The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. original research and synthesis J04n(talk page) 17:12, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Separation of money and state (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There are some valid sources used, but most of these instances constitute violations of the original research policy. — goethean 21:06, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The article fails to establish that there is any clearly-defined meaning for this phrase. The lede states that the subject is not the same as free banking, but it provides no positive exposition of its meaning. Instead, the narrative is replete with (naive and corrigible) WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and non-RS citations, largely to ideas and subjects that are only tangential to the purported subject of the article. Numerous citations fail verification. Despite numerous tags clearly indicating its flaws, the article has not been improved. Various searches fail to show widespread use of this term, and if any WP:RS literature on the subject is found, such information belongs in other articles, e.g. Free Banking. Separation of money and state does not warrant a separate article. SPECIFICO talk 23:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Fiat money. The basis for the "proposed abolition" is that the state is involved in monetary affairs, e.g, has created money via fiat. As the "proposal" (actually a criticism of monetary policy) is fairly recent, much/some of the present article stuff can be fitted in as a new section. – S. Rich (talk) 00:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Srich, the state is also involved in a metallic standard, in central banking and clearing, in legal tender laws, and in other aspects of money-related affairs. I'm not convinced about a redirect to fiat money. SPECIFICO talk 01:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps another article? I suggested the best I could find, but would welcome another.-- – S. Rich (talk) 03:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the term is defined, how can we know where to redirect it? As it now stands, it may as well redirect to Goodyear Blimp as far as I can tell. SPECIFICO talk 03:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. or possibly, delete tand then redirect, because there is nothing in the history worth preserving. This is an attempt to accumulate quotations to prove a point, not a WP article. DGG ( talk ) 00:21, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Admitedly this article deserves improvement. Have you looked at the talk page? I have posted the explanation as to how the topic differs from free banking, and suggestions on ways to improve it. It would have been interesting for a discussion to occur there. In a nutshell, here is the rationale:

The proposed abolition is distinct from free banking in two ways. Politically, it addresses the issue of monetary sovereignty, granted to the individual as a way to enhance his liberty; it is not a mere economical debate. But most importantly, as Hayek argues in The Denationalization of Money, legal tender laws and banking licenses may be abolished (i.e. free banking instituted), but if the government still mints an official currency, and uses it to levy taxes, it benefits from an undue monopolistic advantage. Therefore money/state separation implies free banking, but the opposite isn't true (i.e. money/state separation is a hypernym of free banking). This is evident as free banking has existed before, whereas money/state separation hasn't (i.e. governments have always minted their currency, even when private institutions were authorized to do so as well). The most notable source for that argument is Hayek, but it has been made by many other authors (Rothbard, Greco, Riegel, Dominique Carreau, etc.)

The phrasing has been used to refer to church/state separation. See Chapter 8 of This book for a typical example. The reference is also made by Hayek, which he develops it in Good Money (Part 2).

Some authors have cited the money/state separation in the context of alternative currencies (Bitcoin especially). See here for one example.

Also, please remind yourself of WP:IMPERFECT and reassess the argument that the article is worthless. The content may very well be (I'm neither proficient in English nor an experienced Wikipedia editor yet), but the proposal is indeed relevant and notable. Accordingly, I have solicited help to complete and source the article further. Finally, please review this and this before making up your mind.

PS: I will shorty try to post better constructed and sourced article content. But again, input/suggestions by experienced editors would be invaluable.

PS2: I am still working on better organizing the sources, and including other points of views (as I've suggested in the talk page). Here are some two other examples of this issue being notably adressed: here or here

Alfy32 (talk) 19:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. My apologies the Woods ref I meant to cite is his book Rollback. An abstract can be found here. Alfy32 (talk) 19:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Austrian School. The term "separation of money and state" gives very few hints on google books and google news. I have heard separation of economy and state from Ayn Rand in an interview with Mike Wallace in the 50s (its on youtube). But still, the term itself isn't enough widespread to be considered notable for its own article. The economists who want or wanted this are sympathetic to the Austrian school of economics, so thats why it should be redirected there. I also remind everyone not to WP:BITE.--Neo139 (talk) 20:32, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neo, this article does not describe a position which is a dominant view of Austrian School economists. In fact, many current Austrians favor government adoption of a gold standard, of prohibitions on fractional reserve banking, and other government involvement in monetary affairs. For that reason, it is not appropriate to redirect to Austrian school any more than it would be appropriate to redirect to some other group (for example "Americans" or "Men") a subset of whom may have been associated with certain ideas. I have voted for Delete, but if you wish to consider a redirect, please look at The Denationalization of Money, an article which I and others recently voted to keep on WP. SPECIFICO talk 17:56, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It's true some (not all) austrian economists have argued in favor of separation, but they are not the only ones. Objectivists have hinted at it too (as you correctly mention, although Rand rather advocates a gold standard), but also electronic currency advocates, anarchists, or simply free-market commentators (e.g. Leggett, Riegel, Forbes, etc.). The topic is adjacent to classical liberalism, monetary sovereignty, free banking, ... but it is equivalent to none of these. As per the notability argument I don't understand given the numerous reliable sources that exist (and more to come, I'm still going through other sources to cite them appropriately). I acknowledge it is a marginal claim, but notable nonetheless (over 60k Web hits and over 100 book hits on the exact sentence). Again I think WP:IMPERFECT does not call for outright deletion. Alfy32 (talk) 09:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There are more than enough reliable sources to establish the notability of this concept. The debate over the proper scope of government is one of the most important debates. Numerous notable thinkers have argued that regulating or printing money should not be the responsibility of government. The article provides plenty of reliable sources...yet this article was still listed for deletion. Why? Because of OR? You don't delete a notable concept because it might have OR. What you do is assume good faith and post specific concerns on the article's talk page. --Xerographica (talk) 13:03, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Err, yes you do delete articles that are Original Research or Synthesis. WP is an encyclopedia not a soapbox. Capitalismojo (talk) 19:23, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete (without prejudice) - Another effort to stitch together through original research and synthesis a concept which folks feel deserves to be notable but which does not presently exist as a coherent topic in the literature, other than as a vivid slogan. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:42, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I second Orange Mike's assessment. This looks like OR.Capitalismojo (talk) 19:18, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Alfy32 (talk) 10:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Alfy32 (talk) 10:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per OrangeMike and WP:TNT. This is a hot mess. Bearian (talk) 17:22, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.