Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics/Libertarianism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Symbol

What image shall we use as the symbol for this WikiProject? I was thinking that the Liberty Bell or Statue of Liberty might be too U.S.-centric; but on the other hand, a porcupine might confuse people into thinking this is some rodent-related WikiProject. Any thoughts? EVCM (talk) 18:39, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Sub-project?

Shall we make this a subsidiary of WikiProject Politics or WikiProject Philosophy? My thought is that libertarianism could fall under either of those, but probably more strongly the former. EVCM (talk) 18:42, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I'm an outsider from Wikiproject Philosophy's Anarchism Task Force. I would suggest becoming a task force of WP:Philosophy. WP:Politics doesn't have a system of task forces/work groups, and so may not be prepared to begin hosting one. On the other hand, WP:Philosophy already has a collection of task forces created, and while several are inactive, there is a system in place to assist those who want to create new ones with ease. This would cut some of the logistical work needed to make an assessment system. Using their system, the founders of the ATF were able to set up the group in under two weeks, and we were able to skip the more grueling work of system-creation, allowing us to quickly begin contributing to the larger project. This allowed us to become one of the more active task forces. Your project may go faster if you were to follow suit.

I invite you to take a look at the series of task forces on the WP:Philosophy main page, or the anarchist task force page, as examples of what how you might structure your project if you were to do so. Good luck.--Cast (talk) 06:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

FYI. I tried to get either sort of Libertarianism into the Philosophy template and was given a hard time. Politics might make more sense and I may even have commented there. I forget. Carol Moore 14:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

I'm afraid I don't follow. What specific "Philosophy template" are you referring to, and how were your actions a problem. I just tried to seek this information out, but couldn't track down the event. I'd like to find out what the problem is and see if the issue couldn't be reconciled.--Cast (talk) 01:33, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Libertarian articles I think should be deleted/redirected/renamed

• Neolibertarian as a neologism with no third party sources (see my comments on talk page)
• Christian libertarianism or Libertarian Christianity merge one into other; has some minor ideological difference that just confuses everyone
• Anarcho-capitalism and minarchism was created by a user banned for aggressive sockpuppetry and though it has been edited by others since, it's assertion that these are the "two distinct strains of libertarianism" is supported by two books by people I've never heard of and a questionably reliable source. Merging it into Libertarianism which need their anarchism and minarhism sections beefed up would help.
• I actually do intend to rename Libertarian Movement to Libertarian Movement in the United States as announced at the talk page a long time ago but got sidetracked. The current movement article mostly is about the US; the libertarianism article has a better "movement" section and also it was purged of a lot of marginal US-related material due to incessant editors complaints. I've kept a file of it and some of that could be put into a US movement article. But don't ask me when I'll get around to it!

As for articles that need work, just go into: Category:Libertarianism which is filled with fairly accurate but poorly sourced original research articles and have fun! Carol Moore 14:38, 12 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

I'm unconcerned with the majority of these articles, and will leave it to the members of this WikiProject to address, but in regards to Anarcho-capitalism and minarchism, I would like to direct your attention to the article's previous AfD discussion. The article was proposed for deletion/merging on the same grounds you've stated. Members of the Anarchist Task Force, myself included, defended it's continued existence on the grounds that it covered a notable trend within anarcho-capitalist/libertarian circles, and warranted its own article. If you should wish to nominate it for deletion a second time, I urge you to first consider the arguments already made for and against it.--Cast (talk) 01:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I thought I was watching it but evidently wasn't and missed that discussion. My main problem is a) the article was started by a banned user and edited by at least one of his now banned sock puppets (he emailed me he is pro-sock puppetry) and b) the assertion that Anarcho-capitalism and minarchism are the two distinct strains of libertarianism.[1][2][3] is, as the tags I just put in say: [dubious – discuss][unreliable source?] See Libertarianism article.

Also I wish we could decide on some lingo besides left and right (which too vague and carry too much emotional and intellectual baggage) to separate pro from anti-property libertarians. Since property is the main difference (leading to lots of other differences of course) that would make sense. Then both the libertarianism article and this one could specify that anarcho-capitalism vs. minarchism is a pro-property distinction.

And major libertarians who make those distinctions? Maybe we have to start promoting them more :-) Thoughts? Carol Moore 13:45, 15 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

I'm aware that the article was created by an editor with an agenda, but this can be overcome if the article can be properly sourced and all bias can be removed. Given that another editor has found numerous sources on the subject of the relationship between minarchists and anarcho-capitalists, this may be time consuming, but shouldn't be impossible. However, I'm afraid I'm not versed in the subject enough to tackle the question of dubious, unreliable sources. I don't know what constitutes a good source for the subject. On the final note, I agree that "right" and "left" are terrible terms to use in categorizing libertarians. Especially given that these were terms originally used in reference to monarchists and liberal republicans of France, who aligned themselves according to how they felt the state ought best exist. As Libertarians argue for the elimination of the state, I don't feel we even belong on the "right/left" scale. We need our own terms to distinguish ourselves. I understand that some currently use short-hand terms, such as "An-Cap" and "An-Soc", but these seem limited. --Cast (talk) 19:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Hi there! I am joining your project and would like to get active in getting things running. I have a fair bit of experience working in WP:WPIN and I keep up all the assessments and tagging there, as well as about half of the templates. I would be glad to help out by getting you latest and greatest in templates setting up a project alert system, creating assessment categories, and starting a tag and assess. Once done with that, I would also be glad to help with expansion of new articles. Please let me know if that would acceptable to you! Charles Edward 17:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Welcome. As I say above, there's lots to be done if you go to Category:Libertarianism which is filled with fairly accurate but poorly sourced original research articles! Carol Moore 21:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Alright I put together the alert and advanced assessment banners. I will need to get cats made and start some assessments before I can create the assessment templates. I will work on that next. Charles Edward 22:52, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

New phenomenon

The Market for Liberty notes:

“ Socialism is a system in which the government owns and controls the means of production (supposedly for "the good of the people," but, in actual practice, for the good of the politicians). Fascism is a system in which the government leaves nominal ownership of the means of production in the hands of private individuals but exercises control by means of regulatory legislation and reaps most of the profit by means of heavy taxation. In effect, fascism is simply a more subtle form of government ownership than is socialism. Under fascism, producers are allowed to keep a nominal title to their possessions and to bear all the risks involved in entrepreneurship, while the government has most of the actual control and gets a great deal of the profits (and takes none of risks). ”

What do we call our situation now, in which companies (e.g. banks) are privately owned and the investors get the profits, but government will bail them out if they fail? Essentially, we are privatizing profit but socializing risk. It sounds like the opposite of fascism, which involves socializing profit but privatizing risk. Simultaneous movement (talk) 16:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Corporate socialism. Agorist (talk) 00:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Do Libertarian Editors Have to Follow Wikipedia Rules - including WP:Sockpuppetry??

As I've noted in some edit summary, there is an individual who has edited here and many libertarian and anarchist capitalist articles who -- along with several of his sock puppets - has been banned for disruptive editing, including by his IP address. See User:Aldrich Hanssen. I believe he now has a new IP and is aggressively using several sockpuppets again, including to make some very questionable edits that libertarians will have to waste time disputing. I believe that by creating an account or editing, one implicitly agrees to either abide by current wikipedia rules or work through the wikipedia system to change them. Do others agree or does being a libertarian or anarchist give you the right to break any wikipedia rule you want, over and over again, even when sanctioned? And does it make one a "snitch" to out or report that person in any of the various ways one can do so on wikipedia? And if the person constantly boasts about what a big fan of Tim McVeigh they are, should one be scared, especially if they live with 20 miles from where one lives? Carol Moore 18:59, 22 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Obviously, libertarians believe in private property rights and therefore in the right of the owner of that property to set whatever rules they wish. While I believe that in some cases, claims to private property are not legitimate (particularly if that property is gained through statist or other criminal means), it is undeniable that Wikipedia was gained through legitimate means. Anybody who joins Wikipedia agrees to respect the wishes of the property owner, which are laid out in Wikipedia policies. Somebody who boasts about being a fan of Timothy McVeigh, a person who murdered innocent children, and does not respect the private property rights of others cannot honestly claim to be a libertarian. Obviously, somebody who reports a person who is deliberately editing Wikipedia in bad faith is a "snitch" by definition, but it isn't always bad to "snitch" out other people (although snitching has negative connotations for good reasons, because many people unfortunately snitch on people who commit victimless crimes). Radical Individualist (talk) 23:06, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

The worst thing about sockpuppets is that they make one suspect any new editor who is an extremely advanced user is a sockpuppet playing games with ones head... Sigh.... Carol Moore 14:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc

Libertarian articles needing work

The following is a list of articles relating to Libertarianism which need cleanup or attention. Thanks!

• Special rights

Proposal to Change Category:Libertarianism_by_genre to "by form"

Go to that category to find template. I started the discussion on this Categories for Discussion page-check it out. Writing:
Oppose: While I don't like genre, form is even less relevant. Classification seems most relevant. See synonyms below:

• Synonyms for genre: brand, category, character, class, classification, fashion, genus, group, kind, school, sort, species, style.
• Synonyms for form: anatomy, appearance, articulation, cast, configuration, conformation, construction, contour, cut, design, die, embodiment, fashion, figure, formation, framework, mode, model, mold, outline, pattern, plan, profile, scheme, silhouette, skeleton, structure, style, system. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Interesting restructuring at Libertarianism

I suggested it and others yesterday just ran with it in their own direction. I don't have energy to review and comment or edit today, but thought people might find of interest.

1. 4 Non-Propertarian libertarianism

   * 4.1 Libertarian socialism
   * 4.2 Left-libertarianism
   * 4.3 Geolibertarianism
   * 4.4 Mutualism

1. 5 Propertarian libertarianism

   * 5.1 Anarcho-capitalism and market anarchism
         o 5.1.1 Left-libertarianism
   * 5.2 Minarchism
   * 5.3 Libertarian conservatism
         o 5.3.1 Paleolibertarianism
         o 5.3.2 Neolibertarianism
         o 5.3.3 Constitutionalism
   * 5.4 Objectivism

1. 6 Libertarian Transhumanism

CarolMooreDC (talk) 12:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Note: since I posted this I got around to cleaning it up a bit, including removing sectioning under lib conservatism. Still have some work to do elsewhere, keep forgetting to do :-( CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:18, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Portal:Libertarianism is inactive - delete?

[1] That's the one that was started by a sock and had few contributors. CarolMooreDC (talk) 18:29, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't delete it. It does have some value as it is. And someone may get around to being able to fix it up eventually. Charles Edward (Talk) 19:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)