to me. The basic idea is that lib socialism puts all authority under critical scrutiny to prove its worth. A tendency of thought that has much in parallel with attitudes towards authority in science by the way. It is only by the critical scrutiny exercised by an informed, inclusive, deliberative, participatory democracy that authority can be ascertained as legitimate. BernardL (talk) 02:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Criticism of libertarian socialism

This section does not provide criticism of libertarian socialism but mostly provided a (capitalist) libertarian view on property and socialism. One of the libertarian critics mentioned actually died seven years before the term was invented. I will remove this section, if there are no arguments for keeping it. TFD (talk) 20:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I say we keep it. The critique is fundamental, as a very often quoted libertarian, Ludwig von Mises, an Austrian economist, put it, "The continued existence of society depends upon private property." Libertarian socialism is for or against private property? Darkstar1st (talk) 02:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes I understand that they represent different belief systems. But why should we present the views of libertarians when they are not directly addressing libertarian socialism? TFD (talk) 03:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the above statement for removing it.ValenShephard 00:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ValenShephard (talk • contribs)

support the criticism section

First, the topic of this article is the concept of libertarian socialism, not the term itself. The concept existed long before this particular term was invented to refer to it. So we can't discount criticism of the concept just because it predates the invention of the term that now happens to be the most commonly used name for the topic.

Second, since the eschewing of private property is key to libertarian socialism, any statement regarding, or argument that is in favor of, private property being necessary for civilization to exist in a free society, is inherently a criticism of libertarian socialism.

Finally, criticism sections of such articles are not expected to be full explications on the topic - there is insufficient room for that. The key purpose is to establish that the criticism of the topic exists and to summarize what it is, ideally in a way that paves the way for further discovery.

Therefore, I support the inclusion of the criticism section and in the general form it currently is in. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

von Mises statement

A well cited critical statement of the topic of this article that has been in the article for several years has been recently removed [1]. Despite my best efforts to explain why it should remain in the summary comment when restoring, it has been removed again and again [2] [3] by the same person, apparently without regard to WP:BRD (in this case the bold move was removal of the statement, which I reverted and so discussion here should have been initiated at that point; instead, we went through two more cycles of BR and now I'm the one initiating discussion.)

Per the general reasoning established above (#support the criticism section), the statement should be restored. The statement is:

As Ludwig von Mises, an Austrian economist, put it, "The continued existence of society depends upon private property."

More specifically, this simple statement is important and relevant here because it addresses the key objection to libertarian socialism: the eschewing of a concept that is believed by many economics authorities, including Ludwig von Mises, to be necessary for the continued existence of society: private property. Von Mises' books, and many others, explain in great detail why this is the case, but going into all that in this little section of this article would not be appropriate. What is appropriate here is to inform the reader that this fundamental objection exists, and what it is, in summary, which is exactly that this quotation does.

I submit that since the statement has been in the article for a long time, and its removal is hereby challenged, the burden to show consensus is on the side that seeks to remove it. I am therefore restoring the statement pending the establishment of a clear consensus to remove it. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure why it was deleted, but I'll note that no one needs to show a "clear consensus" to remove it, when you didn't establish a "clear consensus" to add it. BigK HeX (talk) 18:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't add the statement. The statement was established in the article for years. The bold move was removing it without establishing consensus. Being bold is fine, but sometimes there is objection, as there was in this case (from me), which is typically expressed in the form of a WP:REVERT, per WP:BRD. There is no burden to show consensus for reverting a bold move - there is a burden to show consensus before repeating a bold move which has been reverted. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

While an established consensus may not be necessary, there very certainly IS a burden of proof when adding material (or reverting material back) into an article. YOu've now taken on that burden of proof. Personally, I agree with ValenShepard though ... the quote adds nothing informative. BigK HeX (talk) 22:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

That's true only when the issue is citation, but that has never been the issue here since it's a well-cited quotation. The issue here is whether the material is relevant (arguably a matter of opinion), and for (cited) material that has been in the article a long time the burden is on those who wish to remove it to show there is consensus for removing it. That said, since there is two of you now in favor of removing, arguably the burden has shifted. I'm waiting... --Born2cycle (talk) 23:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The reason I removed it because the whole paragraph it is in explains the private property issue some libertarians have with lib soc. What I removed is not a criticism, it is simply a statement of von Mises' ideology. It is as silly as me putting a quote by Proudhon for example in the liberalism or capitalism article which simply says property is theft. It doesnt say anything, it doesnt explain anything and it doesnt add anything. There is no need to outline a famous part of von Mises' ideology in the article. And like I said, the private property issue is properly explained in the paragaph. Also, why does the libertarianism article have no criticism section?--ValenShephard 21:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree about whether the statement adds or not and see what others think. By the way, I think Proudhon's "property is theft" does belong as a criticism in an article about liberalism or capitalism, as property is fundamental to those ideologies.

As to why libertarianism does not have a criticism section I suggest it's because that article is a complete mess since it is about the term and all its meanings (perhaps in violation of WP:NAD) instead of being about the most commonly used meaning of libertarianism. As it stands it's really a dab page on steroids, and so a criticism section makes no sense, since there is no clear single topic that the article is about which is to be criticized. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I dont think thats a good argument. Because the libertarianism article is poor doesn't mean it cant have a criticism of the ideology. But still, I think it is pointless to criticise ideologies by just hearing the ideologies counter to them. Thats like two people of different religions arguing which is the true religion, or which is 'better'. A 'belief' is not a good argument against another belief. Simply two opinions, their disagreement is implied already by their differences. Its like me writing in an article on Jesus that a famous philosopher said Jesus didn't exist. What is the point of that? The von Mises' quote also doesn't explain why private property is freedom. What is needed is a simple small section that says 'some libertarian philosophers (or whatever) believe that the institution of private property is central to any free society (or something). I think that unless libertarianism has a similar criticism section where socialist libertarian philosophers simply quote their beliefs with no or little explanation, then it shouldn't be here.--ValenShephard 21:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I think "Jesus did not exist" (or "Jesus was not the son of God"), are clearly criticisms of Christianity (assuming those making those assertions have additional material to explain them further, though that additional stuff does not belong in the Christianity article).

Anyway, I did not say that the libertarianism article cannot have criticism of the ideology because it is poor, I said it cannot have criticism of the ideology because there is no "the ideology" to be criticized in that article. No matter how times I read that article, I can't figure out what it is about. I don't know how you'd go about finding criticism of something that is incomprehensible. I mean, this is from the intro: "There are many kinds of libertarianism, some of which directly oppose others". Do you think you can find criticism of "many kinds of libertarianism, some of which directly oppose others"? Good luck with that! --Born2cycle (talk) 22:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, you said that Jesus statement would be fine if there was more information attached to it, and this is one of my main points here. Von Mises' statement doesn't have more information or an explanation attached to it. And also, some of the criticism section simply discusses what the free market varient of libertarianism is, thats not a criticism or an argument, simply an ideologicial disagreement which is implied already and doesn't need to spelled out.--ValenShephard 22:27, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No, no, you misunderstand. I did not mean that additional material needs to be attached in the article, just that it exists. In the case of the von Mises quote, he has chapters of books covering the topic. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Basically, because the differences are already explained and taken for granted. Anyone who reads the intro can understand that these libertarians don't like private property and anyone reading the free market varient will get the opposite. Why would there be a section in the liberalism (not libertarianism as thats a wide subject) simply discussing the ideas of peopel opposed to it, it would be removed as inapproproate and POV. Overall that means that some of this section, and some statements, shouldn't leave the ideology open for a soapbox of opposing ideas to simply explain and advertise their beliefs.--ValenShephard 22:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

As one user said above: 'I understand that they represent different belief systems. But why should we present the views of libertarians when they are not directly addressing libertarian socialism?' Couldn't say it better myself.--ValenShephard 22:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Any statement in favor of private property IS directly addressing libertarian socialism, just like any statement in favor of evolution is directly addressing intelligent design. For example, a valid criticism of intelligent design can be expressed in one word: fossil. See 4:35 [this video] for a great example of that! --Born2cycle (talk) 23:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you explain what, to you, is the difference between "addresses" and "relates to", if any? It seems like you're using them interchangeably. When Darwin penned the Origin of Species, was it "addressing" a set of counter-arguments that would coalesce 200 years later? "Directly Addressing" has a very distinct meaning, meaning the quote or excerpt was on the subject of libertarian socialism. The von Mises quote is on the subject of private property and society. If you're just pulling together RELATED material to form a criticism then that's original research. Besides, the quote doesn't contain any logical constructs, evidences, or proofs. It's a guy saying that something he favors is the best, end of quote. Even if it did directly address libertarian socialism, the content of it would amount to "I disagree." 98.236.191.219 (talk) 04:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

If people want to know about the free market, private property varient of libertarianism, it is taken for granted and assumed that they will find that article, not find their arguments squeezed in as a 'criticism' of other varients, especially when these criticisms are not directly addressing libertarian socialism, or even the whole ideology.--ValenShephard 22:41, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, we're talking about the fundamentals underlying each ideology, and that's where they differ, so the premises of one are criticisms of the other, just like "fossil" is a criticism of ID. --Born2cycle (talk) 23:12, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

No. If a fossil is to be used against intelligent design they would not simply write: 'fossils exist', they would write 'fossils exists which means...'. The statement of von Mises, and several other statements, as the other editor agrees with me, do not explain themselves, just as 'fossils' doesn't explain (although it may seem obvious to you and this is arguable) why intelligent design is flawed.

And for you to use something scientific, which can be measured empirically is also a bit sneaky. We are not talking about something which physically exists, we are talking about ideas. And because it is not for us to judge which is 'better' (or whatever) we cannot simply use one idea against another. Namely, we cannot use one ideology or one philosophy to disprove or criticise another, they coexist in their seperate spaces, as they should here. If you can find empirical arguments against libertarian socialism, or arguments that try to examine libertarian socialism (not just talk about alternatives or criticise it without explanation) then please do. I think your argument has ran out of steam.--ValenShephard 23:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Did you watch the video I linked? Saying the word "Fossil" (alone) IS a criticism of ID, or at least of the idea that the earth was created with all plants and animals known today in 7 days. Similarly, the idea that private property is necessary for civilization to continue is a criticism of libertarian socialism. --Born2cycle (talk) 00:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I said it was arguable whether 'fossil' was enough, I don't think it is. All there needs to be on the private property issue in the article is 'some libertarian philosophers believe that private property is central to a free civilisation'. Not to have their ideology spelled out. Nothing more needs to be said. If a reader is intrigued, he will click on their names or find their ideology. I recently argued to have a similar thing removed, and people supported me and it took less than 6 hours to remove. It was about the Afghan War Diaries that got leaked, someone had put a 'criticism' which didn't actually deal with the war diaries themselves, and it was promptly removed. Just like this should be here and simply leaving a statement saying something like what I suggested, otherwise the 'criticism' has too much weight in the article anyway. --ValenShephard 14:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Remove Libertarian Socialism from Libertarianism article?

Some people want to because it's just two sentences, even though it links to this article. Feel free to add more info with WP:RS and/or to comment here Talk:Libertarianism#Socialist_Libertarians.3F_LOL_How_about_militaristic_pacifists.3F. Thanks. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:30, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually looking at lead of this article, I don't have a problem with merging it with left libertarianism section. FYI. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I've responded at Talk:Libertarianism#Socialist_Libertarians.3F_LOL_How_about_militaristic_pacifists.3F. A merge is a terrible idea. They are two clearly separate topics, and the current Libertarian socialism article is too long to be merged into the articles for any of it's super-categories (e.g. socialism, anarchism, libertarianism, left-libertarianism). -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:02, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

remove Darkstar1st (talk) 00:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Darkstar1st -- On Wikipedia talk pages, editors are generally expected to provide reasons for why they disagree with things. We don't vote here -- we discuss things using reasons until we reach consensus. Could you explain a policy-based reason why we should not include it? (i.e. I don't want to hear what you think about it -- I want you to show me a policy that says we should not discuss something that is covered in a wide array of reliable sources). -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 02:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Don't remove.--ValenShephard 01:21, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

ValenShephard -- On Wikipedia talk pages, editors are generally expected to provide reasons for why they disagree with things. We don't vote here -- we discuss things using reasons until we reach consensus. Plesae try to stick away from empty votes, and stick to comments like your following one based on WP:V (which was totally accurate and valid) that cite Wikipedia policy. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 02:51, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Probably shouldn't be utterly removed ... but -- within the Libertarianism article -- merger with left-libertarianism is probably OK. BigK HeX (talk) 01:33, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Libertarian Socialism is not a form of Libertarianism and has next to nothing in common with Libertarianism. The only reason it has been included in the article on Libertarianism is the ridiculously absurd use of the word "Libertarian" in it's name. Get rid. (And I'm heartily sick and tired of left-wingers hijacking Wiki political pages to spin their revisionist nonsense to justify left-wing doublespeak). BlueRobe (talk) 05:54, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Your soapbox at the Libertarianism page wasn't big enough? BigK HeX (talk) 06:20, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Stalker with no life, much? BlueRobe (talk) 04:13, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Uhh... you threaded your soapbox rant above as if replying to me. Who's the stalker, again? BigK HeX (talk) 05:10, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I threaded my comment as a general reply. It's not my fault it looks awkward and confused because you and ValenShephard don't know how to format properly. L2colon. BlueRobe (talk) 08:00, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Psst ... the point remains. *I* was in this talk page section long before you, and thus, the concept of me "stalking" a person that later shows up on the talk page borders on moronic. In any case, I'll make you a deal. I'll "learn to use colons" if you agree to learn to use the talk pages properly, instead of using them for your personal rant and WP:OR space. BigK HeX (talk) 08:24, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

BigK HeX, I didn't even see you here until you addressed me, lol. BlueRobe (talk) 12:09, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Remove. Toa Nidhiki05 20:45, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Nidhiki -- On Wikipedia talk pages, editors are generally expected to provide reasons for why they disagree with things. We don't vote here -- we discuss things using reasons until we reach consensus. Could you explain a policy-based reason why we should not include it? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 02:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Jrtayloriv has provided a great summary here, and I agree with it. Provide reasons to make up your argument. ValenShephard (talk) 04:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

It is not going to be removed because reliable sources refer to this ideology as libertarian. Your own personal views do not affect the fact that academics and reliable sources list socialist libertarianism as one form of libertarianism. ValenShephard (talk) 21:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Who died and made you Jimbo Wales? We rule by consensus here, not the will of one person. Toa Nidhiki05 00:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

I didnt say anything about me. I said reliable sources and academic sources refer to this ideology as part of libertarianism, you can't argue against that. We write articles based on what reliable sources are available, and there are dozens of them which speak about socialist libertarianism as a legitimate ideology and part of libertarianism. If you want to talk again, use sources, not just personal references. ValenShephard (talk) 01:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Nidhiki is right, we go by consensus here. But the consensus of a handful of editors on this talk page does not override the consensus of the community at large -- see WP:CONLIMITED. The consensus of the community at large is that we neutrally report what reliable sources have to say -- see WP:V and WP:NPOV. Since there are numerous high-quality reliable sources mentioning libertarian socialism as a libertarian doctrine, we will discuss what they have to say about it here. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 02:38, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Jrtayloriv, I've noticed that a disproportionate large number of your posts are C&Ps of the same posts (usually as examples of sheer hypocrisy on your part). If I discover you are botting, or I continue to see the same posts repeated over and over again in reply to people you disagree with, I will not hesitate to seek action to deal with your behaviour. BlueRobe (talk) 02:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming C&P means copy/paste. If that's the case, you are correct -- I often do copy and paste posts when I have the same exact message for multiple people. I repeat things to individuals when they repeatedly violate policy, even after being warned. If you'd like to report me to the WP:Copy Paste Noticeboard or the WP:Repetition Noticeboard -- by all means, please go ahead. (Just click on the redlinks, create the noticeboard, and write a really long detailed post, and wait for someone to respond.)-- Jrtayloriv (talk) 02:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

(P.S. But before you start creating new noticeboards to deal with non-issues, I'd recommend that you take a look at some of the policy and guidelines that other editors have been trying to get you to read, and try to change the way you edit and interact with other editors.) -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 02:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Even BigK HeX doesn't refer to Wikipaedia polices as much as you. Your posts read like a lawyer's letter, where he fills up 3 pages of legislation and threats to intimidate people in case they might be contemplating opposing the lawyer's cause. What are you over-compensating for with all that WP spam? BlueRobe (talk) 03:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Policy is how we resolve disputes around here. Otherwise, nothing would ever get accomplished with our editors coming from such a wide range of political/religious/cultural backgrounds. When attempting to resolve disputes, I discuss policy rather than debating politics, because that's what we're supposed to do (see WP:NOTAFORUM). If you don't like that, maybe Wikipedia isn't the place for you. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 03:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I see no dispute resolution in your posts. I don't even see an attempt to resolve disputes in your posts. All I see is an array of threats and intimidation aimed at anyone who challenges your uncompromising position. The irony is, I agree with you on most issues, but the offensive manner in which you convey them are clearly breaches of WP:Harassment. BlueRobe (talk) 04:05, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

It is problematic that you don't see telling other editors to stop arguing, to adhere to policy and to work towards consensus, as forms of dispute resolution. I have not threatened, intimidated, or harassed anyone (and you need to provide diffs back up your bad faith accusations). If all you are seeing is threats, then you're not listening -- I'm making suggestions on how to improve the article and resolve the dispute, based on policy, and am not threatening anyone. All I'm asking is that people discuss improvements to the article instead of soapboxing and debating, and based their suggestions on what is in reliable sources, rather than their own personal opinions and original research. If this offends you, that's your problem, not mine. These policies were consensually designed by the community, and you should get used to them, or go and discuss your problems with them on the relevant policy talk pages. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:52, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

(P.S. And by the way, this conversation is going nowhere, and is off-topic. Why don't we get back to discussing what reliable sources have to say about the term "libertarian socialism"?) -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Jrtayloriv, STOP EDITING MY COMMENTS. Seriously, you're like the street's resident mental health out-patient who sits on his balcony ticking off all the "crimes" committed by his neighbours in a secret logbook while being completely oblivious to his own wrong-doing. Evidently, your senses of communication and compromise come direct from the Dick Cheney School of Charm. BlueRobe (talk) 05:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Feel better? -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Libertarian socialism vs. socialist libertarianism

I am a libertarian socialist, and i have been classified as such not only by myself but by online assessments of ones political affiliation. As such, i have good grounds to assert that the title of this article is misleading, and i would greatly appreciate it if it were changed. I am unfamiliar with the volume of work published about this subject, but i think that the governmental system/philosophy described in the article would best be described as socialist libertarianism, or socialist anarchism, depending upon whether any form of government actually exists in said system. Libertarianism advocates for less government, specifically a government only designed to safeguard people's rights, and anarchists demand no government whatsoever. Socialists, on the other hand, on the whole accept the necessity of government in the economy, unlike Marxists and capitalists, but unlike communists do not believe that the government should own all property. Socialists believe that the government should not only regulate the economy, but ensure that every citizen has equal opportunity based upon effort and a minimum standard of living, unlike liberals. Thus, since the word "socialism" in "libertarian socialism" is being described by the adjective "libertarian", the term would seem to imply that this philosophy or governmental system is mainly socialist in nature, but accommodates libertarian ideas, rather than one that is mainly libertarian in nature and accommodates socialist ideas, like the philosophy described in the article.

As a counterpart to the view of libertarian socialism in the article (which as aforementioned, better fits the description of social libertarianism or social anarchism in my opinion), my own view of libertarian socialism can be defined as a system in which there is private property but the government controls many aspects of the economy and sponsors public social programs, but there is very little governmental interference with society in general except in cases of protecting and respecting individual rights. By this interpretation, libertarian socialism would actually be a system with a big government (though only in terms of economic regulation and beneficial social programs), rather than one with very little government. So my argument is that the term used as the current title for the article is too ambiguous as it can be and has been construed in radically different ways and should be replaced with "socialist libertarianism" or "socialist anarchism" to eliminate confusion.--Webspidrman 22:12, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Right wing edits

Unkown to rightwingers there is such a thing as Left libertarian in which all forms of control (Government, Church, Rich.) are to be overthrown and replaced with a sort of group proptery and intrest. The new left of the 60's is the closet thing i can think of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.13.118.232 (talk) 00:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

there is already a term to describe such: anarchy. welcome to the discussion, your input is valued here! please make a user name as some edits are restricted to only verified users. Darkstar1st (talk) 05:27, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

RFC/User Conduct for User:BlueRobe

Editors with an opinion about User:BlueRobe's conduct in the disputes above may comment at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/BlueRobe.

Request For Comments – Political Ideologies Diagram

File:Political Ideology Interconnectedness Venn Diagram.jpg

On the libertarianism talk page we're having quite a bit of disagreement regarding where libertarianism ends and other ideologies begin. Given that a picture is worth a thousand words, I drew this diagram to illustrate the one defining tenet that two ideologies share.

When I posted it on the talk page I specifically noted that it was original research based on numerous reliable sources and was not intended for use in the article. However, the file has been proposed for deletion because editors that oppose my viewpoint feel that original research based on reliable sources should not be allowed on talk pages or even user pages.

From my perspective...it sets bad precedent if you can't draw a diagram to try and help simplify a complex and confusing topic. If this diagram is deleted it will be the equivalent of somebody deleting your comments from the talk page just because they disagree with what you have to say. So far, nobody has offered any evidence that the straightforward definitions contained within this diagram are not factual.

Here's where I posted the file on my user page...here and here’s where the file is being proposed for deletion...here. I spent a bit of time working on this diagram and would really appreciate some outside feedback on whether the file should be kept or deleted. If it turns out that my diagram is in clear violation of Wikipedia policy then my other two diagrams will have to be deleted as well...Scope of Government Diagrams. --Xerographica (talk) 19:09, 30 September 2010 (UTC)