Jump to content

Talk:Libertarian Republican

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

Republitarian?

[edit]

I don't think a Libertarian Republican has ever been called a Republitarian. Or at least I've never heard someone call it that. I think liberty Republican or Constitutional Conservative sounds better. Even paleoconservative is a better name than Republitarian. I'll change it if there's no feed back.Libertybrewcity (talk) 02:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a lot of bloggers use it, but I couldn't find any reliable sources with a quick Google search. I am fine with it being removed. –CWenger (^ • @) 02:52, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Public figures

[edit]

The list of "public figures" is very poorly sourced. I can't find any in which the entries are specifically called "Libertarian Republicans". Instead, it appears that there are some details in the sources which have led editors here to conclude that they qualify. If so, that's a violation of WP:NOR, a core content policy. I am going to remove all the entries that do not have sources with clear sources.   Will Beback  talk  08:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Johnson

[edit]

I'm not sure it's proper to list Gary Johnson as a "Libertarian Republican" given his switch in 2011 to the Libertarian Party. The label "libertarian" surely still applies, but "Republican" appears no longer to fit. -- JeffBillman (talk) 18:22, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If we're only including current members of the Republican Party, then no, Johnson should not be listed here. I'm not sure that's the standard for inclusion, however. He is listed under Governors, and he governed New Mexico as a libertarian Republican. So it is a matter of whether we exclusively list current capital "R" Republicans or if those who have previously served as libertarian R's are listed as well.--JayJasper (talk) 19:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent question. It seems to me we should list those who have previously served, UNLESS they later left the Republican Party and did not return. So for example, if we had a source that said that Charlie Crist was a libertarian Republican (and to be clear, I've not seen such a claim, let alone a source), we could not list Crist unless he returned to the GOP. Bob Barr should be listed, because he did return to the GOP. Gary Johnson has not returned, as of this writing. -- JeffBillman (talk) 21:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just put an asterisk? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.22.125 (talk) 13:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Seconding the asterisk or similiar inclusion of a note; Johnson DID serve as Governor of New Mexico as a Republican after all. It could even be reasonably argued that he left the GOP only after necessity if he wanted to continue running for President. That being said, I sincerely doubt whether Johnson WILL ever return to the GOP, so it remains a question of elasticity: should former Republicans still be included in the list? I'd say so as long as the fact is somehow clarified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Labot2001 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He is listed as the former Governor of New Mexico, not as a Presidential candidate. He certainly should be listed as a libertarian Republican, since he was a Republican when he held office. Some kind of notation would clarify his party change.

Asterisk would be appropriate, as he is not currently a Republican Party member, but he was elected to public office as a Republican; he even ran for POTUS in the GOP primary, and changed affiliations to the LP. It is accurate to label him as a libertarian republican, as well as a Libertarian republican, and a libertarian Republican, as he has been all three at some point in his political career. Tbessler (talk) 22:25, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering if any of the listed "libertarian Republicans" adhere to the NAP, the underlining foundation of libertarianism? Sort of makes "libertarian Republican" an oxymoron, don't you think? Johnson did not refer to himself as being libertarian while a Republican. I also see Rand Paul listed. I have been with the libertarian movement since 1975 and I can assure you Rand is not libertarian, not even close. This whole article is just a wishful thinking fantasy. Jeff Smith (talk) 00:26, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cleveland

[edit]

Grover Cleveland was a Democrat... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.120.129 (talk) 19:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Right you are. Cleveland has been removed from the page.--JayJasper (talk) 20:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

[edit]

I've raised the sources here at WP:RSN. Some of them are very dubious, eg [3]. Others may be ok but don't say Libertarian (eg one says centrist). I've removed all the unsourced entries as violations of WP:BLP. Sources for BLP entries must be impeccable. Dougweller (talk) 12:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now at WP:BLPN. Dougweller (talk) 16:15, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OnTheIssues.org as RS

[edit]

An IP has recently deleted material supported by www.ontheissues.org/ & other sources. Discussion is invited as to whether these sources are WP:RS. (The material is now restored.) – S. Rich (talk) 22:14, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Christie?

[edit]

I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any libertarians who'd consider Chris Christie one of their own. He supports gun control (the other person the article claims, Cuomo, drafted a sweeping gun confiscation bill in his state) and Rand dissed him. He spoke to one of their groups, but that doesn't mean he's with them on the issues and the article also said they groaned during his speech. He's more of a Rockefeller Republican like Romney, Snowe or McCain, which is extremely different. J390 (talk) 04:00, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that the sources cited say "libertarian". (Admittedly, I haven't looked at them.) OnTheOtherHand, On the Issues.org lists him as a "Moderate Liberal Populist" [4]. (What it really comes down to -- politicians seek to understand (and then repeat) what their constituents want to hear.) Based on what OTI says, recommend removing him from the list. – S. Rich (talk) 04:34, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Libertarian-leaning" Republican/Democrat parameters

[edit]

The article Libertarian Democrat has had some edit warring over including Obama as a "libertarian-leaning" Democrat. (I am inclined to say no, he is not libertarian.) To hopefully resolve the issue on that page, I have proposed changing the parameters for defining "Libertarian Democrat" at Talk:Libertarian Democrat. In the interests of consistency between the LD & LR articles, I propose that the listing of "libertarian-leaning Republicans" be limited to those "who are described as libertarian or libertarian-leaning by commentators, or who have been endorsed by Libertarian political parties." Comments here (or on the LD talkpage) are welcome. – S. Rich (talk) 16:34, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • EVERYBODY leans towards libertarianism in some fashion or another. It is the amount in which a person leans away from libertarianism that defines them. Calling Republicans or Democrats libertarian is incorrect and downright silly. This coming from someone who was involved with the libertarian movement since 1975. Bunco man (talk) 17:22, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strikeouts of "former" members

[edit]

Some recent edits have added strikeout typeface for former or past subscribers of libertarianism. This sort of editing is prone to original research. I've removed the strikeouts and tried to expand, refine the intro sentence to allow for past & present subscribers of libertarianism. – S. Rich (talk) 03:37, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarian Republican is an oxymoron

[edit]

I've been with the Libertarian Party since 1976. Only those who call themselves libertarian Republicans agree that such a thing exists. The Libertarian Party does not acknowledge the possibility. The reason is that the underling philosophy of libertarianism is the NAP (Non-Aggression Principle). One cannot be a libertarian without adhering to it. The Republican Party does not adhere to the NAP. You either adhere to it or you don't, you can't do both. That makes the term libertarian Republican an oxymoron. Jeff Smith (talk) 14:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I added information on the NAP with link-backs and a good reference. Although the core principle of libertarianism lay with the NAP I expect there to be issues with vandalism. Jeff Smith (talk) 19:33, 14 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's funny that you say it's an oxymoron, when the American "Libertarian Party" is an oxymoron itself. Libertarianism is stateless socialism. I wonder how many Republicans would disavow calling themselves libertarian if they knew that? JanderVK (talk) 15:42, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Libertarian Republican. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 8 external links on Libertarian Republican. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:19, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Walker???? Seriously?

[edit]

In what universe is he considered a libertarian leaning Republican? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.157.100 (talk) 22:25, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 18 external links on Libertarian Republican. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot*this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cleaning up this page and tackling weak sourcing

[edit]

I've removed a bunch of content (under the "list of libertarian Republicans") that is weakly sourced, namely:

  • Citations to the "OntheIssues.com" aggregator. This website does have a methodology for assigning descriptions (e.g., "libertarian-leaning conservative"), but it is limited in scope and these descriptions frequently change.
  • Citations that merely say that Ron Paul or Lew Rockwell endorsed or praised the person. This alone doesn't support a description of an individual as "libertarian" — something more is needed.
  • Citations to blogs, YouTube clips, etc.
  • Mere citations to collections of voting records, etc., which do not directly describe the person as libertarian.

I think the sort of sources we need are (1) journalistic accounts describing the individual as libertarian or (2) statements of the person describing himself or herself as libertarian. Neutralitytalk 16:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One of the main problems is that libertarianism already has a definition. Republicans do not have the option of redefining the term and philosophy simply because they decided to add the title to Republican. Bunco man (talk) 20:27, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutrality please cease removing sourced information. Libertarianism is libertarianism, the source does not need to include Republican-libertarian to be about libertarianism. Bunco man (talk) 21:51, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This page is about libertarian Republicans. Citing to a random FAQ page on an advocacy group's website, when the FAQ doesn't even mention the Republicans once, is not proper. It moreover does not support the claim made on this article. Neutralitytalk 23:04, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Neutrality: Again, libertarianism is libertarianism, and the definition (the philosophy, principles, etc) doesn't change just because because we write Republican after it. Bunco man (talk) 00:40, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but that's irrelevant. The question is why it should be on this page. Neutralitytalk 00:48, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps because this page is named Libertarian Republican. That fact makes my comment VERY relevant. Bunco man (talk) 01:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you think a random FAQ page on an advocacy group's website, when the FAQ doesn't even mention the Republicans once, is a proper reliable source for an article on libertarian Republicans? Neutralitytalk 02:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, let me try another route. I have been with the libertarian movement since 1975. The definition and the principles have never changed. Putting Republican after libertarian does not change the definition of libertarianism. The source doesn't mention Republicans, because libertarianism (a non-aggression based entity) has nothing to do with Republicans (aggression based entities). The NAP is a foundation principle of Libertarianism. Republicans oppose the NAP. Does that help clarify the comment within the article? Bunco man (talk) 03:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not responsive to the question I put. The question is this: "Why do you think a random FAQ page on an advocacy group's website, when the FAQ doesn't even mention the Republicans once, is a proper reliable source for an article on libertarian Republicans?" Neutralitytalk 04:33, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps there may be a better source out there that explains what I have already. That the "opposition to the use of the term libertarian Republican comes from the libertarian adherence to the non-aggression principle..." However, the source used is perfectly fine for this purpose as the libertarian principles are long established. I added another reference link to the Statement of Principles in the Libertarian Party platform that lists the NAP as one of the main principles in libertarianism. Bunco man (talk) 05:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarian Republican isn't a Thing

[edit]

Libertarian Republican isn't an actual thing. The proper terminology would be paleo-conservative. Paleo-conservatives are distantly similar to Libertarians but are fundamentally different on key issues. My suggestion is to delete the article or rename it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.150.184.160 (talk) 09:01, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is indeed true, "Libertarian Republican isn't a thing," although many Republicans and right-wingers think it is. The main drawback with allowing anybody and everybody to edit on an encyclopedia, is that they do. It's especially a problem with politics where the opposition to a philosophy, such as libertarianism, can work to injure it. In this case, libertarianism is a philosophy based on the two foundation principles of [1] self-ownership and [2] non-aggression. The Republican Party and the right-wing doctrine does not adhere to non-aggression. The Republicans decided that they had the option to redefine what libertarianism is and isn't. They have no preference to change the definition of libertarian, so that it is a right-wing or left-wing entity, no more than anyone else has a claim to redefine Republican, as a communist entity. Bunco man (talk) 21:43, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No original research / SYNTH / reliable sourcing

[edit]

I have removed the following improper sentence:

{{Opposition to the use of the term libertarian Republican comes from the libertarian adherence to the non-aggression principle, advocating that the initiation of force against the life, liberty or property of an individual is immoral, and to which the Republican Party platform and its ideological base of neoconservative partisans do not adhere.[1][2]

References

  1. ^ [1]"Libertarianism is based on a single ideal, the non-aggression principle," 11-06-2013. Retrieved March 14, 2014.
  2. ^ [2]"Statement of Principles," 05-2016. Retrieved August 19, 2016.

This sentence has a boatload of problems:

  • First - It is not supported by the cited sources - neither source appears to mention the Republican Party or libertarian Republicans at all. See Wikipedia:No original research; Wikipedia:Synthesis. No do the cited sources show that the Republican Party has an "ideological base of neoconservative partisans" - that's surely POV and is not accurate at all.
  • Second - even if the cited sources did support these points, they would not be sufficient to make this claim, especially not in Wikipedia's own voice. The sources are (1) the Advocates for Self-Government, an advocacy group and (2) the Libertarian Party's own website. These are not scholarly sources and definitely can't be used to make a claim in Wikipedia's own voice. -- Neutralitytalk 23:10, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bunco man: Please immediately self-revert your re-insertion of this content. I have laid out in detail the many problems with it, with reference to Wikipedia policy. Neutralitytalk 23:16, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Libertarianism, the Party, and libertarianism, the philosophy, both adhere to the foundation principle of non-aggression (NAP: non-aggression principle). This has not changed since the formation of libertarianism in Europe and America. It is literally part of the definition. The two sources show this to be true, but you want to simply insist this is not the case. Bunco man (talk) 23:23, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bunco man: What you are doing right now is engaging in original research and synthesis. Neither source mentions the Republican Party or Republicans — not a single time. And even if they did, a link to the Libertarian Party's platform and to a non-scholarly advocacy group's website would not be an acceptable source.
You've edit-warred, repeatedly, to re-insert these claims. Please self-revert. I don't want to seek arbitration remedies, but I will do so if it's necessary to keep these unsourced claims out of the article. Neutralitytalk 23:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm here as a neutral party in response to a posting on the No original research noticeboard. The cited source does, of course, support the idea that libertarianism is based on non-agression, but it does not support the statement that "Opposition to the use of the term libertarian Republican comes from" that. The statement is thus making the argument that libertarian Republicanism cannot be libertarianism and the making of such arguments is the very thing that the No original research policy prohibits. We only report what reliable sources say. The statement is clearly prohibited by the policy. There may (or may not) also be issues with whether that source is a reliable source as defined by Wikipedia, but that issue is moot since it does not support the material for which it is cited. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 04:27, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"The statement is thus making the argument that libertarian Republicanism cannot be libertarianism and the making of such arguments is the very thing that the No original research policy prohibits." So, even though "libertarian Republicans" do not adhere to the definition and principles of libertarianism, they can simply "over-rule" it. That is what is happening here. Bunco man (talk) 20:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, what is happening here is that we're building an encyclopedia based upon verifiability, as defined by Wikipedia. While truth is extremely important, it must be verifiable truth since we have no paid board of professional editors to decide what content is and is not appropriate. Without that this would just be a repository of whatever anyone wants to post, little more than any other mailing list or bulletin board on the Internet. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Miller, Hunter, etc.

[edit]

I strongly object to this edit, which removed very well-cited, well-attributed content, which I duplicate below (in green type):

  • Jack Hunter, radio talk show host ("The Southern Avenger"), political commentator, former aide to Rand Paul, editor of Rare Politics[1][2] – has written of his "attraction to libertarianism."[2] Hunter was a longtime defender of the Confederate flag and expressed neo-Confederate views, which libertarian commentator and law professor Ilya Somin criticized in 2013 as inconsistent with libertarianism; in 2015, Hunter stated that he was wrong about the flag.[2]
  • Dennis Miller, television personality – described himself as a "conservative libertarian" in the 1990s, although "his commentary always contained a streak of right-wing populism."[3] After the September 11 attacks, Miller's views, particularly on foreign and defense policy, drifted further to the right.[4]

References

  1. ^ Ilya Somin, Former "Southern Avenger" Jack Hunter Resigns from Rand Paul's Staff, Volokh Conspiracy (July 22, 2013).
  2. ^ a b c Jack Hunter, The 'Southern Avenger' Repents: I Was Wrong About the Confederate Flag, Daily Beast (June 22, 2015).
  3. ^ Duncan Currie, Dennis the Right-Wing Menace?, National Review (July 27, 2003).
  4. ^ Dennis Miller, Los Angeles Times (2016): "Miller's generally libertarian politics took a sharp right turn shortly after Sept. 11. Now with his material falling on the consistently conservative side, Miller makes regular appearances on Fox News staples..."

If a person is a libertarian Republican for part of their career, but not for another, that is obviously worth mentioning. Individual opinions obviously change over time; this is well cited (and, in the case of Somin, well-attributed). There's no policy-based rationale for deleting, nor has any been meaningfully given. Neutralitytalk 14:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Given that there has been no response for over a month, and no objection, I'm making the appropriate edit. Neutralitytalk 02:04, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Libertarian_Republican&oldid=1211858933"