This  level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Politics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Sociology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Philosophy: Social and political Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Social and political philosophy Psychology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Human rights High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Anarchism This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anarchism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anarchism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AnarchismWikipedia:WikiProject AnarchismTemplate:WikiProject Anarchismanarchism Open tasks:

No such thing. Libertarianism is in direct opposition to authoritarianism. There is no universe where advocating for a smaller government with less power is authoritarian. 206.174.68.232 (talk) 18:33, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is the equivalent of listing "freedom" as a subtype of "slavery". 206.174.68.232 (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

it's just further proof that the recent edits were made with political bias as opposed to objective fact. Considering libertarianism as "authoritarianism" is just proof that editors aren't looking to share fact but to spread lies and misinformation. Zerochuckdude (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Zerochuckdude, it's important when editing to remember WP:NOPA. It's a policy on Wikipedia which prohibits personal attacks. You should read and understand this policy before accusing people of trying to "spread lies and misinformation". Violations of this and similar policies can lead to a ban from editing. Bill Heller (talk) 17:20, 1 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There are individuals who truly beleive that authoritarianism breeds liberty.

Despite it being an oxymoron. Its better to be defined as Fusionism to combine authoritarian beleifs, or to redefine it as libertarian. with its perponents being Hans-Hermann Hoppe and Augusto Pinochet

The issue isnt libertarianism, as its core ideology is distinct, but how fusionists such as musk and the gop are looking to redefine it to mean as such.

Often these conservatives will use the word, but not in ways as to what its supposed to mean, but what they want it to mean.

See: Fusionism, Pinochetism, Hoppeanism, Political positions of Ronald Reagan Dieselkeough (talk) 00:14, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There absolutely should be a section on the rise of economically libertarian political authoritarianism. There is no contradiction between the two, they are two different things. People can and do support libertarian economics and authoritarian government. Curtis Yarvin for instance supports monarchy and right wing libertarian economic policies 2A02:8084:6A82:4500:EDE9:9548:1E34:3BAD (talk) 20:57, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I feel its better to refer to it as the more accurate, and more widespread term Fusionism than it is to refer to it as 'authoritarian libertarian' as the terms are very much at odds and may be confusing to outside readers.

The lib-auth idea that you are referring to with monarchy and curtis yavin, was first popularized by Hans-Hermann Hoppe and was referred to at the time as fusionism, and has since grown a following in the Mises Caucus and other groups like it that are aligned financially and politically with donald trump and other cults of personality such as Augusto Pinochet Dieselkeough (talk) 00:44, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right-wing Libertarianism is associated with Fusionism, Technofeudalism, and plutocratic oligarchy, all of which are authoritarian. The same figures that coined the term "anarcho-capitalism" also argued that absolute monarchy is more Libertarian than democracy.

It is a little confusing because "Libertarianism" is usually used to refer to libertarian socialism, which is instead associated with direct democracy and decentralization in contrast to the centralized oligarchy (or autocracy) of the more recent concept of right-wing Libertarianism. 24.11.203.127 (talk) 17:41, 20 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the section "Libertarian authoritarianism" as it is currently written is an eyesore, and needs to be balanced with counter claims. Not to mention the term is kind of absurd. Plasticwonder (Cat got your tongue?) 09:03, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:CommunityNotesContributor added this section on what he suggests is a new type of "authoritarianism": "libertarian authoritarianism".

Four sources are cited in these edits:

1. Jacobin 2025 article, which is being quoted correctly. But note that Wikipedia lists WP:JACOBIN as being "generally reliable but biased". Also note this line from the article: "...turned into a leading exponent of what we have defined as libertarian authoritarianism." Hence the phrase was coined in the 2025 Jacobin article - or at least the author here believes this to be the case - which makes it perplexing that a Wikipedia user has supposedly found three previous articles on the same concept. Let's go over them next:

2. BJS 1996 article: "This paper re-examines this question by developing and evaluating multiple-item scales of two core dimensions of mass political beliefs: left-right and libertarian-authoritarian values." To paraphrase, according to the author, one core dimension in politics is left vs right, and one core dimension is libertarian vs authoritarian. Those add up to two core dimensions. This paper does not support the existence of an ideology called "libertarian authoritarianism"; to the contrary, the model presented here would assume this combination is impossible.

3. Tilley 2005 article: "This research note explores the mechanisms behind age differences and changes over time in one of the two major value dimensions in British politics, libertarian-authoritarianism. I show that the British electorate has become substantially more libertarian over the last 30 years, but that older people have remained more authoritarian than younger people over this period." Here, libertarian/authoritarianism are, like in the BJS article, conceived as opposite ends of a dimension. Again, this source actually contradicts the content of the section.

4. New Statesman: This article discusses "libertarian-authoritarian personality". Here, authoritarian personality is a set phrase in psychology from Adorno et al. (1950). What the article is referring to, then, is *a person with an authoritarian personality and libertarian beliefs". Suggesting that this article supports the existence of "libertarian authoritarianism" as an ideology is WP:SYNTHESIS at its worst.

To summarize: The 2025 Jacobin article is the only source here, out of four cited, that discusses "libertarian authoritarianism" in the way that was presented in these edits. The two academic sources do not in fact support this definition; in fact, they would consider it paradoxical. Given that Jacobin is regarded as "biased" in WP:RS, given that it admits to coining the phrase on the fly, and given that we have two academic articles which would strongly disagree with this phrasing, this definition of "libertarian authoritarianism" is not supported by RS. Ceconhistorian (talk) 18:39, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hear what you're saying and I appreciate the analysis and the discussion. Granted I'm not that experienced in "political ideologies" as it were, hence you'd rarely find me editing such pages, I think this was the first tbh. In response to your assessment of sources, I'll start by pointing out that WP:NEWSTATESMAN and WP:JACOBIN are considered WP:GREL, meaning they are generally reliable. Granted Jacobin is highly biased, but it is not WP:MREL either and WP:RSOPINION applies here, that of WP:INTEXT etc. As for the wording, it could have been better, to explain how liberatarian-authoritarian has previously been defined as part of a political spectrum, as opposed to an ideology, these being the two research papers you mention. The second two are based on "libertarian-authoritarianism" broadly speaking, whether that be a personality or an ideology, but I believe are relevant to discussing the ideology in general. I had otherwise first thought to create a standalone article, because I wasn't sure whether it would be best here or at libertarianism, or elsewhere, but given the lack of size issues at authoritarianism this is where I ended up putting the content, rather than creating a 4 source stub. There is otherwise a book published by Polity that I believe would help improve sourcing, but the preview itself doesn't appear that useful. Regards, CNC (talk) 19:15, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"As for the wording, it could have been better, to explain how liberatarian-authoritarian has previously been defined as part of a political spectrum, as opposed to an ideology". This is blatantly WP:SYNTHESIS. I suggest you actually read the policy page, because you clearly haven't internalized it. *Any* attempt to chronicle the etymology or intellectual history of a term, without citing sources that specifically describe these aspects of the phrase, would be synthesis.

And no, WP:RSOPINION does not apply. When you assert that "[X] is a type of [article topic]", and the article topic falls in the category of political theory and social theory, you're implying that the term/concept has passed some threshold of prevalence and notability within the literature on political theories and social theories. That is a factual statement, not an opinion. It is either true that the term exists and is used in the literature in the way you described, or it is false.

In this case it is clearly false. We have agreed now that 1 of the 4 sources claims to have coined the term, that 1 of the 4 sources is using the phrase "authoritarian personality" to refer to the concept in psychology and not the concept in political science, and neither of the 2 academic sources use the phrase to refer to an ideology; and in fact, it follows from *their* definition that the ideology you're describing is paradoxical.

To be clear: *All* four sources you cited would suggest that the statement "Libertarian-authoritarianism is a concept in political theory" is false. Even the Jacobin source suggests that what you're implying is false, because Jacobin author believes *he* coined the phrase. The book source that you now cite (without reading) also believes that it is coining a new phrase; neither source refers to the other, which means we have zero reason to believe they're even discussing the same concept. Amlinger/Nachtwey in fact seem to be describing a form of radical state-less libertarianism ("They do not long for a glorified past or the strong arm of the state but argue instead for individual freedoms at all costs.") whereas the Jacobin article is about libertarians using state-power and expanding state power. Again, this is why WP:SYNTHESIS is bad.

As you've already admitted to not having any experience in this area, the fact that you're now discussing the creation of a standalone article is even more bizarre. You should also consider whether you're doing the due diligence expected when citing sources considering that they say nothing of what you implied. Getting rid of such misused sources is time-consuming, because I or someone else actually have to go through and read these sources to confirm our suspicion that they're misused. That is not fair to me or other editors.

I am done with this conversation. Ceconhistorian (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OK then, good day to you, thanks for your opinion. The Conversation also had this to say on the merging of the ideologies, but wasn't included in the content. I appreciate other editors opinions on this matter. CNC (talk) 20:12, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are individuals who truly beleive that authoritarianism breeds liberty.

Despite it being an oxymoron. Its better to be defined as Fusionism to combine authoritarian beleifs, or to redefine it as libertarian. with its perponents being Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Ronald Reagan, and Augusto Pinochet

The issue isnt libertarianism, as its core ideology is distinct, but how fusionists such as musk and the gop are looking to redefine it to mean as such.

Often these conservatives will use the word, but not in ways as to what its supposed to mean, but what they want it to mean.

See: Fusionism, Pinochetism, Hoppeanism, Reaganism, Tea Party movement Dieselkeough (talk) 00:23, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly isnt a new phrase, but perhaps the author did not know it as such. Fusionism has been a common ideology.

E.J. Dionne, Jr., Why Americans Hate Politics, New York: Simon & Schuster, 1991, 161

https://www.dissentmagazine.org/blog/know-your-enemy-frank-meyer-the-father-of-fusionism

https://reason.com/2021/02/10/is-there-a-future-for-fusionism/ Dieselkeough (talk) 00:29, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing any connection between fusionism and libertarian authoritarianism in the sources. None of the sources reference the two things, and the definitions are pretty different. We'd need a source overtly saying they're the same thing to treat them as it this way. I guess you could vaguely trace the roots of libertarian authoritarianism to fusionism but we'd need actual sources making the connection to do that. --Aquillion (talk) 14:06, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Aquillion Not seeing any connection made in sources either. Recent edit was bizarre to say the least. CNC (talk) 14:33, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fusionism may be different, looking at it, though fusionism did lead to the formation of Paleolibertarianism. Its worth noting that these same tendancies of Authoritarianism are potrayed in Hoppes writings which indicate that Monarchy or dictatorship is preferable to Democracy as written in Democracy: The God That Failed. (1)

Further, Hans Hermann Hoppes influence in 'Fusing' the two as cited from "Plumb Line Libertarianism" is a more direct connection between Fusionism and Hoppe/Libertarian authoritarianism By Walter Block (below) cannot be understated. His ideological connections in 'fusing' economic ideas of libertarianism with support for Monarchy (2) though this certainly isnt the only article detailing such, with this fusionist mindset going back to 1992. (4)

It may be more accurate to refer to this as Paleolibertarianism rather than the newly created Libertarian Authoritarianism or Fusionism. (3) And this modern movement can largely be attributed to Hans Hermann Hoppe and the paleolibertarians from the 90s-2000s, Taking some inspiration from the Anti-communism of Pinochet. (5)

(1) https://revistas.ucm.es/index.php/RPUB/article/view/53878/49322

(2) Block, Walter E., Plumb Line Libertarianism: A Critique of Hoppe. Reason Papers, Vol. 29, Fall 2007, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1881061

(3) https://web.archive.org/web/20180907144559/http://www.pericles.press/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/Liberty_Magazine.pdf

(4) https://web.archive.org/web/20181120015142/http://rothbard.altervista.org/articles/right-wing-populism.pdf

(5) https://theintercept.com/2021/02/04/pinochet-far-right-hoppean-snake/

I apologise for my last, hastily made edit, I was on mobile, and my edits kept getting deleted as soon as I got to them, so a more comprehensively written bit couldn't be properly made. Dieselkeough (talk) 04:32, 25 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This authoritarian tendency in libertarian capitalism led to technofeudalism as a form of neo-feudalism in the Dark Enlightenment. There are the related ideas of broligarchy, technocracy, and plutocracy. Libertarian capitalism is very closely tied to feudal monarchism and neo-medievalism. 2601:486:100:9780:389D:538F:3BD8:39E4 (talk) 03:17, 30 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• @CommunityNotesContributor:, there's definitely enough sources on this to support a section - libertarian Authoritarianism is a genuine topic of scholarly discussion, and many other sources discussing it exist. But you need better sources, such as eg. ^{[1][2][3][4][5][6]} I would suggest rewriting it a bit and re-adding it using those. In particular, many other sources cite Amlinger and Nachtwey's "Offended Freedom: The Rise of Libertarian Authoritarianism" and Wendy Brown's "Where the fires are", so I would focus heavily on those. --Aquillion (talk) 22:15, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, while I agree that the BJS and Tilley sources are irrelevant, the New Statesman one is absolutely talking about Libertarian Authoritarianism as a discrete ideological concept. I'm not sure how anyone could read it in any other way, but if there's any confusion, check the authors; it is by Amlinger and Nachtwey, who literally wrote an entire book on the subject and who are also the author of the Jacobin piece. When they repeatedly talk about libertarian authoritarianism and describe people as libertarian authoritarians, they're obviously using that term in the same sense that did when they wrote a massive academic book about it. I think that the other sources establishing relevance are also enough to let the Jacobin piece be used (it is written by academically-published experts on the subject), but that since that book, the Jacobin piece, and the New Statesman one are all by the same authors I have combined them into one paragraph. --Aquillion (talk) 22:48, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks for your work on including a summary of child article :) CNC (talk) 04:31, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I was reading the wiki page about authoritarianism and I came across the inculsion of Israel to this list. For one, Israel is not considered to be an authoritarian regime by the general scholars and by Freedom House. Furthermore, the word choice in the Israel entry is quite biased especially when using words such as "boasting" instead of "claiming". Regardless I question the accuracy of the writing in the Israel part of the list.

Have a great day! Posaidonman (talk) 12:29, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Undemocratic has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 November 15 § Undemocratic until a consensus is reached. Thepharoah17 (talk) 05:01, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Typologies > Similar Terms > Authoritarian personality

Change: "A study found evidence for both left-wing and right-wing authoritarianism."

to: "A study found evidence for both left-wing and right-wing authoritarian personality types."

No change to citation. Chikxulub (talk) 03:39, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: "Left-wing authoritarianism" and "right-wing authoritarianism" are the terms used by the cited source. Day Creature (talk) 04:44, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Right-wing authoritarian" and "left-wing authoritarian" are also used numerous times within the text of the study itself.

My suggested edit is a clarification of the actual findings of the study that is cited. As it is currently, it's not clear what "left-wing and right-wing authoritarianism" is referring to, when the study that's cited is specifically referring to authoritarian traits as psychological phenomena. Chikxulub (talk) 02:30, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]