Talk:Liberalism

Liberal and Social Democracy

In the new world, liberal conservatives and modern liberals argue in cultural changing. Whereas conservatives do not want rapid changes in the society while modern liberals think that changes can do something more which is important and substantial. It is true that culture preservation is sometimes the root of political illness and social inadequacy.

People around the world would always ask for changes in the society especially the concerns of the government. A conservative government is sometimes foiled out by oppressing forces of the state, liberals and conservatives are all radicals but however they turn to have a little difference of principle. Yes, they do care about social rights but liberals would always see to something new for good while conservatives do not because of religion and culture.

The modern Liberal thought was first pronounced in the United States during World War II, the country was emotionally mobilized to tighten more its security. Capitalists who hold classic liberal thought abolished its self-mindedness and focused themselves for the better of the society. This abrupt change in the country has brought economic depression easier to handle.

American Liberalism mostly adheres to the morality of freedom and free trading where the concept of selflessness sprung for the sake of the country even though the projection of individualism is still there.

The concept is commonly used by social democrats to where “the government’s aim is the proper redistribution of wealth, the rule of the majority and the protection of the minority classes.”

Absolutism is purely intolerable avoid exploitation and oppression of the rights of each individual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.144.115.105 (talk) 12:46, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

This talk page is about the article "Liberalism", not a discussion page for the subject. Rick Norwood (talk) 17:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

"equality" and "democracy"

"Liberalism", according to all major reference works, is the belief in individual freedom. Freedom implies equal rights and equal oportunity, but the claim that liberals want to enforce equality of outcomes is made by the enemies of liberalism, not by the liberals themselves.

"Democracy" is generally used to include representative democracy and constitutional monarchy, which includes all of the Allied Powers in World War II.

Rick Norwood (talk) 15:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rick. Thanks for the comments. My change was a simple one. I replaced the word 'democracy' with the more general term 'government' because the US is not a democracy. It is a constitutional republic. While it is true that senators and representatives are elected democratically by their respective states, it is inappropriate to use the term Democracy to identify the US as a whole. The President is elected by the electoral college (and senators were elected by state legislatures prior to the 17th Amendment), which is a Republic concept, not a democratic one. I think this discussion has probably occurred many times before on many forums. The political science literature identifies the US as a republic not a democracy, so I would urge not including the US in that particular phraseology, as it leads people to the false conclusion that the US is a Democracy, when it is not. I would not be opposed to a further change to make this distinction clear. It appears the original author in the desire to be brief, included all of The Allies as democracies, when in fact, this is not true. Do you think if I added some sources, which a) call the US a constitutional republic or b) exclude the US as a democracy, would be helpful to improve the article? I have numerous sources which do both a and b. Detah (talk) 16:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I am familiar with that view and arguments but they appear to be fringe, and therefore unacceptable for the article. TFD (talk) 16:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not a view. It's a definition. The United States is not a democracy, period.

wrong again

liberalism means new so buckley is not liberal and only republicans say liberals want socialism (a common tatic called red bating, hitler used it lots of times —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.13.118.232 (talk) 23:15, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Hobbes

Why no mention of Hobbes? Everyone who takes a college course in liberalism studies Hobbes and has to read Leviathan. Everyone agrees he was a major contributor to liberalism, though not himself considered to be a full-fledged liberal. Bullet Dropper (talk) 19:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

1) Why did you revert instead of supplying the title of the book?

2) Since Hobbes is considered a major conservative, a supporter of absolute monarchy, it would be hard to justify him as a major contributor to liberalism, except to the extent that Locke was reacting to Hobbes' absolutism.

Rick Norwood (talk) 12:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Hobbes is considered an influence because he justified authority on the basis of agreement, as opposed to divine right, anticipating Locke's arguments. He was brought up in the various reviews of this article that may be read by looking at "Milestones" above. The article does not go into much detail about influences on Locke. If someone wants to add material about that I would not object, but just adding Hobbes would be unhelpful.

Also, I noticed an editor wishes to include something about the etymology of the word "classical liberalism". The source used howver is a textbook for "introductory political science courses". Please use reliable secondary sources. Liberalism is an important but controversial topic, and it is both possible and expedient to use these types of sources.

TFD (talk) 14:42, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Textbooks are reliable sources. Bullet Dropper (talk) 18:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Page 32 "Hobbes can be called the founder of liberalism..." http://books.google.com/books?id=RraTbBJ0m_YC&printsec=frontcover&dq=%22An+Intellectual+History+of+Liberalism%22&hl=en&ei=6JCfTOmtK8OAlAflyLHsAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false Again, if you take a course in college in liberalism Hobbes is the first person you learn about, so it's really strange that Hobbes is not mentioned at all in this article. Hobbes is indispensable to liberalism. Bullet Dropper (talk) 18:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, no Hobbes is not the first person one learns about, it is more likely to be Machiavelli, as your linked source shows, and one can find precedents from antiquity. Your source does not say he is the founder of liberalism, and you should not data mine for sources. You left out the next part of the sentence beginning "because" which explains why someone might hold that point of view although most do not. TFD (talk) 18:47, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

That source certainly does not say that most do not. Bullet Dropper (talk) 18:51, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

No but you would know that if you read reliable sources about liberalism before coming to edit this page. It even says this in the book, "A liberal lineag3e that makes Machiavelli and Hobbes the framily's founders is bound to produce a different legacy than one that attributes paternity to Locke" (p. xiii). The implication is that they are arguing a minority view. TFD (talk) 19:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Whether he's the founder or not, is not my point here. I'm saying regardless he's a signficant contributor. Why else would a book like that on liberalism go into so much discussion about him? Obviously any encylcopedia article on liberalism has to include Hobbes. Bullet Dropper (talk) 19:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Page 19: "Hobbes is the founder of liberalism precisely because he believes in the supremacy of the individual..." http://books.google.com/books?id=42ZqYSNcJYwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Freedom+as+motion&hl=en&ei=UJifTIekHoLGlQejytnsAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false Bullet Dropper (talk) 19:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Page 198 "In his individuals, in his emphasis on consent, and his priority of giving freedom over the good, Hobbes is the founder of liberalism." http://books.google.com/books?id=ZrssrlXE0WQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Blackwell+Companion+to+Christian+Ethics&hl=en&ei=3ZifTK7UDcSblgeup_2_Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false Bullet Dropper (talk) 19:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Page 9: "It is in the seventeenth century that we find the first systematic expositions of the modern individalist outlook from which the liberal tradition springs. In England, Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) gives voice to an intransigent individualism whose modernity markes a decisive breach with the social philosophy bequeathed by Plato and Aristotle to medieval Christendom." http://books.google.com/books?id=Sh7YGQQ4d7MC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Liberalism+john+gray&hl=en&ei=qp2fTPv9IsOBlAfMjpW9Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

Leslie Feldman's book has received little notice. Felman's ideas on Hobbes apparently come from Leo Strauss and she has appeared on Fox News, wrote a book with Dick Morris and has written about Reagan and GW Bush. Of course you can find lots of minority views, including neoconservative ones, but neutrality requires us to present mainstream thinking. TFD (talk) 19:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) That Hobbes may be an influence is entirely likely. That he was a founder is quite implausible, due to his support for an absolute sovereign (his explicit support for suppression of freedom of the press and religious freedom, for example). So the quotes you provide from books above - Hobbes is the founder of liberalism precisely because he believes in the supremacy of the individual for example - are just weird. Hobbes most definitely does not believe in individual freedom. Indeed he explcitly denies it: because the purpose of the commonwealth is peace, and the sovereign has the right to do whatever he thinks necessary for the preserving of peace and security and prevention of discord, therefore the sovereign may judge what opinions and doctrines are averse; who shall be allowed to speak to multitudes; and who shall examine the doctrines of all books before they are published. William M. Connolley (talk) 19:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes he does believe in individual freedom. If you read the Leviathan, he says that in the natural state everyone has unlimited rights, then people VOLUNTARILY give up a degree of freedom in order to protect their lives. That's the key. This government be consent of the governed. The people CONSENT to a government limiting their freedom, for the sake of preserving their lives and some degree of liberty. Bullet Dropper (talk) 19:40, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The idea of government by the consent of the governed comes from Hobbes, people. I can't believe you don't have Hobbes in this article. Bullet Dropper (talk) 19:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Hobbes believed that people had given their consent before history began but they cannot revoke that consent under any circumstances, which of course differs from Filmer's conservative divine right view of the sovereign but cannot really be considered liberal, classical or otherwise. TFD (talk) 19:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

That's one of the reasons he's not considered a liberal. I'm not claiming he's a liberal. I'm saying he was a major contributor to liberalism. Many sources attest to this. So he should be discussed in the article. Bullet Dropper (talk) 19:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

That is, you could not revoke your consent and go back to anarchy. And by, the way he's not talking about "before history began," but any situation of anarchy. You would have unlimited rights in anarchy, but it would be a dangerous situation. So if you don't like anarchy, you may consent to a government. HIS preferred form of government is monarchy. But the underlying idea of government being set up by consent is his major contribution to liberalism. One doesn't have to be a liberal to be a contributor to liberalism. Liberalism is a mixture of ideas pulled together from various philosophers, some liberals and some not and some not so clear. Bullet Dropper (talk) 20:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, look what I found. The "Young" source used throughout this article says "For early liberals such as Hobbes, Spinoza, and Locke, securing life, liberty, and property requires the establishment of a common supreme power." However, this Wikipedia article said "Early liberals, including John Locke and Baruch Spinoza, attempted to determine the purpose of government in a liberal society. To these liberals, securing the most essential amenities of life—liberty and private property among them..." and citing Young. You left out Hobbes and it was right there in the source! Unbelievable. We have to go by the sources. We can't pick and choose what we agree or disagree with. I put Hobbes in. Bullet Dropper (talk) 23:23, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

As has been explained to you often, it is not a question of picking sources with a particular point of view, it is understanding the difference between major sources and minor sources. For one thing, a major source will usually be in print. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:14, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Sean Young

"Shaun Young examines the work of a number of prominent political liberals, and concludes that as it presently manifests itself, the concept of political liberalism cannot achieve its stated goals." is what the only review I can find of Young's out-of-print book from a minor publisher says about it. It is easy to find some minor book that agrees with any preconcieved notion -- those interested in a subject should first read major books. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The article already says, "The early messenger for that movement was the English philosopher John Locke, frequently identified as the Father of Liberalism...." That seems adequate, any other views should be addressed in the history article. Some scholars claim that liberalism did not begin until the 19th century. TFD (talk) 15:04, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Liberalis is nom as well as gen

Liberalis is an adj, from liberalis, liberale. Therefore liberalis is the nom and gen, so no need to say "of freedom" in the definition at the top. Someone should change the definition to: free, dignified, open-handed, as per wiktionary

The definition is based on standard reference books. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:09, 9 October 2010 (UTC)