Talk:Liberalism/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Vandal IP log

• 18:54, 26 November 2010 67.234.3.94 | Embarq Corporation,Hagerstown, Maryland, United States
• 18:54, 26 November 2010 67.234.3.94 | Embarq Corporation, Hagerstown, Maryland, United States
• 15:38, 2 November 2010 198.82.12.222 | Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State Univ., Blacksburg, Virginia, United States
• 02:50, 4 October 2010 69.178.194.13 | daktel.com, Carrington, North Dakota, United States

--Sfiga (talk) 22:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

fair trade vs. free trade

The phrase "free trade" is tossed around a lot these days. The original meaning was a reduction in tariffs, leading to greater trade and thus to greater wealth for both parties. Today, tariffs are no longer the most important source of revenue, and so questions arise about situations in which tariffs may be appropriate. Should there be free trade between a state with slave labor and a state with free labor? Should there be free trade between a state with government subsidies and a state with no government subsidies?

Another problem with "free trade" here is that it has become a code word for unrestrained capitalism, which most liberals do not support, on the grounds that it leads to monopoly, and the subjugation of the workers by the rich. Most liberals support "fair trade", which is a moderation of free trade in the interest of greater freedom and equality. If the editor who continues to replace "fair trade" by "free trade" thinks otherwise, he or she should provide sources. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

That is the problem with an unsourced lead, especially when the term "fair trade" appears no where else in the article. It seems to me that we have neither fair trade nor free trade. TFD (talk) 03:11, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Where is your reference for "fair trade" being a concept promoted by liberals? Free trade (whatever that means in different times and places and to different people) has been a fundamental aspect of liberal philosophy for some 200 years. Fair trade is a much more recent concept. I quote from the Wikipedia article on free trade (which I think suffices as a reference). You might also want to refer to sections II:1 and IV:d of the 1947 Oxford Manifesto:

--- Many classical liberals, especially in 19th and early 20th century Britain (e.g. John Stuart Mill) and in the United States for much of the 20th century (e.g. Cordell Hull), believed that free trade promoted peace. The British economist John Maynard Keynes (1883–1946) was brought up on this belief, which underpinned his criticism of the Treaty of Versailles in 1919 for the damage it did to the interdependent European economy. After a brief flirtation with protectionism in the early 1930s, he came again to favour free trade so long as it was combined with internationally coordinated domestic economic policies to promote high levels of employment, and international economic institutions that meant that the interests of countries were not pitted against each other. In these circumstances, 'the wisdom of Adam Smith' again applied, he said. ---

Fair trade is not as you state a "moderation of free trade", it is a specific recently-developed niche trading practise in which consumers are encouraged to pay more than the market price for a product with the promise that the producer of the good (usually farmers in the developing world) will then get paid more than market price for their products. I suggest you refer to the link provided within wikipedia. Of course in a free market, consumers are free to choose to pay more than they have to, and in a free society people are free to undertake charitable acts (which "fair trade" essentially is) if they see fit. However, mandating it (or indeed banning it) would be diametrically opposed to the foundation of liberalism, namely maximising free individual choice. Mandating charity, or claiming to know that the price agreed for a good between the parties to the exchange is somehow "wrong" is obviously illiberal.

If you really require more references please read the wikipedia article on economic liberalism. You might take the view that capitalism leads to monopoly and subjugation of the workers by the rich, but most (European) liberals take exactly the opposite view. Indeed, free trade has been very much a "working class" issue since at least the Peterloo protests against the British corn laws. 07:30, 14 December 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.58.177.2 (talk)

References should be to outside sources, not to Wikipedia, but the quote you give above seems to support my view. Your quote: "favour free trade so long as it was combined with internationally coordinated domestic economic policies to promote high levels of employment." In other words, free trade modified by other values. Given your own quote, your claim that "fair trade" is a recent development strikes me as strange. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Needs more Mill, Bentham, Payne and Jefferson?

My instinct is that the article is a tad light on the enlightenment-era liberal thinkers, such as the four I have named in the title of this topic, including the links to Utilitarianism and women's/universal sufferage. However I am aware that this instinct is coloured by my own Millsian tendencies, so before I start drafting content would like some input from others as to 1) wheter I am right that more is needed on enlightenment development of the ideology; 2) Who should be included as significant (aware of the risk of becoming just a long name-check of how well read I think I am); 3)what aspects of their work people think would be most significant to mention.A Pedant (talk) 17:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. Of the four, the current article only mentions Mill. But you need to be careful -- there is a whole article on American Liberalism. This article is on world liberalism. Certainly Jefferson is a major figure in world liberalism and needs to be mentioned. And I have no objection to a mention and a link to the other two, in some context that shows how their ideas shaped, not just echoed, the ideas of liberal thinkers who went before. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

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)

We should define Liberalism as it is actually, not as Marxism in sheep's clothing, (ie not American 'liberalism') I edited out the equality part, as that is only part of Marxism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dexter099 (talk • contribs) 15:18, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Im not going to change the post, cuz im new to all that in Wikipedia. But i think it is of critical importance that we specifically exclude American Liberalism from general liberalism as the people who would classify as liberals under the definition given on this wikipedia page, would actually be the republican party in america. Whereas the current "liberal" or "democratic" party is really nothing more than Marxism/Leninism. If, in replying, you could please refrain from arguing about whether or not marxism is good or bad, or whether the "civil rights" as pursued by modern day american liberals is really just racism under another name, and just address the issue, Modern day american liberalism is the antithesis of classical liberalism. Something needs to be done to the page 174.29.37.9 (talk) 13:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)M

Further clarification on meaning of liberalism in the USA

In the USA, the commonplace meaning of the word liberal/liberalism is, roughly speakiing, the platform/priorities of the US Democratic party. In some ways this is very different than the world-definition or outside-of-the-USA definition of the term, which is what is described in this article. Living in the USA, I only recently learned this, and I think that few USA readers know this. IMHO this could use a couple of sentences in the USA section and maybe one in the lead to at least acknowledge the difference. That would be enough enable readers to fully absorb (instead of being confused by) what is in the rest of this article. The previous posters' notes about Thomas Jefferson sort of force this point. USA definitions would tend to classify Jefferson as a conservative or libertarian, being so prominently an advocate of smaller and more limited government. But, by the world-definition, or outside-of-the-US definition, Jefferson would probably be classified as a liberal. North8000 (talk) 13:48, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

It is explained in the article. TFD (talk) 15:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree. The closest I see in there is the Americas section, which hops all over the place without really clearly saying it, and which also avoids the main area where the US definition is opposite the world definition. I don't plan to pursue this here, it was just a suggestion. North8000 (talk) 16:45, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The U.S. definition is not the opposite. See for example "American liberalism" in Political ideology today.[1] TFD (talk) 17:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

This is one of those areas where Wikipedia has a couple of problems. The word liberal does vary a lot in its usage around the world, then there's the variation between formal academic meanings and populist usage. Which do we report? I live in a country (Australia) where the more conservative of our two major political parties calls itself the Liberal Party, but liberal in popular conversation means pretty much the opposite of conservative. My impression of the popular use of the word in the USA is that it's an insult thrown by conservatives at less conservative people, on a par with socialist and commie. The fact that it's used as an insult prevents most people there who would be happily given that label elsewhere totally avoiding the word. HiLo48 (talk) 22:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

It is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. TFD (talk) 23:08, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, and...? HiLo48 (talk) 23:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

"Each article in an encyclopedia is about a person, or a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc.; whereas a dictionary article is primarily about a word, an idiom or a term and its meanings, usage and history."[2] TFD (talk) 23:22, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that distinction, but don't see how it helps us here. HiLo48 (talk) 23:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello Hilo48. Responding to your earlier post, in the US, it is often used in a pejorative sense, but I wouldn't call it inherently pejorative. Nevertheless, most folks in the US who are liberals would use the term "progressive" rather than "liberal" in referring to their political beliefs. North8000 (talk) 23:58, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. Thanks for that. "Progressive" has reawakened some slumbering memories deep in my brain. I knew there was a more socially acceptable term. HiLo48 (talk) 00:08, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello TFD. Or, in the case of this article, it's about more than one and very different concepts that use the same name. North8000 (talk) 00:03, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it is one concept, but there are a variety of forms. TFD (talk) 01:30, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, but again, I was only making a suggestion. North8000 (talk) 14:11, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Should we include parts of the 2011 Arab world protests?

Some parts of the Arab world protests seem to be progressive in nature. I am talking about the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt and other governmental protests in that region. Should that be placed in this article? Let's keep an eye on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.227.12 (talk) 04:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

It does seem to be a quest for many of the attributes of Liberalism as described in the article, but it's not up to us to decide. Just find those reliable sources that say so. (And avoid the Americans who equate Liberalism with Communism.) HiLo48 (talk) 05:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

They could also be seen as an anti-liberal challenge to regimes supported by the United States. TFD (talk) 05:20, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

2nd sentence: change "understanding" to "interpretation"

The wording of the article's second sentence is confusing and potentially implies biased PoV. "Depending on their understanding of these principles" can be read to mean: "depending on their grasp of these principles". The current wording can be read as questioning whether some liberals grasp the principles of liberty and equal rights. Assuming good faith, I believe the sentence intended to convey "depending on their interpretation of these principles". This wording wouldn't potentially question anyone's understanding. Shane Mecklenburger (talk) 05:53, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Good point. Sign your comments with four tildes. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)