Template talk:Libertarianism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Formatting 2 Image 2.1 This settles it 3 Rename 4 Dave's edits 5 Linking to sections of articles 6 Overuse, improper use, illogical use, etc. 7 Geolibertarianism 8 Neolibertarianism 9 Objectivism

[edit] Formatting

I don't really know what I'm doing with the formatting... if someone wants to spice this up, that would be cool. Dave 03:55, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

How many things should we put in this? I don't want it to get too long, but I also don't want it to leave anything important out. It could easily get to 30-40 lines long if we don't set guidelines. Dave 05:12, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image

The image strikes me as rather specific to a certain group of libertarians, rather than Libertarianism as a whole. I think something more universal should be chosen. The Statue of Liberty is a common symbol but this is representative of the U.S. and stands for other things as well; perhaps the best graphic expression of libertarian ideas is simply the Nolan chart.--Pharos 05:00, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I was hoping no one would mind. You're right, of course, but I couldn't think of anything better. The Nolan chart would make this ugly (and would confuse people. And wouldn't fit in a 150*150 pixel box while remaining legible). The statue of liberty might be the best we can do. Dave 05:03, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

The dollar-sign-based logo is rather absurd and doesn't seem to be widely used as a symbol of libertarianism. It seems rather intended to imply that libertarianism is about money or greed, which is not particularly true. It does seem to be somewhat related to John Galt as I recall ... but Objectivism is not libertarianism (as Ayn Rand was the first to note).

We do not need to show a logo or symbol here -- libertarianism in the general case does not have a widely-recognized logo or symbol. The U.S. Libertarian Party uses the Statue of Liberty as a symbol, but (as noted above) this is not internationally applicable. It's worth noting that while there are libertarian parties in many nations now, libertarianism is not an internationalist political philosophy (as is, say, revolutionary Communism). Thus it is not too surprising that there isn't an internationally recognized symbol as there is for Communism. --FOo 05:25, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I guess that settles that, then. Dave 05:27, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

I don't know, in general I think it's good to have some image. I've previewed the template with the Nolan chart and it is legible at this size (try it yourself). I know it's a little outside of the box, but think of it - what other graphic symbol better represents libertarians' views of Libertarianism?--Pharos 05:31, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Nolan chart is at best only a little better than nothing. I'm tempted to use the statue of liberty, but I'm sure that either someone won't like it or that someone will think someone won't like it and take it down. I dunno. Dave 05:37, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] This settles it

A New Zealand libertarian party uses the statue as a symbol. It's not just American, and is therefore a good logo for the sidebar. Dave 06:37, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

I know the statute was French made. It is not totally a U.S. mascot. But do we really need such a useless icon? I mean are there any libertarian thinkers ever use that statute as his/her symbol? I don't really think many liberal thinkers would like to wear a Statute of Liberty button everyday. -- Toytoy 17:16, Apr 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rename

I like the image, and I think it's great to have a template on this.

However, this needs a rename. The template shouyld be for right libertarianism, and not just libertarianism. This also avoids having to list Libertarian socialism and other ideologies in the bottom. I think the move should be done quickly before too many pages need to have their links changed.--Che y Marijuana 09:30, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

I hope you guys like my changes, I think it looks neater and cleaner.--Che y Marijuana 14:00, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the cleanup. In my opinion, there is roughly zero risk of confusion because of the template because:

1. 1. the statue of liberty is prominently placed.
   2. the first link is to anarcho-capitalism. The fourth one is to Objectivism.
   3. most importantly, this will only be on pages about "right-libertarianism," as you call it.

I think that linking to the other libertarian issues is still a good thing, though.

Dave 02:52, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

It's not so much confusion that I'm worried about, it's accuracy. While Libertarianism with a capital L is accepted as us-style Libertarianism, that is specific to one kind of right-libertarianism. Ancaps wouldn't really be members of a us Libertarian party, would they? It's for that reason, as well as my belief in differentiating between the right and left, that I believe the template should be renamed. We can keep the links if you want, but they wouldn't need to be qualified with "other ideologies that are considered libertarian" or something like that, because that's a sentence that needs explaining. The template's purpose is to provide info in a condensed manner, calling it right libertarian or something of the sort simply conveys more info right off the bat.--Che y Marijuana 05:35, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

I'm having a bit of trouble understanding your post. Let me make sure I'm understanding you. Are you saying that the template should be renamed (so you type in {{right-libertarianism}} instead of {{libertarianism}}, or that the template's contents should be renamed "so it says 'the right-libertarianism series?'" If it's the former, I don't really care one way or the other, because there's no way to disambiguate it.

If you're suggesting that the contents should be changed, I'm less convinced. I think the template is not for information; it's for navigation, which is why libertarian socialism is on there in case someone needs disambiguation.

As far as the capitalization issue goes, the only Capital-L-Libertarian pages are the libertarian party ones. The rest are lowercase-l. While anarcho-capitalists might not join a libertarian party, they do call themselves libertarian (lowercase). I'm not sure what your concern is here.

The last reason to keep it the same is that "right-libertarians" typically don't call themselves that (at least in the U.S.). I can't think of anyone (that I've met or read from) that used the term to describe himself or herself.

Dave 06:15, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dave's edits

I combined a lot of stuff on here. The template was longer than most articles it was attached to! Hopefully I didn't leave anything important out. Dave 01:25, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Linking to sections of articles

I don't think it makes much sense to link to sections of articles. If a topic has its own article or is part of a larger relevant article we should link to that, but linking to sections of articles is excessive.--Pharos 08:19, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Overuse, improper use, illogical use, etc.

I know that libertarianism is the flavor of the month as political ideologies go, but using this topic box on everything related to the concept is an improper and excessive (perhaps propagandistic) use of the template. Im not antithetical to the use of template topicboxes - from the time they first were implemented, I was extremely enthusiastic about their use, provided they did not violate some very basic constraints - reason and rationality for starters.

So, I am proposing some reforms for the use of this template, and to make it clear to people who like sticking it everywhere that its not everywhere to be stuck. I will report back with some links shortly. Sinreg, SV|t 04:30, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's violating "reason" or "rationality" in the current system, but I'll wait to see what links you come up with. In defense of the template, I think that just about anyone that went to a page on, say, the Cato institute would be interested in links to libertarianism, as well as to its factions, influences, and key issues, including criticism of the movement from different perspectives. And I don't feel that there's anything unreasonable about putting those links all in one place instead of buried in the "see also" section at the bottom. I don't think that the template qualifies as propaganda given that it links to a criticism section that's longer than most articles. If you'd like to make criticism easier to find, we could give it a section on the template (like "influences" or "factions").

I'll admit I haven't looked at every page the template has been placed on, so it's possible that it's been overused. I'll take a look at any examples you post. Dave (talk) 18:17, May 28, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in responding. Ive read your points, and agree with some. Your point that the entire box be used as a feature on certain articles --just because it has a link on it --isn't valid because 1, that's not a proper use for the template. 2, criticism related to specific issues needs to be addressed on the specific pages - not relegated to a "criticism" section. Of course linking to a main article is proper, if enough basic treatment is given. I agree about the "see also" section being miniscule, but if you look at many articles with depth and branching topics, simply adding a short 2 pgh section with a main article link at top is a good compromise between excessive treatment and buried links.-SV|t 21:22, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your assertion that "that's not a proper use for the template" is uncompelling because there is no metaphysical "proper" use, and we should just look at what's useful. I think that putting the template on a page like Cato Institute is more useful than putting each of the links in the See Also section. The criticism article is there not because we think the libertarianism article should be pro-libertarian but because there's too much criticism to fit. The solution was to have the most important criticism in the main article and the other stuff in a subarticle. I still don't know what your goal is, though. I don't consider the template to be "excessive treatment" and you haven't given any reason to think that it is. Dave (talk) 00:58, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

i raise once more, for anybody who might be interested, the specific situation of the Geolibertarianism article hooking onto the libertarian template, apparently without consulting anyone. in the interest of acting in good faith, i left it, while also adding accuracy and NPOV disputes on the page -- going into far more detail on the talk page than i wanted to. the article is not up to wikipedia standards, and for that reason alone should not have the libertarian template on it. beyond, i do not believe that "geolibertarianism", despite claims in the article and on the talk page, is even a flavor of libertarianism. the article wraps itself in the mantle of libertarianism, yet its supposed mere "exception" regarding property is collectivist stew, clearly at odds with the primary tenets of libertarianism. yes, we see the invocation of "different forms in the writings of John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, Adam Smith, Thomas Paine, David Ricardo, and John Stuart Mill". i'm not sold, and i think it was a dirty trick the way the article popped up out of nowhere and glommed onto the libertarian template.

my interest in this derives solely from the template. i believe a substandard article is now holding others hostage in small form because of it. i tried to explain what was wrong with the article, but it's just the start. even what i mentioned wasn't corrected adequately. people shouldn't be put in the position of improving an article they have no interest in. it all comes down to the template.

simple example, the first sentence of the article: "Geolibertarianism is a political philosophy that holds with other forms of libertarianism that the products of one's labor should be privately owned and controlled but that land or other natural resources cannot be owned exclusively." it's not even faithful to the author's intentions. it can easily be taken as a primary meaning that libertarianism holds that land cannot be owned exclusively. that is false, of course. it's poorly written (if you don't agree, please take another look -- slowly). further, with just that sentence, it logically denies, even were it "corrected" with regard to geolibertarianism's supposed differences with libertarianism, the fundamental principle of libertarianism: exclusive right to property (with yourself being your property, and so forth). it's specious to add the template and then claim, "well, it's libertarianism except for that."

this editing problem was just dumped on other people via the template with no prior consultation. i have other preferences than to ride herd on an awfully blah showing by the originator in reaction to this situation. i believe the template should be removed immediately from the page, with no further attempt to replace it as long as "geolibertarianism" holds that one cannot own real property. it's not libertarianism, and it doesn't matter how many revered names are invoked. i hope somebody will take it from here and defend the template, because i'm done with it. i am certainly not going to continue working on the geolibertarianism article as a hostage. i reiterate that regardless of one's views of the article's libertarianism purity, it is not up to standards, and should not have the template for that reason alone. i hope somebody, ideally the instigator, will remove it soon. i'm out of this now, so if i was the only holdup, do what thou wilt. thanks. perhaps somebody with more spare time can come along and create an article mimicking this situation to drive the point home -- maybe Communolibertarianism, where the only "exception" is that while it's exactly like libertarianism, favoring profit and property based on different forms in the writings of john locke, thomas jefferson, adam smith, thomas paine, david ricardo, and john mill, the profit and property goes into a big bucket first. other than that? direct crossover, baby! SaltyPig 02:54, 2005 May 29 (UTC)

Perhaps this depth of criticism belongs on the particular article, Salty. Simply pointing there (from here) to a more in-depth comment is much better IMHO. -SV|t 21:22, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

As I've said before, I think that the rhetoric and political history of the geolibertarian movement show clear linkages with libertarianism. I'll admit that the first sentence should be reworded. I think that you'll find that the differences between geolibertarians and other libertarians are no greater than the difference between paleolibertarians and everyone else, or Objectivists and everyone else. See the talk page for a bunch of links I posted showing the similarities between the movements. The difference between "communolibertarianism" and geolibertarianism is that geolibertarianism actually exists, actually has followers, they share an intellectual pedigree with other libertarians, and are somewhat consistent, even where they disagree (e.g. the Milton Friedman quote I link to). Dave (talk) 04:00, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what Salty's problem with "geolibertarianism" is. Admittedly, the word is new, but there have been lots of libertarians historically who were at least sympathetic to Henry George: notably, Albert Jay Nock and Frank Chodorov. To claim that georgism is inherently anti-libertarian is to claim that Nock was not a libertarian, which is a pill I cannot swallow.

I will agree, though, that the Geolibertarianism article is not a very good one. I wouldn't object to removing it from this template until such time as the article is improved. - Nat Krause 05:41, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Back to the point, the issue is the overuse of this template, not the particular issues related to certain poorly written articles. Though related to libertarianism, geolibertarianism doesnt seem like a major enough topic to warrant inclusion in the template - though it may warrant inclusion with the template. Im still asserting that the templates use on various articles (bio stubs, for starters) is excessive, and while I can simply remove it, I wanted to give fair warning.

<opinion>Note, of course that as hyperconnectivity continues, for aristocracy to continue, it must base itself in new incarnations which appeal to liberal concepts (work force, jobs) but are ultimately rooted in elitism and domineering. I think this is the problem that pervades libertarianism —as an "alternative" to liberalism, libertarianism is perhaps even-split along the most fundamental principles —such as the line between centralized and decentralised government. Deregulation, though disguised as "liberty," still equals centralized power. </opi> -SV|t 21:22, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Geolibertarianism

I fixed up the Geolibertarianism article a little. I think it's good enough to link to now. Hogeye 07:24, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I added Geolibertarianism. Apparently some people would exclude this group since it differs from "normal" libertarianism on one point in property rights. I would point out that this is not the only property definition dispute among libertarians. There are e.g. pro-IP and anti-IP factions. (Intellectual Property.) Hogeye 16:33, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Neolibertarianism

I added neolibertarianism, and moved the article from neolibertarian to neolibertarianism. The article itself still needs (a good deal of) work. --Daniel11 05:44, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Objectivism

Recently, a fan of Rand decided to remove any mention of Objectivism from this template. Last time I checked, Objectivism fully endorses the concepts of libertarianism, although Rand herself didn't like the l-word.

Now, it may be that I'm mistaken, but if I am, perhaps the best way to handle this is a reasonable discussion based on the evidence, not the deletion of Objectivism without comment or explanation.Alienus 23:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

It looks like there were a bunch of edits in quick succession. I'm not sure if everyone involved even fully realized what the others had done, or why. I had already added 'Objectivism' back into the template before Alienus made his edit, but not with the same link. The suggestion in discussion at Talk:Objectivist_philosophy suggesting that the link in the template be directed at the Libertarianism and Objectivism article, rather than the Objectivist philosophy article. The Libertarianism and Objectivism article is more directly related to the subject matter of the libertarianism sidebar, and discusses the influence of Objectivism on libertarianism in more depth than the main article on Objectivist philosophy does. Linking this way also finesses the POV dispute about the relationship between the two ideologies, by pointing to an article that explores both sides. -- RL0919 23:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

There were definitely a bunch of changes at once, and some of them either lacked comments or had misleading ones. I don't know about you, but when I click on Objectivism, I don't expect to get linked to Abortion. It would make considerably more sense to link directly to Objectivism, which has a little section headed with "Influence on libertarianism", which itself links to Libertarianism and Objectivism. In any case, as a point of order, discussions of what changes to make to this template should occur on this page, not somewhere else. Alienus 00:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, let's discuss it. In proposing the idea originally, D prime suggested that we "add 'Objectivism and Libertarianism' to the libertarianism series, and put the bar on that page. The Objectivism article does already have a link to it, under the header concerning its relationship to libertarianism, so they're connected, but no one will be led to believe that Objectivism is merely a faction of libertarianism, which it isn't, or that it's officially aligned with it, which it is not." The actual article is Libertarianism and Objectivism, not vice versa, but other than that specific glitch, I think his point is a good one. The directing of the word 'Objectivism' to an article about Libertarianism and Objectivism isn't very similar to the two examples you give (directing the word 'Objectivism' to an article on abortion, or the word 'Abortion' to an article about marriage). It is even less so when you consider that the word 'Objectivism' is appearing in a sidebar about Libertarianism, under a sub-head about Influences. In that context, it doesn't seem at all misleading to send the reader to an article about the relationship between Objectivism and libertarianism.

Note also that this wouldn't be the only "redirect" in the sidebar. The link labeled 'Individualist anarchism' actually goes to American individualist anarchism, and all the links under the Key Issues sub-head go to articles named differently than what the link text shows. In fact, the article on 'Objectivism' is actually called Objectivist philosophy. So what is the harm in sending the link to a slightly different namespace that is actually more directly on-point in discussing the influence of Objectivism on libertarianism? -- RL0919 06:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a no-brainer that the Libertarianism template should reference Objectivism. The only controversy seems to be over whether the reference should be directly to the article on Objectivism or to the article on both Libertarianism and Objectivism. Of the two choices, the first seems clearer to me, since none of the other links I sampled went to "free speech zones" that buffer direct access to the linked topic. Is there a particularly compelling argument for not linking directly? Alienus 07:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

For now, I commented out the second link to prevent duplication.Alienus 07:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

My take is that when there are multiple articles on a subject, a sidebar template should point to the article most relevant to that sidebar. In this case, there is an article specifically about Libertarianism and Objectivism, so this sidebar, which is about Libertarianism, should point to that article. If there were a similar breakout article about "Classical Liberalism's Influence on Libertarianism," then I would favor pointing to that with the 'Classical Liberalism' link.

Your "free speech zone" comment leads me to think that you disapprove of the Libertarianism and Objectivism article in the first place, which is really a different issue, better discussed on the Talk page for that article. Insofar as the article exists and discusses in depth the exact issue intended for the link -- the influence of Objectivism on libertarianism -- it strikes me as clearly the preferred destination. There is a close parallel here with the link labeled 'Individualist Anarchism.' That link goes to the article on American individualist anarchism, not the plain Individualist anarchism article. Now, there are those who think the America-specific article should not exist, that the relevant people and ideas should be discussed under the general article. But the article does exist, and the details in it are the ones most relevant to the influence of that tradition on libertarianism -- so that is the article the link goes to. -- RL0919 17:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the American individualist anarchism article should exist, but as a fork from Individualist anarchism. Likewise, when someone clicks the link labelled "Individualist Anarchism", then that's the page they ought to wind up on. In the same way, clicking on "Objectivism" ought to lead to Objectivism, as opposed to a fork page. Now, if the template had instead promised to link to a page discussing the relationship between the main topic and the listed one, then linking to the fork wouldn't be as confusing. However, it still wouldn't be as clean as a direct link.

The other problem with linking to forks is that it breaks reciprocity. The Libertarianism page contains this Libertarianism template, which mentions Objectivism, but some people would prefer to endorse the orthodox ARI view by refusing to display the template on Objectivism. This is clearly POV and they're simply using this "let's link to forks" idea to help justify their biased changes.

The reason I referred to forks as "free speech zones" is that they are on the periphery and all too often become dumping grounds for material of low quality. People don't visit the forks as much as the main pages, so the forks degrade.

Fundamentally, linking to where the text says it will link is the most honest thing we can do because it follows the basic rule of UI design: avoid surprises. Alienus 17:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)