Jump to content

Talk:Liberalism

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 208.191.226.140 (talk) at 18:04, 15 January 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archive 1 | Archive 2 |Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5

Cut apparent non-sequitur

Cut:

Both Pinochet and the Shah of Iran were installed as a result of American-organised coups, so cliams of neoliberal policy may be suspect. True neoliberalism is primarily concentrated in the UK and the USA.

  1. While the US doubtless approved of Pinochet's coup, there is no solid evidence that it was US-organized; see the relevant articles (Augusto Pinochet, Salvador Allende, 1973 coup in Chile
  2. "May be suspect" is pure POV. & I have no idea how the means of installation of a government would make claims about its economic policy suspect, neoliberalism being pretty much exclusively an economic matter.
  3. "True neoliberalism…": again, unattributed POV.

Jmabel | Talk 20:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your cut. Good work. Rick Norwood 00:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal international relations theory

For me the paragraph on Liberal internatonal relations theory. I would like to see references before we can keep this paragraph in the article. I am not yet convinced that this paragraph belongs in the article. Electionworld 22:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a problem for the moment, as the original article wasn't sourced. I've been going through the international relations theory articles to try and compartmentalize and rationalize them, since the original international relations article was an absurd mess. Liberalism in international relations is taught in every IR 101 course in college, alongside realism and marxism etc, so I have no doubt that it's relevant and belongs in any wider discussion of "liberalism." But you are correct that it certainly needs rapid improvement.—thames 00:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it is taught in college, a textbook reference should be easy to add. Rick Norwood 14:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a typical American usage of the word? Electionworld 15:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand your question. International relations is a phrase in common use in the US. By "liberal" ideas about international relations, a person could mean anything from "respect for the rights of other nations and multilateral rather than unilateral intervention" to, at the other extreme, "surrendering the sovereignty of the US to the UN and having George W. Bush tried as a war criminal". (I don't think anybody really holds the latter view -- well, not many people, anyway. Maybe Harry Bellafonte.)

In American International Relations courses Liberal IR theory still carries abit of what is now the classical view of liberalism. Liberal IR theory focuses on the state as a primary actor but power is not the main concern, if they do calculate power they do so by including factors such as economic strength rather than just manpower and military might. Liberals do not focus on war, which they view as an interuption between peaceful relations but on other transactions between states, such as diplomacy or trade (mostly trade). Original Liberal IR theorists viewed good trade relations as a positive means of achieving peaceful relations among states. Notably free trade theorists who believe free trade will lead to world peace. Old school liberal theorists, such as Kant, never came out and said it is economic freedom that brings about peace, but did set out to set up the conditions upon which a peaceful world might be achieved.

American liberals (left wingers) tend not to be IR Liberals but a mix between IR realists (pessimists), IR Marxists, IR Feminists, and American liberals (left wingers in academia) really love constructivism.

(Gibby 17:29, 11 January 2006 (UTC))

That's correct: there's not a firm correlation between domestic liberals and foreign policy liberals. Old democrats such as Harry Truman, Dean Acheson, Woodrow Wilson, and John Foster Dulles could be considered foreign policy liberals, whereas today's democrats draw both from Liberal international relations theory and from Critical international relations theory. Meanwhile, Republicans seem divided between Neoconservatism, Realism, and a few Isolationist holdovers. As it is taught in an IR course, Liberalism is pretty distinct from the mixture that domestic Liberals usually hold on foreign policy issues. I think a textbook reference should be easy to find--unfortunately I sold all my books back to the bookstore after finishing the course four years ago. —thames 18:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


it only correlates if your definition of political liberal is the same as ir liberal aka it must be classical liberal...which is what liberal really means anywho (Gibby 05:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC))


Misleading Definition

There is a difference between the political ideology of liberalism and the actual root defination of liberalism. Political ideology liberalism is an ideology that advocates strong government control and security over the economoy but limited control on moral and individual issues. The first paragraph states that liberalism has to do with free market economics, private enterprise, and capitalism, which is not linked to political ideology. There needs to be clarification on these differences.

This article may need a rewrite. It looks like this article relates more to libertarianism than liberalism, two different political ideology. (related only in social and moral issues).Zachorious 05:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

liberalism originated with free markets and limited government buddy. Its an accurate statement to describe liberalism roots...which american liberalism has (under American definitions) strayed far away from. I may be wrong but you seem to miss the point that there is a difference in what liberalism actually means and what propoganda and misunderstanding has made it mean. (Gibby 05:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC))
Yes this maybe true but libertarianism is usually the term used for classsical liberal thought (that advocates freedom in both economic and social issues). It still should be clarified more on the modern classification of liberalism.Zachorious 05:50, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
what is "modern liberalism" who gets to define it? Don't you realize it now has many different meanings around the world thanks to perversion of the word for the last 70 years. The best this page can do now is to give the original meaning then dicuss the diverging views down the page (Gibby 06:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC))
Gibby is correct in pointing out that classical liberalism was strongly in favor of free market economics. That means it deserves mention, front and center. What Gibby misses out on is that this support for free markets is also present with modern liberals, except that modern liberals define free markets differently. Also: while libertarianism is much like classical liberalism, it is not identical; i.e., classical liberals advocated the gold standard, but few libertarians support that anymore. Lucidish 18:03, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I am not doubting classic liberalism for free market economics but many modern liberals are not. This should be clarified. Zachorious 22:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC) .[reply]

I deleted your addition, since its conclusion, that modern liberalism is for strong government is symply not true outside the US. This is not an article about American liberalism. The electoral programs of most modern liberalism strongly favour a free market with some government control. See paragraphs further in the article. Electionworld 23:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I don't believe that even social liberals are against free markets. It seems to me, rather, that their criteria in formulating a "free market" differs from the technique offered by libertarians. Lucidish 01:37, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. e.g A market dominated by monopolies, oligopolies, cartels etc. is not a free market. Electionworld 07:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wait wait wait, EW, are you suggesting that libertarians argue a free market of monopolies, oligopolies and cartels? (Gibby 07:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC))
No, that was not what i meant. What I meant that if one is agains any form of governmenr regulation, you cannot stop monopolies etc. disturbing the free markert Electionworld 15:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Some in the Austrian school do. I recall reading an essay on the Von Mises site to that effect. Lucidish 17:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, monopolies, oligopolies and cartels develop naturally without intervention in the market to stop them forming. Markets only lead to competition between companies if there is something preventing cooperation between companies, which is generally more profitable since it allows companies to artificially inflate prices (and buy out any startup companies which try to compete in their market). I'm sure some libertarians are in favour of minimal government intervention in order to prevent this happening, but it does go against basic libertarian principles to some extent — how can a liberatian be against three companies voluntarily agreeing to fix prices? Cadr 09:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lucidish, I'm not saying all social liberals are against the free market. It is just that in the Western countries like the united states classic liberalism is actually far closer libertarionism. So the social liberals, at least in some Western countries are actually libertarions. Many social liberals tend to support strong government control over the economy but I am not saying this a norm or anything.

Electionworld I will add the clarification along with the addition.Zachorious 07:30, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But what you want to say is allready in the paragraph Trends within liberalism. I deleted the sentence again, but ask you to elaborate in that paragraph. Social liberals are still very different from socialists. Electionworld 15:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's true that classical liberalism greatly approximates the views of libertarianism in general.
The thing about social liberalism is that it doesn't receive coherant defenses anymore, only a number of offenses on op-ed pages. But I think it can reasonably be said that social liberals, though not shy about precise sorts of regulation, are far more shy about outright nationalization or nominal price controls. Lucidish 17:10, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liberalism and libertarianism: a difference of degree

I'd like to note that the difference between (classical) liberalism and libertarianism is above all a difference of degree, not substance. Liberals and libertarians agree on fundamental principles, but liberals are more moderate, and libertarians are more radical. Libertarians oppose any and all government intervention in just about anything, while liberals wish to cut down existing levels of government intervention without necessarily going all the way to minarchism. To put it another way, liberals want less government, whereas libertarians want minimal government. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 11:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In a sense. I don't know how useful the words "moderate" and "radical" are in this context. But yes, libertarianism (except its most outlandish forms which try to erode even upon basic negative rights) is continuous with classical liberalism, and hence, liberalism. In many ways, that is the point of the article as it stands today. However, not all liberals want smaller government. Lucidish 17:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nik wrote, "liberals wish to cut down existing levels of government intervention without necessarily going all the way to minarchism." Not in the US!. Here the so-called "liberal" favors bigger, stronger government, especially domestically. E.g. They favor more welfare programs and redistribution, socialized medicine, anti-trust laws, and so on. That is why most 'true' (less government) liberals in the US prefer the term "libertarian." Hogeye 17:27, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Liberals in the United States are only liberals because the actual definition was perverted by FDR in the NEW DEAL era in an attempt to escape persecution as a leftist. (Gibby 17:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC))
As far as I can see it government intervention in the US is far more less then in Europe. Most European liberals accepted welfare programs and redistribution, socialized medicine, anti-trust laws and so on. The starting point is completely different. Electionworld 12:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Right - in Europe (generally) liberals want to reduce state power, while in the US liberals want to increase state power. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that "liberals want less government." Hogeye 17:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now hold on just a sec

It seems both this and the Conservatism article were written by a liberal. They are both grossly distorted and everyone here knows it. Liberals for small government??!! I thought this was a place for facts, not propaganda. Conservatives are like communists?!? Not in THIS reality. Some please fix these articles or you will be blatently showing bias.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Liberalism&oldid=35291720"