500 characters are not much to describe a philosophical view without “lack of demarcation” and still treat it fairly.
The current libertarianism tag excerpt (written by me):
A political philosophy that advocates individual liberty, property rights and a limited government. Not to be used for the libertarian position on free will.
Uh, "individual liberty, property rights" are also advocated by mainstream liberalism. So that's a really bad wording. There is lack of demarcation. Perhaps it's better to write “strong property rights”. On the other hand many libertarians deny, for example, that intellectual property is legitimate property. So in this sense their conception of “property rights” is weaker than the one of mainstream liberals which may cause confusion without further explanation.
Just dropping it, doesn't work, too. Because many liberals claim to be primarily concerned about liberty, too. They only conceive it very differently in the sense that financial and social power infringe on people's liberty very significantly. The libertarian conception of freedom is tightly connected with property rights.
My new suggestion is:
A political philosophy whose core ideal is individual liberty. Libertarians share a commitment to strong property rights and skepticism of state power, though left-libertarians more narrowly interpret what can be legitimate property and are also concerned about corporate power arising from privileges like limited liability or fictive personhood. Not to be used for the libertarian position on free will.
But there are many “radical” libertarians out there who would claim that there is no “left-libertarianism” or “right-libertarianism” but only the “one true libertarianism”: A view stops being libertarianism either by slipping into crony-capitalist authoritarianism or by slipping into plain old collectivism.
Pro-corporate rights, pro-IP => crony-capitalist authoritarianism
Denying land and natural resources (off-shore oil) the status of legitimate property => collectivism
Yet neither the general public nor neutral academics really share this view – though I admit this argument, fully fleshed out, has quite some force. Still in writing tag excerpts I think one should mostly resist it... and so we're starting to be unfair and “unphilosophical”.
To sum it up, in writing a tag wiki about philosophical view X, we can consider
- What neutral academics in the relevant field think X is
- What the neutral public thinks X is
- How people use X as self-designation
- What X can be without becoming internally inconsistent
And I think this is also the order of importance we should apply (with 1. being the most important point).
But is it correct?