Talk:Libertarian capitalism

== disambig ==

I don't think a disambig page does this term proper justice, this term is created by people that are anti-libertarians using libertarian. It only has 600 hits on google about a third of which seem to be wikipedia-releated and another third seem to be people putting Libertarian/capatalist or libertarian,capatalist in list type forms. Therefore a proper description would only be the fact that the term was created and why, not setting up disambig and giving validty to the term Chuck F 16:28, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

People seemed to be clashing over whether this should redirect to anarcho-capitalism or libertarianism. Such silly conflicts distract people from actually contributing useful material to Wikipedia articles, so I replaced the redirect with a disambiguation. —FOo 00:29, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Good move. Reithy 14:37, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

Not too mention this: http://www.libertario.org/en/ (if you weren't aware the most powerful and effecitve libertarian party in the world is in Costa Rica, a non-english speaking country.) - DON'T delete my comments

Improv's compromise was excellent. Reithy 20:40, Oct 30, 2004 (UTC)

My rewrite

Hey Chuck F, What problem do you see with my rewrite on the topic? --Improv 09:01, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

People in Europe do not use the term Libertarian Capatalism Chuck F 11:05, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

And your proof for that proposition is what exactly? Libertarian capitalism is a frequently used expression at cafes in Amsterdam. VegasDiaz 12:27, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

wtf? they are speaking English in cafes in amsterdam, using that phrase? what cafes excatly? Chuck F 12:34, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Europe is not monolingual -- in various parts, it is used as a convenient language for people of different nationalities to communicate, as many people learn English as a second language. Of course, it is also still a valid point when they use the translated term in their native language. How many times have you been to Europe, Chuck F? You seem rather surprised. --Improv 17:16, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Quit fighting without facts

I'm removing the contentious claim until someone can provide evidence for it. Please note that Costa Rica (which is not in Europe, but speaks a non-English European language) has a "libertarian" party in the minarchist free-market sense. —FOo 17:27, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• Costa Rican Spanish is no more European than American English is. Both have their origins in Europe. --Improv 19:05, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm going to start over at the top of this article. This word doesn't exist. This is not a discussion about what to do with the Libertariansm article. if you think libertarianism means something else fine... but this partucilar word has 550 hits on google, more then half of which are from wikipedia. This is an enecylopedia people, not let's define and group poltical words ourselves. This word is obviously not valid, not real and not encylopedic. and thus this article needs to be deleted. barring that it needs to describe that this word is not one in any type of generaly usage, and is created to differante between libertarian socalism and libertariansm Chuck F 14:01, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

But the term 'libertarian socialism' doesn't exist either, except to distinguish one form of libertarianism from another. The meaning of libertarianism in the article about libertarianism excludes all the people wikipedia has choosen to describe as libertarian socialist rather than just as libertarians. So, this term, 'libertarian capitalist', should be exist on this site, either wikipedia is supporting one POV instead of neutral POV. 195.92.67.71 14:12, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, but the term Libertarian socalism has about 11,000 hits on google, this one has less then 700. and again it's how classical liberal = libertariansm, going and creating a page about kensyian liberal or common good liberal would not be valid, I'd accept modern libertarianism(has more then a 1000 hits on google), but not libertarian capatalist Chuck F 14:15, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

But how many libertarian socialists are amongst those millions of hits for the word libertarian, but excluded from the article we have on libertariainism? And how many more times? Wikipedia is not your personal playground, it is not about what Chuck the Almighty accepts, it is about what the community accepts. 195.92.67.71 14:17, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

no idea, what I can tell you is that modern day libertarianism takes is the first 200 pages listed(you can go thourgh them yourself), which means that it's the far more popular verison and now the main verison, thus off-shoots(such as geo-libertarianism) must have modifers, the main term doesn't.

Also Libertarian Socalism is a term that was in use before wikipedia, lp capitalism isn'tChuck F 14:19, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There are plenty of such uses pre-dating Wikipedia. Google the two terms together. And the topic requires disambiguation. 195.92.67.71 14:22, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

why again does libertarian Capatalist required disambig, even if you belive it should exist?

Wikipedia should explain why the article at 'libertarianism' only contains info on libertarian capitalists. 195.92.67.71 14:27, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

because the major usage of the term today is what's at libertarianism, evidenced by the fact the first 200 pages google lists for libertarianism are all about the verison that's on wikipedia presently Chuck F 14:28, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Some examples 14:36, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

1. Brian Micklethwait & Terry Liddle - Libertarian Capitalism versus Libertarian Socialism, 29 May, 1983
2. William Terry - Nozick's Argument for Libertarian Capitalism, May 7, 1998

These still fall under the banner of what I had wrirten Chuck F 14:44, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

None of those writers are Wikipedians or socialists. Quit your lying. 195.92.67.71 14:45, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yeah we're compromoisng!

There are belivers of modern day libertarianism that think private property rights can still be used best to create a voluntary socialist system. so I made the most recent edit to differante these modern day libertarians from libertarians who belive that capatalisim is best for society Chuck F 15:06, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

But there are also libertarians today who reject the concept of property rights as authortiarian and unequal. And they seem to have been around longer and are the norm for the word outside of the United States. That is the problem with the whole use of the word in all of these articles. 195.92.67.71 15:18, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

yeah, but they aren't anywhere near as major as modern day libertarians, hence why libertarianism get's it's own page and libertarian socalism is a seperate one.

It's the same case with liberals. While liberals still means what libertarian means today in a small amount of places in the world, liberal party of canada and stuff, you don't have people putting in that they aren't the real liberals. Chuck F 15:22, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

But the article on liberalism does exactly that. It reflects the fact that the word means different things and talks about the historic use of the word. The articles on libertarianism are all written from the perspective of libertarians who are capitalists. You vandalised libertarianism itself to take out all reference to libertarians who are socialists in the histirical and current use of the term and even the link to libertarian socialism which is where those libertarians are boxed away when they should be on the main libertarian page. 195.92.67.71 15:27, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

hmm you're right, considering the liberal party of australia has a link to the liberal democratic party, there should probly be a small link to libertarian socalist. But the term is mainly used as the current defination there... it's very rarley used in modern times to mean libertarian socalist Chuck F 15:31, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Not in America, I know, but in the rest of the world it is usually used to refer to libertarians who are socialists. 195.92.67.71 16:03, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So much for the compromising. You've just restored your version with its distoritons and POV. I have reverted to our comrpomise version. I expect you'll revert again, Chuck. I had a few moments of hope there but I guese you really are just a vandal. 195.92.67.71 16:05, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree with Chuck on the fact that "libertarian capitalism" is an unsuitable name for libertarianism, but I cannot agree with his methods. He is vandalizing and perpetrating an edit war rather than working to either (a) compromise on opinions or (b) convince people of facts. I think the facts speak for themselves on the established meaning of "libertarianism", but Chuck F apparently has no confidence in the facts and thinks that committing offenses in the name of "libertarianism" somehow helps. It does not. If Chuck will not go away or start behaving himself of his own accord, anyone who cares to petition for his removal from Wikipedia has my vote by whichever means necessary. --FOo 17:07, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I belive this term was created in relation to mainstream libertarians, not libertarians of any nature that belive in a capatalist system(aka geo-libertarains probly wouldn't fall into this catgory) ... Hence I think my verison(both of them verisons I wrote) I'm reverting to is better suited Chuck F 20:33, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Your version is unacceptable because

1. You're inserting snide comments into the article, insinuating the term was made up to attack libertarianism, despite the other term being in much longer use than the American political movement
2. Your version discounts the intellectual tradition associated with said other tradition.

Do you think the title capitalist libertarianism is better for the American-originating political movement? Assume that the title Libertarianism is already taken -- it must be used for disambiguation. What title do you suggest would be best for the movement? It is clearly distinct from Anarcho-Communism (having had friends move from one to the other gives me a perspective). --Improv 16:23, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Question... what is the correct term for modern liberal? Chuck F 18:02, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If modern liberal had several different conflicting meanings, I would attempt to insert additional words as needed to disambiguate the terms. --Improv 18:54, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

my point excatly, there is still some people who use liberal to referar to what modern libertarianism is... but they are so far and few that liberal has it's main defination now Chuck F 06:26, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The classic liberal position is by no means the same thing as the American Libertarian movement. The critical figures in classic liberalism supported the existance of several parts of government that would be considered welfare-state-ish and unacceptable by the latter movement. American Libertarianism (or Capitalist Libertarianism, take your pick) has no stake to the term classic liberal beyond a superficial similarity. There's no particular shame in this lack of a tie though. Why does it matter how old a philosophy or political movement is? For that matter, why does it bother you so much that the term Libertarian has been used before, and is not exclusively belonging to one camp within it? --Improv 12:41, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

We've had this argument on the libertarian pages,,, look thourgh the vast amount of arguments.. conensues came to the fact classical liberal was closely related to libertarianism. It doesn't bother me that the word has been used before(although the fact that it's been used before in a different language where the word isn't even the same word is logic that befalls me), my problem is you know some people use the word dog to refer to a friend, yet the dog page isn't a disambig page Chuck F 14:02, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That would be a metaphorical connection, and is not at all in the same scope as the animal classification. If dog were used in a non-metaphor way to identify a friend's biology (that's not "Man's best friend"), then we might have some reworking to do. --Improv 14:54, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My rewrite

• I feel the current rewrite, by me, is the best one we have (yet) because:
  1. It notes the history of the term
  2. It notes common and philosophical usage
  3. It is not rude, accusatory, nor does it claim ownership by any group
• All the other versions I've seen, especially those by Chuck F, appear to have serious faults. If you disagree, why don't we go over the exact text of the various versions, discussing why each part is there, and perhaps we'll come to a better understanding of where our differences lie. --Improv 13:51, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Your version has my complete approval. If someone feels an extreme urge to revert it, could you please explain on this talk page first? Rhobite 14:22, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

It claims that this has moderate usage... that's not true less then 700 hits goggle(less then 550 before this got listed on wikipedia), half of which are not the actual term(rather people listing I'm a beliver in libertarian,capitalism,free-will). Means the term has next to no usage... plus the predate thing is compleatly not true. And mainstream is not pov that's compleatly valid 203.169.250.28 14:57, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Try both permutations of the word. Also, note that this is partly to distinguish free-market libertarians from socialist libertarians, and there has been a great deal of confusion because both groups have at times claimed exclusive use of the term (along, of course, with the philosophical term, which is quite unrelated). --Improv 16:27, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Edit

I notice one of the edits is:

Libertarian Capitalism is a term created by a small amount of people to refer to mainstream libertarianism. They use the term to distinguish belivers of mainstream libertarianism from others, such as libertarian socialists. The term is not one that is in every-day political or general use.

Isn't this a weasel term?! - Ta bu shi da yu 17:28, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's a veiled reference to the people who have been voicing their opposition to Chuck F's domination of this page. Rhobite 17:37, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

the page is dead-wrong now... the most glaring being, The term Libertarian Capitalism DOES FOR SURE not pre-date the current usage of libertarian. That's ridiclous... you're telling me they created a term for people for this group with the word libertarian, before they started using the term libertarian? Chuck F 08:54, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Redirect

Libertarian capitalism is an expression that some people (not very many, as far as I can tell) use to refer to the same thing as what the article on libertarianism is about. We only need one article on the subject. Therefore, one of them should be a redirect to the other. Since this page has little or no useful text, I am making it the redirect. Of course, we can discuss on libertarianism the option of moving that page elsewhere. - Nat Krause 03:08, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Draft for a RfC on the issue

You all are invited to visit and comment on a draft for a RfC on this and related articles that will eventually likely become a poll. Please remember we are not discussing the topic itself, just the suitable neutral number of issues we want to cover. --Improv 17:12, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

from VfD

In the fall of 2004, this article was nominated for deletion. No concensus was ever reached and the discussion was never properly closed. I am now archiving that old discussion. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Libertarian capitalism for a record of the debate. Rossami (talk) 20:18, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Redirection from POV Right Libertarianism article

Since Right Libertarianism is a pejorative term used mainly by opponents, this is a better title for the article. The following link shows how Rothbard thought the term right libertarianism was "bewildering", and shows that he put it in scare quotes. https://mises.org/library/left-and-right-within-libertarianism

Some asshole just reverted it, without giving any reason why. Write your reasons here. Or is he just some lefty who wants to use that pejorative term? Who knows? I guess I have to wait a few hours before reverting, due to the 3RR rule. PhilLiberty (talk) 16:44, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Read the 3RR page again, intent trumps technicality. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 17:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree that Right Libertarianism is generally a non-neutral pejorative, double so for the lead sentence which say the "right wing libertarianism" is a synonym. I'd favor reducing the article to a few paragraphs which cover the usage of the term. But re-direct is also fine. North8000 (talk) 21:05, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Just for one second, did it occur to you that when multiple editors are all reverting your changes, you might just possibly be doing something wrong? Stop now, before you dig yourself any further into the 3RR hole and learn something. Since you obviously never read edit summaries and just plough ahead, barely taking a breath to abuse other editors left right and centre, I'll spell it out here. Do not cut and paste the contents of one article into another. This loses the attribution history and is unnecessary. When the title of an article needs to be changed (I take no position on this, but it does seem to be disputed, or at least under discussion), the article can be renamed. This keeps the history of edits on the article all in together. After an article has been renamed, it should usually be edited for consistency with the new title. In some cases, you will not have sufficient permissions to rename an article, especially if there is non-trivial history at the new title. In that case, go to WP:RM and follow the instructions. In this case, I would suggest that this is a controversial move, so a discussion will be help. After about a week, assuming the discussion was broadly in favour of the new name, someone with suitable editing rights will then rename the page. Please, don't step further over the 3RR line, it will only get you blocked, and please stop using abusive language towards other editors. Lithopsian (talk) 21:29, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I think that you are mostly right. Except for possibly not noticing that PhilLiberty has not had anywhere near the wiki experience to learn our unusual alternate universe. PhilLiberty, we need to slow down and sort this out. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry North8000, but PhilLiberty has had it explained to them numerous times, and continues to ignore WP policies and procedures. In addition, they are incredibly uncivil, and if they keep it up, they are most likely looking at being banned, or at least topic banned. WP:CUTANDPASTE moves are not allowed, and yet they persist in doing them. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:38, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

North8000, was that sarcasm regarding PhilLiberty not having wiki experience? Your comment prompted me to look at their user talk page history and I see there numerous discussions there about 3RR violations and cut-and-paste moves, exactly the issues at hand here, going back almost eight years. --Pfhorrest (talk) 06:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

It was just a glance at number of edits (1k and change) . IMO starting to figure out the giant alternate universe of Wikipedia happens at about 10,000 edits. For me I learned about avoiding copying large blocks of text somewhere around my 30,000th edit. Once you read the policies and guidelines (About 1.4 million words of crowd-sourced rules in 350 documents with a large amount of overlap and conflict.) you are just getting started.  :-) North8000 (talk) 13:08, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

There's also this. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 07:53, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

And again an editor has done a cut and paste move. At this point, when it's been explained numerous times, disruptive edits like that can and should be treated as vandalism. Particularly, when they accuse other editors who are fixing the mistake of vandalism. Personally, I don't care what the page is named, but if the decision, by consensus, is that the main title should be Libertarian capitalism, then a page move must be made, and probably a history merge would be appropriate as well. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:26, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

PhilLiberty, while I agree that the Right Libertarianism article is problematic as-is, and agree with some of your arguments, you must stop doing what you are doing. Massive changes not only without consensus but without even one other editor supporting them.North8000 (talk) 14:08, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Right-libertarianism which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 20:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Work on Libertarian capitalism is in progress

Since editors at Right libertarism oppose a move of that article, we can now do a separate article here that is more objective. Hopefully, vandals will not follow us to this page and try to destroy this article. Oh! Some are already doing just that. Some asshole (Lithopsian) is repeatedly trying to redirect this article over to the biased POV Right-libertarian article. PhilLiberty (talk) 16:14, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I predict that you'll be blocked within the week, and not because you repeatedly abuse other editors although that would be reason enough. Lithopsian (talk) 16:22, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Fuck you for destroying this article again. Oh well, I'll have to wait until tomorrow, since I've already reverted your vandalism twice today. PhilLiberty (talk) 16:27, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Read WP:POVFORK for why this is not okay. Also, from WP:3RR, "The rule is not an entitlement to revert a page a specific number of times". Waiting a day doesn't make it not edit warring. --Pfhorrest (talk) 17:09, 28 August 2019 (UTC)