Talk:Liberalism/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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))

I find the IR taxonomy bizarre and ill-advised, so I have to abstain from commenting on this. I will point out, though, that what's sometimes known as internationalism was advocated by the Oxford Manifesto of '47. Lucidish 22:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with including it (possibly because it's currently part of my course.) I'll have a root around in my books after I finish my exam period (I should actually be revising at the moment....but I got distracted. Slizor 10:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Misleading Definition

There is a difference between the political ideology of liberalism and the actual root definition 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)

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)

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)

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) .

I deleted your addition, since its conclusion, that modern liberalism is for strong government is simply 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)

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)

I agree. e.g A market dominated by monopolies, oligopolies, cartels etc. is not a free market. Electionworld 07:31, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Perhaps more attention to be paid to the meaning of "liberal" as the word is used in the USA. It is, after all, a large and significant country. It would be fairer to say that the word has a meaning that varies regionally, rather than simply gloss over the American meaning as though everyone in that country is somehow mistaken about the real meaning of the word. We don't want to fall into the Etymological fallacy. In the USA, policies such as rigid gun control and support for anti-vilification laws, which by any reasonable definition could be considered to restrict freedom, are considered to be liberal.

To provide contrast to this, the leader of Australia's major conservative party (which is in fact called the Liberal Party) can say without paradox or irony that his party is the trustee of the two great traditions of liberalism and conservatism. (http://www.pm.gov.au/news/speeches/speech1554.html) Ordinary Person 14:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I still think this article has a good balance representing various forms of liberalism. Rigid gun control is outside the USA a quite normal part of the liberal programme (others having guns restricts my freedom). Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 15:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

But I really think that the degree of government intervention wanted by libertarians is far less as pursued by e.g. most European liberals. Liberals want less government than social democrats or christian democrats want. Electionworld 21:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

"Classical Liberalism" is a slightly amorphus term as it evolved over many many years. The furthest that Political Classical Liberalism went in terms of negative rights was in J.S. Mill's On Liberty - but On Liberty also contains some notions of positive rights as well. With Economic Classical Liberalism it would have to be The Wealth of Nations, but even that expressed some reservations about the extent to which a market can effectively operate. To argue that Libertarianism is an extention of "Classical Liberalism" is to ignore some very serious concerns of Classical Liberals. By the original argument it would also be possible to argue that Anarcho-Capitalism is not qualitatively different, but ideas just taken to an extreme. And Gibby, evolution is not necessarly perversion. Slizor 10:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Note that even old Adam Smith understood the necessity for taxation, and said that those best able to pay the taxes would necessarily be those taxed most heavily.

The big difference between liberalism and libertarianism is this: liberalism has been tried and tested, and modified as necessary in the crucible of real political systems in the real world. Libertarianism has never been tried, and so remains pure theory, without any of its purity sullied by reality. Rick Norwood 17:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

the first few paragraphs of the definition read more like someone that is confused with liberatarian thought. cant people have a political opinion, and separate that from a fair description of something. indeed, liberal and conservative are getting hard to define each day, but we know the more government does not go with the idea of more individual freedom (or liberty)

Does more government go with more freedom, or not. Depends on the circumstances. I have more freedom because the government provides a police force, to protect me from criminals. I have more freedom because the government provides an army, to protect me from invasion. Sometimes more government means more freedom, sometimes less. Right now, we have more government that ever, in terms of spending. And yet, some conservatives say we also have too much freedom, and need even more government to make sure that we don't ease the pain of dying or smoke pot, and to make sure our children pray in school, to whatever God is officially approved by politicians in Washington. Rick Norwood 15:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

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. Someone please fix these articles or you will be blatently showing bias. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 208.191.226.140 (talk • contribs) .

I have nothing to say about the conservatism article. However, this article is very clear about it being classical, or "economic", liberals who tend to support small government. Social liberals don't. Make the distinction. Lucidish 18:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Right; it's a historical thing. Early liberals were (what we would call today) libertarian. The "big government" liberals didn't come along until the 20th century, although there were precursors in the 19th century. Hogeye 18:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. We tend to get a lot of comments like anon's. While I can see where it is coming from, it is ultimately off base. I've added a warning to the top of the talk page in the hopes that it will cut this sort of comment off at the pass. If you or anyone would like to add to it, or whatever, go right ahead. Lucidish 18:41, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the basic problem with this article is that it doesn't show the evolution/fragmenting of the ideology. In other words, it doesn't take account of what happened to classical liberalism in the mid-19th centiury, i.e. it split into reform/social liberalism (John Stuart Mill etc) and liberal conservatism, a hybrid ideology. Then, in the late 20th century. we had a kind of revived classical liberalism in the form of neoliberalism, which just to confuse everyone, was often adopted by the members of conservative parties. Grant65 | Talk 18:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that this has been neglected at all. You'll find the libertarian/social liberal division emphasized, and re-emphasized, throughout the article. Perhaps there may be issues of clarity, though; the article is not as concise as one might like. Lucidish 19:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Lucidish. Electionworld 21:02, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I think it need highlighting in the introduction that we are dealing with a range of irreconciliable ideologies, albeit ones with common origins. Grant65 | Talk 04:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I changed the last sentence of the intro to so highlight. Hogeye 04:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Before people disagree with Hogeye's edit remember that liberals originally believed that freedoms which modern liberals take for granted were freedoms generated and protected by growing economic freedom. Thus, while many countries retain many political freedoms they have turned their back (to some extent) on many economic freedoms that granted them their current liberty. Whther you believe that or not is irrelevant that was the theory. (Gibby 04:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC))

Actually a lot of early Liberals based freedom on the notion of "natural rights" (for a glaring obvious example have a look at the US Constitution), the whole economic freedom political freedom shite came along a lot more recently. Slizor 10:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Oxford Manifesto

(written in reply to "Before people disagree with Hogeye's edit remember that liberals originally believed that freedoms which modern liberals..." post above by Gibby)

Gibby: look at Oxford Manifesto of 1947, you will observe the very first lines showing your ongoing errors re: modern liberalism. Something to the effect of "centralization of economic power leads to centralization of political power". Severely doubt that this has been the first time you've been told this. Lucidish 19:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are specifically referring to when you write of Gibby's "ongoing errors," but I must say that Oxford Manifesto is quite interesting. It is quite illustrative of the way classical liberalism was perverted by lax thought and authoritarianism. Note how (in point 3) it intermingles rights with "conditions" (benefits), and lists them without reference as to which is which. Instead of an internally-consistent set of rights, what they have is competing claims necessitating trade-offs; 3.1 thru 3.8 are rights (assuming that "opportunity" is construed as freedom of action rather than guarantee by State), but 3.9 seems to guarantee an outcome (contrary to the notion of rights.) If 3.9 were preceeded by "Freedom of action for the purpose of obtaining" then all of part I is consonent with libertarianism/classical liberalism.

Part II is where the authortarianism shines through. Point 1 endorses nationalization of "undertakings." Point 2 denies the supremacy of the individual and individual rights, subordinating it to "the welfare of the community" and ruling out e.g. the right of secession and self-rule. Point II.3 is a direct violation of the rights given in part I, i.e. 3.4, 3.5, 3.7, and 3.8.

IV.a jettisons Just War theory and neutrality by endorsing a monopoly interventionist world government, while IV.e seems to endorse imperialism and enforcing the "true interests" of "backward nations" and "the world at large."

This is a wonderful example of how "modern liberalism" keeps the pretty words of rights, but proceeds to annihilate them with its specific programs. Hogeye 20:03, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Was in reply to comment "liberals originally believed that freedoms which modern liberals take for granted were freedoms generated and protected by growing economic freedom". Rebutted by first line of II, 1.

I. Indeed, intermingled. Hence: outcome in 9. Shows an introduction of robust sense of liberty, positive rights. Perfectly coherant, internally; but obviously a departure from classical liberalism.

II. Re: the welfare of the community: this has always been the prime source of justification for the state (and state policy), even within the classical liberal tradition. IE, Adam Smith advocated his policies because he believed that it really was the best choice for all. Indeed, for many foundational theorists (like utilitarianism), the point of liberty is that it makes life better in the long run. Perhaps you see this as a weakness; others do not. Further, I see no reason in principle that classical liberals or libertarians would abandon such an argument.

Your reading of an anti-secessional implication from the "sectarian interests" clause is interesting, and plausible; but I believe the intent was to ward against lobbyism.

It read,"sectional" interests, not "sectarian" or "partisan." Hogeye

I misremembered. Thanks. But my point remains. Lucidish

Re: your claim about II.3 and the rights of I is baffling. The only right that comes near relevance to II.3 is 3.5: freedom of association or non-association wrt unions. But nowhere in the manifesto does anyone say anything about illegalizing scab labor, for example, or forced labor at a union shop.

In context, the meaning isn't We wish ... but The State should ... When they write about using State power to promote "betterment of the conditions of employment," declaring that they know the "rights, duties and interests of labour and capital" and ominously imply they will enforce "collaboration between employers and employed," this, to me, indicates that freedom of association and trade are in grave danger. Hogeye

I'm afraid I don't see how this is ominous; as a sentiment it follows quite simply out of a desire for an impartial state which doesn't care to entertain sectional interests. (And indeed, all of these are mere sentiments, as you noted, and only plans in the most general sense. But, as your rebuttals -- and my admissions -- show, even these most general principles are not ones that are agreeable to all.) In any case, this discussion isn't the sort that other people like to read on article talk pages. Lucidish

IV.e. is a very embarressing in language. And in hindsight, the words "true interests" seem ominous. Also bad, even for the time period, was sexist language, "mankind" and so on. Still, note: "with the collaboration with their inhabitants", and reference to their own interests; neither of which seem to actually be taken into account on the world stage in the era of neoliberalism.

You are right to point out the internationalist / interventionist stance. I won't comment more than that.

This probably isn't the place for a non-Wiki related ideological conversation, but I am happy to respond on my talk pages. Lucidish 02:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Right. Thanks again for bringing this document to my attention. It's kind of the great grandaddy of the UN Declaration of Human Rights. Hogeye

No problem. Lucidish

We have to take in mind that the Oxford Manifesto is the basic document of the Liberal International, a world organization of liberal parties and groups, in which economic liberal and social liberal parties work together. It clearly represents mainstream liberalism as it developed after WW II. I agree with Hogeye in so far as it is not a classical liberal manifesto. The Costarican Libertarian Movement as a member party of the LI accepts this documents. I spoke with a representative of that party, who made also clear that their political programme became less dogmatic (my words) libertarian. Electionworld 07:17, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

...and taxes

I've restored the older version of the introduction, which has stood for a while now. I understand that for libertarians, the only important freedoms are economic freedoms, but that view belongs in the article on libertarianism, not here.

It is also a quixotic battle, since there has never been freedom from taxes in any developed country, and it is unlikely that there ever will be freedom from taxes in the future. In the US today we have an astonishing degree of economic freedom -- though the right to buy congressmen has been recently challenged. Rick Norwood 15:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll check back later to do a more careful study, but a quick remark: in fairness, Locke thought that taxes could only be legitimately modified by referendum. The nature of taxation is of great importance to many aspects of the liberal tradition. It is the one aspect which, as a modern liberal, I feel most uncomfortable with. Lucidish 19:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

It is interesting to see that as far as I know in direct democracies often taxation legislation is exluded from referenda. Since most liberal democracies are more or less representative democracies, I would say it is up to the legislature as representative of the citizens to modify taxation. Electionworld 07:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

modern vs. classical liberalism

The text contains the following statement:

• "In many countries, modern liberalism differs from classical liberalism by asserting that government provision of some minimal level of material well-being takes priority over individual rights."

I believe this is not the most precise statement that can be made about the comparison, and thus has the effect of being overly-critical of modern liberalism. I believe that it would be more accurate if it read:

• "... by asserting that the government provision of some minimal level of material well-being to all persons takes priority over the extent of the right to property against taxation and economic regulation."

While there may be other minority views out there, I believe mainstream modern liberalism does not generally advocate the forcible taking of life, or of liberty (outside of economic restrictions) in order to provide such material well-being. Also, the right to property is generally respected by mainstream modern liberals when it comes to outright confiscation of property, as opposed to government taxation (or perhaps regulation). Finally, it is worth clarifying that mainstream modern liberals typically have as a goal and premise that the provision of material well-being is for all citizens/persons/residents, rather than for some subset of them (although in practice, the recipients of government aid tend to be poor people, because they are the ones who don't already have the minimal level of economic well-being).

I will make this change, unless there develops a consensus to the contrary, or I am otherwise convinced not to. Thesmothete 04:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to be very careful not to spin this issue one way or the other. Here is what I would suggest.

"In many countries, modern liberalism differs from classical liberalism by asserting that government provision of some minimal level of material well-being takes priority over freedom from taxation."

This makes explicit what "individual rights" are being violated, while avoiding the awkward construction "right ... against".

There are two conflicting freedoms here. In the language of the libertarians, freedom from taxation is a "negative right" and freedom from poverty a "positive right". What we want this sentence to express, in a value neutral way, is that many modern liberals, contrary to what the libertarians consider proper, accept a sacrifice of some negative rights in order to achieve certain positive rights. Rick Norwood 13:58, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Rick Norwood has proposed:

"In many countries, modern liberalism differs from classical liberalism by asserting that government provision of some minimal level of material well-being takes priority over freedom from taxation."

I think this is an excellent formulation, and superior to what's currently in the article. How should we address the question of other economic regulations, such as price restrictions or consumer notifications? Thesmothete 21:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Maximization of Liberty

The first line needs to be modified to eliminate the erroneous claim that liberalism "strives to maximize liberty." This is POV because it endorses the utilitarian point of view (as opposed to the natural rights point of view.) Since liberalism originated with the natural law viewpoint (Locke), and natural law theory dominated until after Mill, this is a major error. There is a huge philosophical difference between don't violate anyone's rights and maximize rights in society, possibly at the expense of any particular individual's rights). The old lynch-mob example underlines this difference. I will now substitute "liberty is the primary political value." Does anyone know the original source of "liberty ... primary political value?" Hogeye 20:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Found it! A: Lord Action. "Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end." Hogeye 20:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Liberalism, by definition and also by origin and usage, refers to the attempt to maximize liberty. The utalitarian point of view is that liberty is maximized when the most people are free, the natural rights points of view is that liberty is maximized when the people are most free. Under the utalitarian point of view, the freedom of the lynch mob is restricted in order to allow the right to life of the person they want to lynch. Similarly, under the modern utalitarian point of view, the freedom of corporations is limited when they, for example, place the lives of their workers in danger by ignoring repeated warnings of safety violations in their mines. You and I both believe in maximum freedom -- we disagree on method. Rick Norwood 20:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

You are mistaken; there is a difference between a lexicographic morality and a utilitarian morality. In the lynch-mob scenerio, it is assumed that dozens will die in a riot if you don't turn the innocent man over to the mob. The utilitarian approach would say that, to maximize liberty (minimize the violations of liberty over society) you should turn the guy over to the mob. The lexicographic scheme allows no such trade-offs, you should not turn the guy over to the mob, even though many people instead of just one will be killed. Get it? Hogeye 20:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with this article, but since you bring it up -- the trade off here is between the more important right, the right to life, against the less important right, the right to lynch. The numbers involved are not important. Similarly, and more to the point, in the utilitarian view, the right to life is more important than economic rights, and so it is right to tax the rich to provide food for the poor. In contrast, from the natural rights point of view, the negative right to keep your money is more important that the positive right of the poor to food.

I still haven't explained it well enough. In the lynch-mob scenerio, the choice is whether dozens of people lose their right to life, or only one person loses their right to life. All are assumed to be innocent. The choice (as sheriff) is whether to take a positive action (turn the prisoner over) that violates rights, or not turn him over with the consequence that dozens of innocent people die. Someone who believes thou shalt not take any action which violates rights would not turn over the prisoner on principle." A rights maximizer would turn over the prisoner. The phrasing of liberty as the primary political end is neutral POV, since it leaves open both interpretations.

Did any utilitarian theorist argued in favor of the turn over? Electionworld 07:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Probably, but the lynch mob example is so common that I get too many google hits on "utilitarian lynch mob" to find an explicit proponent. Most people that give this counter-example are opponents of utilitarian, of course. Here's an academic statement of it, with plenty of references you can follow up on. From Thinking Ethically About Freedom:

There are actually two ways to set up this model. They are outlined by Robert Nozick, and referred to as the "utilitarianism of rights" and the side-constraint view.3 The first, "utilitarianism of rights," replaces maximization of social utility with minimization of violations of rights in the model. According to Nozick, "This ... would require us to violate someone's rights when doing so minimizes the total (weighted) amount of the violation of rights in the society."4 This is true because the rule calls for a minimization of a weighted aggregate. For example, whether or not the small-town sheriff gives up an innocent person to an angry but mistaken lynch mob depends upon how many, and how important, are the rights violations exhibited by the mob in acting out their frustration. The second alternative incorporates side-constraints to determine what actions may be done: "Don't violate constraints C. The rights of others determine the constraints upon your actions."5

Hogeye 18:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

But which utilitarian thinker argued in favour of the utilitarian lynch mob? Electionworld 22:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know. The point for the article is that maximization of liberty doesn't hack it, due to that counter-example. Hogeye 23:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

No, you explained it just fine. I happen to disagree. Memo to self: never argue with a libertarian. Rick Norwood 22:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand the natural rights point of view when you write that it implies "the negative right to keep your money is more important that the positive right of the poor to food." On the contrary, the right to life and the right to the fruits of your labor are both equally non-violable in the natural rights view. The difference between the natural rights view and the other view is in the interpretation of "right to life." Seen as a negative right, it means that others should not coercively prevent you from life-sustaining action. Seen as a positive right, it means that someone should provide you with the goods required for living. To negative rights theorists, that amounts to a right to enslave, since those goods must be created by other men. Tradeoffs are never necessary in a negative rights system; if two apparent rights conflict, then at least one must be counterfeit. Hogeye 21:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

PS: Liberals from Locke to Rawls agree that liberty should have priority over other values. "According to Rawls, citizens in the original position would agree upon the first priority rule; (the priority of liberty) that the first principle has lexical priority over the second, meaning that the basic liberties can not be sacrificed for greater social and economic advantages. 'Lexical priority' means that both of the rules are lexicographic forms of ordering being of a kind with the rule that dictates the position of words in dictionary."[1] Hogeye 20:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

My objection to Lord Acton and my preference for Blackwell is that the quote from Lord Acton limits liberalism to political liberalism. Many forms of liberalism, especially in the arts, are non-political. However, this article is about political liberalism. If I give you Lord Acton, will you let me explain how modern liberalism differs from classical liberalism? Rick Norwood 21:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but I insist that the explanation be NPOV. The current formulation seems to 1) assume there are tradeoffs between personal and economic freedom (utilitarian POV), and 2) implying that classical liberalism emphasizes economic freedom over personal freedom (false, since they don't see these as conflicting.) It seems to me that the main distinction is that modern liberalism wants to achieve some minimal material conditions for liberty (enough food, education, etc.) even if it must violate the "life, liberty, and property" of some individuals; while classical liberalism is solely concerned with freedom of action. In any case, we should acknowledge in the intro that the meaning of liberalism has changed considerably over time, from emphasizing negative rights to emphasizing positive rights. Hogeye 21:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Then let's find a way to say that, but most non-libertarians do not understand what libertarians mean by those phrases, so we need to say it in a way that will be understood by non-libertarians. What libertarians feel they have proved with mathematical certainty has, after all, never been tried -- in fact most people have never even heard of it. Rick Norwood 22:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I can accept your latest revision. I don't agree with it, but I can accept it. Since you take it as an axiom that absolute negative rights also maximize positive rights, it is probably as close to a compromise as we can get. Rick Norwood 00:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. For the record, I don't know of any libertarian who thinks "absolute negative rights also maximize positive rights." We think that negative rights take priority over positive so-called "rights," and deny that "positive rights" are bone fide rights at all. We call them "benefits" or "goods." Hogeye 00:33, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what's going on here. Utilitarianism has to do with maximization of happiness, not liberty. You can be a deontologist and seek to maximize liberty. Lucidish 02:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

new titles

Shorter titles are an improvement. Rick Norwood 13:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Recent edit

Seeing several errors in grammar and capitalization in a recent edit, I began to make corrections. As I went on, I found more and more examples of repetition and long-windedness, where different people at different times had inserted ideas they considered important into the article in several different places. I've tried not to leave anything out. I've also tried to keep the article from saying the same thing twice. Rick Norwood 23:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Friedman

In the text there is a paragraph with the following text:

The downside of this was an oversupply of labor, which led to declining wages, but not necessarily a decline in standards of living. Milton Friedman notes that this time period did not create more poverty but instead created a more visible impoverished class as many people experienced an increase in their own standard of living.

Both Nikodemos and I deleted the italic part. KDRGibby readded this text and argued: yes we do, milton friedman is a constant reminder of how certain segments of liberals are completely wrong on economics and history...he's cited and shall stay. I do not think we need this text on Friedman. Friedman is mentioned in the text some times. it is not an article about FriedmanI have a problem with KDRGibby's argument why this citation should be in: that argument is clearly not neutral (certain segments of liberals are completely wrong) and I have a problem with he's cited and shall stay. Since when is KDRGibby the one who decides. Before I re-delete this citation, I would like to know if there is a general feeling that this citation is a relevant addition to the entry. 159.46.248.230 14:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC) (=Electionworld)

Yes it is necessary, many modern American liberals, and modern leftists, socialists, and communists paint the industrial revolution as a time of increasing poverty and hardship. This simply is not true. I can't say it alone because you socialists will demand a source... Friedman is that source, now you want to delete him outright, which makes room for deleting other material you find objects to your own beliefs. It must stay. When citing a source, the source does not need to be neutral. Start understanding that EW!!!! (Gibby 15:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC))

There seems to be a misunderstandig. I do no disagree with the remark , but not necessarily a decline in standards of living, I just do not think we need a citation of Friedman for that. BTW I never was or am a socialist, do not start to insult again. If you want a discussion, discuss in a decent way. If you don't want a discussion, don't, but than I won't consider your opinion. BTW2: A source does not need to be neutral, but with a non-neutral source one cannot prove the thesis. 159.46.248.230 15:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC) = Electionworld

One person not only disagreed with that "remark" but demanded a citation for it as well. This person, and many others, as I stated before, believe the 19th century to be a period of increasing poverty. This simply is not the case. Friedman is the citation that covers this line of (correct) reasoning. I'm not arguing a thesis I'm citing a source for a line of though contradictory to populist beliefs. It should stay. (Gibby 19:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC))

I understand the appeal of libertarianism, but that is not the subject of this article. This article is about liberalism. There is room in the liberalism for a certain amount of response, from libertarians, from conservatives, from anyone else who has a bone to pick with modern (post FDR) liberalism. But not, please, to the extent where the criticism overwhelms the article, and every statement about liberalism is followed by a statement of Milton Freidman's reasons for thinking modern liberalism is wrong. It is, a the director of a play I once acted in told me, a question of what is foreground and what is background. The foreground in this article is liberalism, not Milton Freidman.

There are a number of things wrong with this sentence: Milton Friedman notes that this time period did not create more poverty but instead created a more visible impoverished class as many people experienced an increase in their own standard of living. First, it is not a direct quote and is not footnoted, nor is its source given. Second, it does not make logical sense. I suspect the original Friedman quote was better written. Consider: "Friedman notes"

"not more poverty" "instead" "more visible (poverty)" (I agree with this part, and this part was not deleted.) But the sentence continues: "many" "experienced" "increase". This neither follows from nor reenforces the first part. For example, it would be perfectly possible for the average standard of living to decrease while many people experienced an increase in their standard of living.

The sentence shouldn't be here because it is a badly written sentence. A direct quote from Friedman, sourced, might be better. I couldn't know until I read it. Rick Norwood 21:22, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

But why should Friedman be right? Electionworld 21:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

He is right, but thats not even what the sentence or article is saying...its giving his view...which just happens to be correct. (Gibby 21:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC))

"if 90 people increase their standard of living the 10 who do not appear more poor relative to the others, this does not mean that they lost wealth however. follow?" - Gibby

You missed my point, which is an elementary one in statistics and a common ploy of politicians. Suppose I have an island with 1000 people. 100 of those people, surely many, become richer, going from $1000 to $10,000. 900, on the other hand, go from $100 to $10. Many people have become richer (last half of the quote), even the average wealth has increased. The the wealth of the average person (the median wealth) has decreased.

It's a badly written sentence -- the last part does not support the first. I don't believe as good a writer a Friedman ever said it. I hope you see this, but if not, I'll take my turn in deleting it. Why not try to find the actual Friedman quote? Rick Norwood 23:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm afraid you're missing the point. What Friedman is saying, which is factual is that you (using your own game) have an island with 1000 people on it. Every one starts out with $100 but 10 people who have $1,000. A few years of liberalism and those 10 people move up to $10,000, 700 people move up to $1,000 and the other 290 stay at $100 (or there around).

Milton Friedman is telling us that societies wealth is growing, that many people are increasing their wealth, but there have been a few people who did not increase their wealth as far as others, if at all. They did not get worse off, they just became more visible.

You are assuming that many got worse off, THIS DID NOT HAPPEN. THis is the revisionism and the logical economic failures Friedman attempts to address through such a statement about the poor becoming more visible not that there were more poor as a result of industrialization. Others assume that wealth is a zero sum game, which your game insinuates, THIS IS NOT TRUE. Zero sum games imply fixed wealth (which your game mathematically doesnt even add up too, thanks for playing though!) but Wealth has no fixed amount, it is always changing, and under capitalism, growing a vast majority of the time.

The milton friedman addition is to address false and falable beliefs like your own. (Gibby 07:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC))

BernardL 13:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC) Your arguments represent an attempt to apply arguments appropriate to an established system to a period of radical, in fact civilizational, disruption of the social order. There was massive deruralization and social dislocation and exploitation that is well documented. It is not only a matter of there being more visible poor, but rather the social dislocation created genuine casualties (not just poverty), and for many a loss of traditional livelihoods and cultures. I think one should not be so insensitive to the casualties in this process by treating them as mere statistics. Traditionally many leftists have emphasized that the industrial revolution was in fact a double-edged sword, with both progressive and destructive elements on a massive scale.

From E.P.Thompson, The Making of the English Working Class:

" I am seeking to rescue the poor stockinger, the Luddite cropper, the 'obsolete' hand-loom weaver, the 'Utopian' artisan, and even the deluded follower of Joanna Southcott, from the enormous condescension of posterity. Their crafts and traditions may have been dying. Their hostility to the new industrialism may have been backward-looking. Their communitarian ideals may have been fantasies. Their insurrectionary conspiracies may have been foolhardy. But they lived through these times of acute social disturbance, and we did not. Their aspirations were valid in terms of their own experience; and, if they were casualties of history, they remain, condemned in their own lives, as casualties.

Our only criterion of judgement should not be whether or not a man's actions are justified in the light of subsequent evolution. After all, we are not at the end of social evolution ourselves. In some of the lost causes of the people of the Industrial Revolution we may discover insights into social evils which we have yet to cure. Moreover, the greater part of the world today is still undergoing problems of industrialization, and of the formation of democratic institutions, analogous in many ways to our own experience during the Industrial Revolution. Causes which were lost in England might, in Asia or Africa, yet be won." BernardL 13:46, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Current version is much improved. I did understand the point -- my objection was to the prose. Rick Norwood 14:29, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Bernard, I think your affair with traditional and cultural issues is bacwards. If we were so worried about such petty things as traditions most of us would be sheep farmers. You are right to say that there was much social upheaval. Technology made farm productivity high, competition fierce, and the need for farmers low. This technolgoical innovation forced farmers out of work and into the cities. THIS WAS A GOOD THING!

Technological innovation also put many buggy whip producers out of work... wooden wheel makers telephone operators abbacus makers

the list goes on and on

if the there was no upheaval and job distruction we would not move forward. If we sat back and protected every existing job not only would innovation stop moving us forward, we'd lose all incentive to innovate! This distruction is the economies way (the invisible hand) moving resources around to their newer highest valued use!!!

You are looking at things backward. Protecting existing jobs, existing competitors, and traditions is regressive and bacward looking. (Gibby 19:42, 4 February 2006 (UTC))

Dewey quote

"Social liberals such as John Dewey have argued that the industrial-scientific revolution remains a project in a state of stagnation, whose full promise remains far from fulfilled. Accordingly this stagnation is explained as the "rerouting of enlightment advancements for merely private pecuniary gain, for the inheritence and accumulation of private properties & private powers" which "drained and continues to drain liberalism of an otherwise promising career."[[2]]"

I cut out the paragraph above, recently added to the article, for the following reasons. The paragraph says that "John Dewey" ... "argued" (past tense) "that" ... "remains" (present tense). What Dewey said may apply to the present day, but he cannot have said it about the present day. Second, the quote is, presumably, by Dewey, but the paragraph does not really say this, and the footnote, instead of referencing the original source, references an article about that sourse in which the references are not in standard form, making it difficult to find the source of the quote.

I hope the author of the paragraph will try again. Rick Norwood 17:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, I was being a tad too lazy. I'll try another attempt to explain this point soon.BernardL 18:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure I even understand his complaint. Was Dewey saying that "consumerism" (as we now call it) was disrupting the advancement of the enlightenment?

That really smacks against liberalisms basic principles, of which consumerism has become a part. We dont produce for our own health, we produce so others purchase so that we can gain a living and therby consume for ourselves.

Is this a misquote, or is the quote taken out of context, or is Dewey by no means an economic liberal? (Gibby 19:11, 4 February 2006 (UTC))

Dewey is by no means an economic liberal -- he was something of a utopian. But, if Friedman gets his say, then Dewey gets his (provided it is quoted correctly and referenced correctly, of course -- references should always be to primary sources, whenever possible). Rick Norwood 19:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

As I thought... I have no problem with allowing a proper quote of the incorrect Dewey to be included. (Gibby 19:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC))

What I wanted to express was the point that Dewey made in several places to the effect that capitalism was in fact ill-adapted to modern industrial society, and that the best of liberal values could only be universalized and realized in fullest form if capitalism, which he referred to as "industrial feudalism", was replaced by a kind of participatory "industrial democracy" with oodles of public ownership and planning. For Dewey the industrial revolution was an unfinished revolution that had been coopted by pecuniary interests. I had a specific description of this ill-adaption in mind; it's buried somewhere in my paper archives. I hope I'll find it soon. (I think Veblen and Mumford and similar figures all shared similar correct views)BernardL 19:48, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that Dewey was not happy with how capitalism developed into a system whereby the government picked economic winners and losers, overregulated with central planning, and through the self interest of politicians made private enterprise public property (government buisnesses)? (Gibby 19:56, 4 February 2006 (UTC))

a vs. an

Apparently we are going to have an infinite (or at least unbounded) sequence of reverts between "a idiology" and "an idiology". Well, at least it keeps them off the streets. Rick Norwood 15:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

So would "a idiology" (or "an idiology") be an ideology held by an idiot? Or simply the study of selfhood? - Jmabel | Talk 16:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Your turn Thesmothete

Your turn to revert Gibby, Thesmothete -- the "reference" he cites is a doctrinaire Libertarian site. Let me ask you, Gibby, would you let me get away citing a doctrinaire Marxist site? We need mainstream views here. In the article on Libertarianism, you can say anything you like. Rick Norwood 01:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

That is a cited published source. Rick, ignorance of the rules is no excuse to revert legitimate stuff. (Gibby) http://www.mackinac.org/article.aspx?ID=1662 Check it out yourself. Legit, and allowable. Stop deleting material you disagree with, just because you disagree with. (Gibby 01:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC))

Oh, its also a GD fact that there was no lassiez faire government at the time of the depression, it is also a fact that there was heavy government intervention before and during the depression. Ignorance is no excuse! (Gibby 01:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC))

Actually, I have no opinion on the subject one way or the other. But I can tell Libertarian cant when I see it, the same way I can tell Marxist cant and Fundamentalist Christian cant. All three are closed systems -- they only allow ideas which agree with their worldview. Now, you would revert a sentence that began "The rights of the proletariat were trampled by their corporate masters..." Or a sentence that began, "The president, inspired by his belief in our Savior Jesus Christ, ... " But because you are so caught up in the Libertarian cause, your sentence sounds ok to you, just as the first sentence I suggested would sound ok to a Marxist and the second would sound ok to a Fundamentalist Christian. Rick Norwood 01:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

If they have cited material and proof to back it up, I've got no problem... But the problem is, your analogy is in no way comparable to the situation here. I actually have an article that is itself cited on the historical facts present at the onset of the GD... Your comparison is citation to no citation. It really does work. (Gibby 01:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC))

OH yes, if they said... "The Christian Coalition believed that Bush acted with inspiration from GOD" there would be no problem... Again, like I said before, and repeating myself...your comparison is bad. (Gibby 01:34, 1 March 2006 (UTC))

But you aren't saying, "Libertarians believe that there was no free market in the years leading up to the great depression", you are stating that as a fact. But, even that isn't the problem, the problem is the reference to a Libertarian web page to back up a well known Libertarian point of view.

Everybody has a worldview. But most people realize that their worldview is fallable. For example, I'm a mathematician by trade, and pretty good at it. And I think that mathematics does a good job of being right most of the time. On the other hand, I know that famous mathematicians have made mistakes. And I know that sometimes I make really dumb mistakes -- in mathematics, the subject I'm best at.

I've talked to a lot of libertarians over the years, and I've never heard a libertarian admit making a mistake or admit that there might be some instances in which libertarianism might be wrong. Never. Not once. I'm not saying it has never happened, but I've never known it to happen.

That is the sense that libertarians are like Marxists and Fundamentalists. They have a worldview that is always right and never wrong.

Which puts them well outside the mainstream of the rest of us fallable human beings. Rick Norwood 02:48, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Your original research on that subject is of no use to us here. The fact of the matter is, these are cited sources, many of the ones i've used are very reputable. And it just so happens that history backs up the points they make (largely because they back their points up WITH HISTORY, rather than making it up and passing it off as populist lore as you have so eagerly accepted (Gibby 03:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC))

There is a source here, but I'm not sure where in this paper by Lawrence Reed he says that there were no laissez-faire states at the time. Gibby, which page? Lucidish 03:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Try reading the whole thing but if that bugs you, read pages 3-7. (Gibby 03:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC))

Re-read; still nothing. The article had to do with the USA exclusively. Nothing said (that I could see) about "no actual laissez faire capitalist state in existance at the time" on pages 3-7. Did you mean to say that the US at the time was not laissez-faire? Because that (a very different claim) would be supported by the source. Lucidish 20:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess we will have to leave it at this, then. This article is neither about libertarianism nor about the economic history of the great depression. The article is about liberalism, and you comment adds nothing of interest about liberalism. The causes of the great depression are controversial and complex and not appropriate for discussion in this article. Rick Norwood 13:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

If true, and phrased appropriate to context, I think it would add something interesting. Lucidish 20:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I hope Thesmothete's admirable compromise is acceptable to us all. Rick Norwood 13:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

It will be acceptable to me once I'm shown the passage where that claim is made. Lucidish 20:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Electionworld's edit

Good work, Electionworld. Rick Norwood 20:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Liberalism and democracy

Liberalism does not imply democracy. There are whole books written on the subject. Majority rule can oppress minorities, is the basic arguement. So democracy is not the best form of government for liberalism. So can people please stop saying that it is!--harrismw 07:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Every present liberal party favours liberal democracy (I am not aware of any exception), so it is clear nowadays that liberalism implies liberal democracy (which is not the same as implying all forms of democracy). Do you know of any present liberal party that presents an alternative for liberal democracy? Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 11:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

May I refer to the Oxford Manifesto of 1947 of the Liberal International: 4. "These rights and conditions can be secured only by true democracy. True democracy is inseparable from political liberty and is based on the conscious, free and enlightened consent of the majority, expressed through a free and secret ballot, with due respect for the liberties and opinions of minorities." [3] Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 11:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem here is a failure to communicate. The public discourse has become so corrupted that people are careless in making a distinction between a democracy, a constitutional democracy, and a representative democracy = republic. This article really should say either constitutional democracy or republic when it means something other than an absolute democracy. Rick Norwood 14:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

While most liberals think that (representative) democracy is the best form of government to guarantee minority rights, it is often thought by liberals that a democracy (even a representative democracy) can oppress minorities. We see such situations where there is an ethnic minority being persecuted by an another ethnic majority. (Or religion, or whatever.) I think that so long as the article states that not all liberals desire democracy, then it is all right I guess. (See some of Heinlein's books for examples of "liberal" societies that are not democratic, and if I see stuff that implies that democracy is necessary for liberalism, I'll change it.) harrismw 03:08, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Heinlein loved, in his fiction, to experiment with various forms of government, marriage, and other institutions, especially to try out forms greatly different from our own. But I think he would have agreed with the oft quoted assertion that of all forms of government, democracy is the worst, except for all the others. Rick Norwood 13:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

examples

Wilfried Derksen deleted the examples of a republic (France) and a constitutional monarchy (United Kingdom). I think the examples should remain, therefore I am asking for other opinions on this subject. Rick Norwood 14:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the examples, since there are many states fulfilling these criteria. So why not adding Australia, Canada, Switzerland, the member states of the European Union, etc. etc. I think the sentence is clear enough without these examples. I would like to now what is the added value of these examples. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 14:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I live in the United States, a country which has, in the words of our own government, committed unilateral intellectual disarmament. Few of my college students know what a republic or a constitutional monarchy is. Hense the examples. Any countries would do, but I chose two that are fairly well known. Rick Norwood 15:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Wilfried Derksen has put several examples in as footnotes. I appreciate the effort to compromise, but I'm under the impression that 1) Wikipedia frowns on the use of "e.g." and 2) footnotes should be used for references rather than examples.

I hope a third party will weigh in on this subject. Rick Norwood 14:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I moved the examples to the text. The problem is not that I do not want examples, but I don't like them to be in the intro of the article. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 11:54, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I think we do not need the examples. There are many examples of liberal democracies (some are disputed) around the world. We just need to wikilink republic and constitutional monarchy.Typelighter 22:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

How about one example of each, chosen using a random number generator. Rick Norwood 23:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Lies, lies, lies

why don't you libs just go make a chat board somewhere, and leave the internet alone? you're passing off garabge like this as fact, when the reality is so much different.

"Broadly speaking, liberalism seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals,\"

That's a lie.

"limitations on the power of government,"

That's a lie.

"wealth,"

limitations on wealth? yep, socialist pigs, for sure.

" and religion, "

liberals fear religion

"the rule of law,"

liberals make up their own laws as they see fit.

I dont, I just do whatever other liberals tell me to do, trust me its alot easier this way. why have yount joined us?AgreeToBe

Do not be baited by what has been written above, although it is a bit humurous. He was probably the same mature individual that wrote Liberalism is a mental disorder in the actual article. xcuref1endx

Wikipedia is a joke.

I thought a talk page for an article was a place to point out ACTUAL problems with the article itself, not to spout opinions, show bias, or start a mini-flame war. Obviously, I am wrong. I think that every liberal using wikipedia should go leave nasty falsehoods on the conservative talk page, or better, the above complainer's talk page. -207.119.69.128 01:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

What a strange post. The comment you respond to is several months old, and long forgotten. Rick Norwood 01:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I figured as much. I just wanted to say something, because I was in a cruddy mood at the time, and that crazed conservative post didn't help much >_<. -207.119.69.128

You sound really really upset is there something I can do to help?AgreeToBe

He would likely appreciate a few billy goats gruff to eat. I hear they can be full of wiles. Lucidish 02:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Trip out.Is he really like that or are you just saying that?what you're saying is he needs to edit the article on goats right? But somehow found himself stuck on talk liberalism.AgreeToBe

Sounds like you are getting your information on what liberals believe from conservative talk radio. Think about that. They told you George W. Bush could be trusted. Now that we're nine trillion dollars in debt, don't you think it is time you asked yourself what other bad advice they may have given you. Rick Norwood 00:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Nope. The article is inaccurate. A liberal is for an all-powerful, all encompassin governemnt, distrubution of wealth, free health care, free food, free drugs, free contraceptive, no religion, no borders, no defense, no flag. They enslave the rich to take care of the lazy though the farce know as Federal Income Taxes.

This is pretty inevitable so long as people use the word in a pseudo-descriptive sense instead of a normative one. I wish political scientists would leave ideology alone and come up with a taxonomy of terms which described the actual state of affairs of policies without resorting to genuine ideological terms. Lucidish 01:30, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't confuse welfare liberalism with classical liberalism. The term "liberalism" has been usurped --largely in the U.S. However, there is still the term "classical liberalism" for those that hold the classic liberal philosophy of small government and individual liberty and opposition to the welfare state. RJII 01:32, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

i'm not the one confusing it, it's Wiki, as usuall. But what's the point of editing any page here? If you're not a psycho left wing tree hugging communist pinko, you are not welcome.

They weren't confused, they were trolling. Most of the characteristics displayed above have nothing to do with liberalism of any kind. Lucidish 01:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not trolling. You are lying. This article is full of falsehoods, and you socialist libs won't allow any real information on this site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.73.21.146 (talk • contribs)

Nah Lucidish 20:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

At least we sign our comments. Rick Norwood 19:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

This discussionis great! Haven't laughed so much in days! Banno 21:08, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

It almost sounds like Noam Chomsky (spelling?) except he would disagree with everything he said but other than that its the same cause everything is a big lie, lie, lie and he is bravely standing up and cutting through the bull. If you think the world is a lie and everyone around you is liar you will probably not be happy and that is why discussions like this happen because people who are unhappy get upset when other people seem okay.AgreeToBe

Noam Chomsky is like Cassandra. He tells truths that nobody wants to hear, and gives warnings that nobody listens to. Rick Norwood 12:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I know it's been a while since you posted that, Rick, but I just read it and couldn't agree more. I just checked out his new book, Failed States, and I can certainly see it in some museum millennia from now with a bunch of mutant historians or betentacled aliens studying it, wondering why the warning was not heeded. I mean, I don't watch the infotainment propaganda that calls itself "news" on television, sticking mainly to the net and NPR, but even to me, Chomsky's arguments are simply shocking both in their calm, logical dispatch as well as the ugliness they dissect and lay bare. I can't even begin to imagine how his arguments must seem to someone who actually believes what his TV tells him; it must seem to him that Chomsky is literally from another planet. Kasreyn 23:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Totally man. Like totally. Stick it to the man!AgreeToBe

I think Chomsky is a bit too credulous -- like many academics, he is used to people who care about the truth. Also, I think his message would go across better if he talked about the good along with the bad -- as Al Gore does in his global warming lectures. There is, after all, plenty of good in the world. All you need to do to appreciate that is never watch television. Rick Norwood 15:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Proposal

People, this page is a terminological mess and an invitation for 'americocentrists' who simply can't understand the worldwide term 'liberalism' means something totally different from what they usually either curse or boast of. My proposal is to split this page into two clear disambiguated pages indicating what 'liberalism' stands for in both definitions, since what American usage means by 'liberalism' can't be even historically linked to the classical term anymore (remember that even communistoid individuals are currently being called 'liberal', and liking it!). These two definitions have been independently formed, and can't be related at all nowadays. This is confusing and can't go on. Let us make things clear on Wikipedia. Xemoi

There is an article on Liberalism in the United States. This article is on world liberalism. Rick Norwood 00:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Your proposal is predicated upon a misconception. The American usage is an offshoot of the classical version (though differing from it significantly): there is a connection, and that connection is the commitment to liberty as the fundamental value by which to govern political affairs. If there were no connection between American and classical liberalism, then the use of the word "liberalism" to describe American social democracy would be absolutely unjustifiable. But there is a historical and ideological connection, and this is understood by the adherants of the doctrine.

I have no idea what "communistoid" means. But if you're talking about using the word "liberal" to describe a communist, then people are at best misusing words, and at worst, completely ignorant of the facts. But even that presupposes that any serious scholar who knows anything about political science or ideology would use the word in the way that you claim people use it. That requires evidence. Lucidish 00:59, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I am a European as are other editors. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 05:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all, 'liberal', in the current American psyche, including all of the media, is instantly associated with the left, be it of either a social-democratic, socialist, communist or green penchant. That is so obvious that it hardly needs any further 'evidence' from my part. Just prick up your ears and listen. Or read a newspaper, for god's sake! Or, better, read the countless complaints about the conceptual accuracy of this article from stupefied American editors. Anyway, it doesn't mean that the people using the term this way are wrong: as I said, <you> are wrong when you think both meanings are anything but two concepts apart that cannot be related anymore. The 'connections' between the definitions of 'liberalism' in both sides of the Atlantic have been null for quite some time now. Also, the alleged connection on the defense of "liberty" that you cite doesn't make sense, really, since the KINDS of freedom that European 'liberals' (who in the US would in fact be equivalent to moderate libertarians)and that American <<left-wing> "liberals" defend are completely different: while the European libs argue for more ECONOMIC freedom along with some level of personal freedom, the American 'liberals' are more concerned with PERSONAL freedom (abortion, gay rights, immigration,anti-war, etc.) if any, while their economic policies are clearly and decidedly interventionist, with calls for ever more public spending! So, the types of 'liberty' both groups argue for are surely different. This is so easy to gauge, and so blatant. By the way, haven't you ever heard of the Nolan chart, or the Political Compass? Those would help make things clear. So I still believe this page has been clumsily developed in what regards terminological differences. Actually, what first urged me to do something about it is that the userbox about American users who define themselves as 'liberal' (that is,left wing - you can see that, if there's doubt yet, by the other userboxes in their pages) links to THIS article! If anything, THAT should be changed to the other article on 'liberalism' in the US. But with that common mistake you can see how things are confusing around here. One of the policies of wikipedia is to nominate and develop articles using the concepts and denominations that are more commonly used (and therefore most likely to be searched for), no matter what purists prescribe. So it's far from being a matter of "wrong" conceptions. There are two different and absolutely SEPARATE meanings, of two things that have in common just the name, arbitrarily defined for cultural reasons. AT LEAST there should be a clear note at the top of the page warning: "This article is about Liberalism in Europe; for the common American definition, see Liberalism in the United States"(or something of that nature), and all misleading links in wiki userboxes and articles should be accordingly redirected. Xemoi 22:24, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

You have been lied to so often, by people who have made a huge amount of money from their lies, that the lies now seem "obvious" and not in need of actual evidence. I will only ask you this. Was it the liberals who have put the United States nine trillion dollars in debt? Rick Norwood 00:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

(sigh) looks like someone has drunk too much of the kool-aid. Xemoi 01:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

First: you really need to acquaint yourself with the actual opinions of actual members of the actual ideology. In America. That is the bare minimum standard for any reasonable conversation on a topic such as this. An appeal to popularity is unsound, especially when said popularity doesn't even pretend to have a connection with reasoned justification.

Second, the connection may be made both historically and philosophically.

1. Historically, the connection comes out of two general threads: one, a growing sympathy by free-market thinkers to socialist ideas during the first half of the 20th century, due to growing awareness of certain serious deficiencies in their system (see Hayek's original "Road to Serfdom", and actually read it, if you want to see what I mean: he, being an ostensibly "classical liberal" figure, was uncharacterisitcally sympathetic to notions of welfare). Two, nevertheless, these persons had a deep and bitter skepticism of communists. That is in part why they chose the name "liberal" for their movement: to contrast themselves from the Marxists.

2. There is also a theoretical connection which Hayek mentions in the same work (disparagingly). It lies in the modern/American liberal interpretation of "liberty" in a robust sense, involving both positive and negative rights, which roughly involves both protection from interference in the latter, and freedom of opportunity in the former.

If you're genuinely interested in any of this, info can be found in the wiki. Lucidish 04:00, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it is a bit late to add to this, but it is a tragedy that the term 'liberal' has been so debased in contemporary US political jargon. As I understand the term, it is a basically centrist stance that allows that some limited government intervention is useful under rather limited circumstances - roadways, healthcare, capturing certain externalities into costs (pollution comes to mind). This entry should not be distorted by American use of the word. Wikipedia is used by many people outside of the US. [[steven 17:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)]]

Fix comparative size of sections?

Some sections here are somewhat too disproportionately heavy, such as "Revolutionary Liberalism", while the section on "Liberalism and Democracy", though dealing with a key aspect of the theory, is limited to one paragraph... E.Cogoy 23:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Democracy is very much cited as on the 'liberal' agenda throughout the article! And in the end, that's the same. As for revolutionary liberalism, the section may be improved, yes, but it's not that long. Xemoi 01:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Liberalism seeks limitations on power of wealth?

The second sentence in the intro currently says:

Broadly speaking, liberalism seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on the power of government, wealth, and religion, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports private enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of minorities are guaranteed.

Can someone provide a reference for liberalism seeking a society characterized in part by a limitation on the power of wealth, or at least explain what that is supposed to mean? Does the ability to hire a worker constitute an example of the power of wealth that liberalism seeks to limit? I know there are some people who are bothered by what the characterize as the power of wealth, but I've never encountered a reasonable definition of what that might be with respect to something that anyone would truly want to limit. In contrast, I understand what limits on government and religion means, and how to accomplish that (lower taxes, strong Constitution with well-defined individual rights, separation of Church and State, ...). The only "limitation" of the power of wealth I can conjure is through expansion of government power (taxation, regulation), which is contrary to liberalism. --Serge 04:20, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Limitations on the power of wealth might be contrary to the modern libertarian interpretation of classical liberalism, but this article is about liberalism in general. On the other hand, any society with a legal system arguably has some limitations on the power of wealth (because the law prevents some voluntary mutually-beneficial exchanges being carried out which otherwise might occur, such as a mother selling her baby to an adoption agency). Any legislation on labour conditions etc. is also a limitation in the power of wealth, but light regulation of the labour market isn't incompatible with many strands of liberal thought (though of course, it is incompatible with the modern libertarian interpretation of certain strands of classical liberal thought). Cadr 15:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

While I don't object to the rewrite, an example of a liberal limitation on the power of wealth that was in the news today is the idea that, if a corporation abrogates it retirement agreement with its empolyees, while providing its CEO with a billion dollar retirement plan, that may be a case where the government should step in. Not all liberals would agree, so it doesn't belong in the intro. Rick Norwood 16:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

An example of the limits on the power of wealth would be campaign finance reform. Lucidish 17:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I thought of that. But the basis for campaign finance reform is to limit the power of wealth in terms of influencing political power, which would not be an issue in a liberal society where political power is so limited that the influencing power of wealth (or anything else) would be moot. --Serge 21:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no one idea of a "liberal society", because that implies one particular agreed means in approaching public policy, where there are (in this area) a plurality of them, though there is one common end.

Incidentally, taxation and regulation are not inherantly against liberalism of any kind, classical or modern. The key is that both not be instruments of domination: they must be instruments that work in favor of liberty. If that sounds dubious, I would point out that it explains (for instance) Locke's insistence that a referendum be called if any change in tax law were desired by the government. Sensible regulation is another one of those things that the ostensibly classical liberal philosopher F. Hayek advocated. Lucidish 22:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

"...where political power is so limited..." Power is never limited but by an opposing power. The genius of the American constitution is that it pits the power hungry in constant battle against one another (checks and balances) instead of trying to limit or eliminate power entirely. Rick Norwood 22:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Right to life

The introduction states that all liberals believe that people have a right to life. However, in a strict libertarian society with no welfare whatsoever, people don't actually have a right to life -- if you can't provide for yourself, it's tough luck. (In contrast, if you are unable to protect your own property, you still have recourse to the legal system.) Does this part of the introduction need to be clarified? Cadr 15:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

By "right to life" the framers of liberal philosophy did not mean you might not starve to death, they only meant that the upper class could not kill lower class people at will. In those days, if an upper class gentleman out on a fox hunt trampled a peasant child under his horse's hooves, tough tooties. A modern example would be whether my economic freedom to dump toxic chemicals into your drinking water is limited by your right not to be killed by my toxic chemicals. Rick Norwood 16:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

But that's not really a right to life, it's a either a right not to be killed, or a prohibition on killing other people (depending on how you look at it). At least, it's not what's usually meant by a right to life in modern usage. A right to life, like a right to eat, is a positive liberty and it's not recognized by all people within the liberal spectrum. Cadr 17:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

What stops you dumping chemicals in my drinking water in a society without a right to life? From a strict libertarian point of view (not that I'm a libertarian), you can't dump toxic chemicals into my drinking water because I own my drinking water. In a utopian libertarian society, everyone would have some share of ownership in the water which they drink (in fact if you don't own your drinking water, drinking it might be illegal). If your company owns enough of a share in the water I drink, you can dump toxic chemicals in it with impunity, though of course the other owners might be able to bribe you into not doing it. Cadr 17:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, I didn't want this to get into a big debate on what exactly a "right to life" is. I just think that strict libertarians might object to the suggestion that they favour a right to life because this sounds rather like a positive right. Any right to life they favour is -- as you said -- merely the freedom not to be killed, and this should perhaps be clarified in the intro.

As I said, I was talking about the original use of "right to life", in a time where large numbers of people starved to death, and nobody dreamed that the government would ever do anything to prevent it. The quote is from John Locke, and was echoed, with changes, by Thomas Jefferson. It may be a good idea to explicate the quote, but not in the introduction.

Today, 'right to life' has, as best I can tell, only one meaning, which is my right to prevent women from having an abortion. What you are talking about under the heading of "right to life" is the very modern idea that the government should provide the basic necessities of life. This is not, usually, called "right to life", though you may be correct in thinking that some people are confused about this. Rick Norwood 17:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I think we just disagree over usage, then. "Right to life" is used quite often in the sense I described. For example

Part of Smith’s confusion here lies in thinking that libertarianism upholds some actual right to life. There is no right to life. There is a right against aggression. That is why libertarians advocate the non-aggression axiom or principle, not the “life axiom.” [4]

So some clarification might be required (possibly not in the intro, as you say). Cadr 17:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah, in libertarian jargon. I try to stay away from libertarians as much as possible. There's a libertarian in one of the other talk pages who keeps calling me names, like "fool" and "stupid", but I find it best to ignore him. Rick Norwood 20:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I try to stay away from libertarians too :) What I want to point out is that there isn't a right to life under libertarianism in the same way that there is in a moderate liberal democracy, where there is some kind of government safety net. Cadr 22:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, you are exaggerating the extent to which (a) "upper class gentlemen" could kill lower class people with impunity in the time of Locke, and (b) the extent to which poor people did not dream of the government providing food to starving people. Even in Elizabethen times there was some (local) government provision for feeding the poor under the Poor law. It was only in the 19th century that the idea of welfare started to be challenged, and harsher measures were introduced (workhouses, etc.). Consider also that it was seriously debated in Parliament whether England should sell wheat to Ireland at artificially low prices during the potato famine. (This is all English history I'm talking about, don't know so much about America.) Cadr 18:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You are probably right about England. I was thinking of France. "Let them eat cake!" Rick Norwood 20:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

1. Let us not forget that this isn't an article about libertarianism, but about liberalism in its diverse forms. 2. Most liberals accept forms of taxation. The market liberal reform party of Estonia, which might be one of the most libertarian-like parties in Europe, wants low taxes, but not an abolition of taxes. 3. Most liberals favour regulation of monopolies and cartels. Is that limiting the power of wealth?Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 07:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Right to life eh? That's why most liberals are pro-choice right? LOL! PaladinWriter 21:25, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

split?

This article has already been split several times. Liberalism in North America split off. Then Liberalism in North America split into Liberialism in the United States and Liberalism in Canada. Now we have a long list of various specialized articles on liberalism. I'm not sure what further split is now being suggested. Rick Norwood 23:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Why?! well, here we go: some few sections here may be perfectly summarized, but this article /as a whole/ is 78!!kb (more than double the ideal size) and has no less than 29 sections. Split it OR make it pithy in order to comply with wikipedia standards. Xemoi 00:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Not a horrible suggestion, so long as it's done with a care for the content. Lucidish 02:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with a split, whereby this would be the main article, and there would be at least articles articles on Early liberalism, Revolutionary liberalism, modern liberalism or political liberalism and classical liberalism. These articles would be added to the series. Is that a way. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 10:26, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

All in all not a bad article - but way to long. I would also agree that it should be split and (to Rick's point) trimmed to complement existing articles so as to be more of a guide/timeline from where readers can dive deeper into the turns and schisms Liberalism has undergone. Maybe something like: Rise of Liberalism (exiting the Reformation; great revolution and parliamentary government), Classical Liberalism (Locke to Mills; liberty focus; subjects to citizens), New/Progressive Liberalism (a la T.H. Green, Hobhouse, etc; intervention against inequities stemming from free markets; equality of opportunity), Modern Liberalism (Keynes, Roosevelt, Wavy Gravy, etc; New deal/welfare state; redistribution of wealth; equality of outcome). Just a thought. – Phocion 03:13, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Note that many of these articles already exist. That being the case, this article does not really need to be split. Rather, material that is included in another article should be shortened here with a link there. Rick Norwood 15:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I created the article History of liberal thought. The present section of development of liberal thought can be summarized. I think this is in line with this debate. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 20:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Tolerance

My insertion of "ostensibly" into the article by Rick Norwood was not entirely unexpected, and is also understandable. But I am left with a dilemna.

I truly do believe that the supposed greater tolerance of liberals is self-delusional, albeit almost always sincere. But in over 35 years of chewing political and policy fat with friends and acquaintences, I have come to the conclusion that liberals are no more "tolerant" of others than are conservatives. Indeed (as with conservatives), the more intense the beliefs, the less tolerant they become. Liberals are quite capable of becoming apoplectic when confronted with an opposing viewpoint. I would even suggest that conservatives (and—let us not forget—we are all forced by the breadth of this topic to generalize to an incredible degree) are, if not more accepting of opposing viewpoints, at least better able to engage in friendly debate.

So, in short, Rick, what makes liberals more tolerant? The fact that the Democratic party won't let pro-lifers within their own party address national conventions? That they oppose public Christian religiosity but not Muslim? I just think that this ostensible liberal tolerance is one of the great myths of political history. That's my two cents worth—not sure it's worth getting into a spat over. Unschool 01:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely with the above ^. Deepdesertfreman 03:47, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

But of course the errors of "liberals" are not the errors of liberalism. Human beings are fallible. Tolerance may be some abstract idea that sits in the twilight zone of the ideology, but that doesn't mean it always makes its way into the psyche of would-be liberals.

It's also important to keep in mind that tolerance is historically and philosophically very limited. In Locke's case, it had to do with religious toleration which follows from a separation of church and state. Meanwhile, Locke advocated the persecution of atheists and promise-breakers. Hardly tolerant of him in the modern (non-crazy) sense, but there you have it, right in the canons of the man himself.

One thing Locke did get quite right was that tolerance has no impact whatsoever on the sanctions applied by voluntary organizations toward its members. A church can excommunicate a mischievous member at will, and that's not "intolerant" in Locke's sense. As far as I can see, by the same token, the Democrats can kick out pro-lifers, or red-headed children, or whoever they want. Lucidish 02:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

But of course the errors of "liberals" are not the errors of liberalism. Human beings are fallible. Thank you for reminding me of this point—it covers much ground, and ends much debate. But as to the other point, that, a private group can apply whatever sanctions they want—oh, as a two-time Catholic, one-time Mormon, life-time Republican who opposes the practice in many US states of allowing non-party members to vote in party primary elections, I quite agree. The problem lies in the fact that the Democrats have pretended to be open to both sides on this debate, have pretended not to exclude those in their party with a minority view, and then have gone ahead and treated those individuals as third-class citizens.

Ah, but then, that just proves your first point, doesn't it?

Thank you for your comments; I am content leaving out my "ostensible" addition, now. Unschool 03:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, people are wacky.

In the spirit of your edit I appended the statement to read tolerant of religious, ethnic, and racial matters. That restriction may clear up any lingering strangeness. Lucidish 15:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Where is Rawls?

With over 10,000 scholarly citations, A Theory of Justice is one of the all-time most cited works in philosophy. Political Liberalism, which builds off the core ideas in TJ, is one of the most cogent statements on toleration. And yet in the entire article, Rawls gets only two tangential references.

I've read through all the comments above, and I think the fundamental problem is that people are looking at this article as an opportunity to make political statements (perhaps without recognizing it). It's bizarre, really. Political liberalism is not the liberalism of "liberal British/American politics." Insisting on any such connection is pointless. Why bother? It's just confusing.

To my mind, this article should be a neutral presentation of the core ideas in the liberalism of political philosophy, including Kant alongside Mill; Nozick alongside Rawls; and so forth. It need not deal with controversial contemporary political applications which, as they stand, are both unsophisticated and highly likely to incite contentious debate.

This goes especially for the entire "Contemporary Liberalism" section. To suggest that liberalism or "liberalism advocates" speak in a united voice about affirmative action, capital punishment, or the welfare state is patently silly. The entire section is a conflation of contemporary liberal politics with the article's earlier attention to political liberalism. Not only is the section terribly out of place, but it's also conclusory and simplistic. It informs readers of nothing worthwile (or at least nothing they couldn't pick up from a Democrat's campaign website). It really needs to go. (And I say this as someone sympathetic to contemporary liberal politics.)

I would suggest instead an article be structured according to subtopics within political liberalism, the varying viewpoints on which can be presented in clear juxtaposition.

How about something like:

Liberalism

[disclaimer: this article is not about contemporary liberal politics]

Historical Background

Etymology (currently "Etymology and historical usage")

What Liberalism Is Not (brief overview of Bentham, Socialism, and Marxism)

History of Early Liberalism (currently "Origins of Liberal Thought," perhaps with some attention to section on Revolution)

History of Contemporary Liberalism (currently "Liberalism against totalitarianism")

Liberalism and Property

Free Markets and Negative Rights (introduce liberal thinkers who support small govt and free markets, ie Locke, Hayek, and Nozick)

The Welfare State and Positive Rights (introduce liberal thinkers who support central regulatory regimes, ie Rawls and the Difference Principle, the repudiation of formalism, J.S. Mill, etc.)

Liberalism and Toleration (needs serious development, but is one of the central issues in the political philosophy of liberalism--after all, how does a society remain stable when it permits, indeed fosters, a plurality of irreconcilable political ideologies? Witness abortion and end-of-life debates.)

Anyway, just some thoughts. Regardless, this article should stear clear of conflating "liberalism" of political philosophy with the "liberalism" of contemporary politics. It should, moreover, give its due to John Rawls--like him or not, he's one of the most cited philosophers of all time who's influenced political liberal thought immeasurably. (And, no, mere reference to the cheezy wiki on TJ won't cut it.) --71.235.99.75 21:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)MBK-YLS08

Politicians, with a very few exceptions, are not the least bit interested in philosophy. Liberal voters, by and large, want to be free to live our lives without the federal government tapping their phone or the super rich colluding to keep wages low and buying congresscritters to allow credit cards to take away the home of someone who has the misfortune to be hospitalized. Usually we vote for the lesser of two evils, and that is the extent to which liberalism and politics mix. Rick Norwood 00:10, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate that you chaps have difficulty in imagining life outside the US, but Liberal voters here are more interested in a nice middle way between Conservatives and Labour, though whether they're to the left or right of New Labour is anyone's guess. ..dave souza, talk 00:19, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know the goals of the editors on this page has been to create a synoptic view of liberalism across history, with equal emphasis on European and North American strains. While it's true that Rawls gets the short shrift here, it's not due to any other underlying problems connected with the goals of what to emphasize in the article. It's just that he got left out, just because nobody took the time to include him.

It's quite true that liberals disagree about a number of things, so yeah, the contemporary section deserves a rounding out. In all articles it's important to keep an eye toward phrases like "most x believe" and so on, because consensus is not always so obvious or verifiable. Lucidish 21:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

---

I suppose I had two different points, which I should have posted separately. The first question is simply, where is Rawls? The solution is that someone has to take the time to write more on justice as fairness, and toleration generally, since these are critical strands in liberal thought.

The second point is that it would be inaccurate and disingenuous for contemporary political "liberals" to claim that their politics fit within "a synoptic view of liberalism across history" any more than any other mainstream political party of a liberal nation. America and most of the EU are liberal states, and insofar as the mainstream political parties in these countries endorse basic liberties like freedom of conscience and freedom of expression, they are all liberal. Hence, it's easy to see that liberalism relates as naturally to contemporary conservative politics as to contemporary liberal politics. (And, indeed, given the article's focus on the likes of Hayek and Freidman, the connection to "conservatism" is an even easier connection to make.)

Put more plainly, the term liberalism, as in liberal political thought, is simply not the same thing as liberalism, as in contemporary liberal politics. As such, it makes no sense whatsoever to equate liberalism as "an ideology, [and] philosophy," with any one contemporary American or Britich political party. Hence the section on "Contemporary liberal positions" is plainly inappropriate. --71.235.99.75 14:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)MBK-YLS08

Regarding your second point: nobody here says that contemporary liberals have exclusive right to the title. They simply claim a share in it, and argue that they serve its ideals best.

Admittedly the Contemporary section uses a lot of weasel words, but it's unavoidable unless and until actual survey research is carried out among liberals. The part on welfare etc only speaks of the consensus after WW2, and speaks of it in the past tense, indicating that it has passed: though this is not clear. The affirmative action claim is hedged behind the words "many" and "American liberals".

Naming out particular parties may or may not be advisable. I tend to think not, because we're supposed to be treating an ideology or philosophy first, and political accretions second. However, in cases where there are significant impacts upon the liberal opinion by particular parties, i.e. after the 80s Thatcher -Reagan transformation, then I don't see why they can't be mentioned. Lucidish 17:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Lucidish wrote: "[C]ontemporary liberals [do not] have exclusive right to the title. They simply claim a share in it, and argue that they serve its ideals best."

Ah, right. The problem is that last time I checked Wikipedia was not a soapbox for specious, patently political "claims" and "arguments." As I've said before, conservatives may claim a share in liberalism--and argue they they serve its ideals best--just as well as contemporary political "liberals." (Last I checked, Republicans still subscribed to the Bill of Rights.) But any such claims and arguments would be just as out of place. See [5].

You serve my point perfectly by demonstrating that this article has turned into a clear (and now admitted) editorial on the superiority of left-leaning politics. Even as someone sympathetic to those politics, I still stand firmly by my argument that they are out of place in an objective article on the content and history of liberalism qua political philosophy.

What is it you find irksome in the comment I made? It says nothing, and implies nothing, about conservatism, and thus, does not violate the NPOV policy. Perhaps you should give a closer reading to what I've said instead of inventing implications that aren't there.

For my part, I agree that some people who call themselves "conservatives" in the Burkean sense of the term would argue that they are the true inheritors to the liberal tradition; you seem to agree. But they are represented under the classical or economic liberal traditions noted in the wiki; so one must wonder at the source of your frustration. But I don't care what your beliefs are, nor should anyone care about mine, in this context.

Rather, the point has to do with specific sections, specific greivances, specific errors. I have agreed that, in two cases which you mentioned (affirmative action, welfare) there has been misleading language in the wiki, (i.e., weasel words which are unavoidable, and not being specific enough in the hedgeing of the claims). However, I also noted that those comments were, and are, purposefully hedged out of sensitivity to the NPOV policy: the disputed points are NOT categorical claims, involving quantifiers like "all" or "necessarily". So far you have ignored the proof in favor of some misinterpretation of the article that does not conform to the actual material in it. Lucidish 23:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I may have misunderstood the intent of your comment. For that I apologize.

Nevertheless, the entire last section is called "Contemporary liberal positions," which implies, when combined with the content of the section, a categorical ownership of political liberalism by left-leaning politics. My point is that to be an appropriate addition to first 75% of the wiki, any section claiming to comprehend "Contemporary liberal positions" would have to address the politics of virtually all mainstream political parties of liberal states.

The third sentence of the section reads, "In the US, liberalism is usually contrasted with conservatism, and American liberals support broader racial, ethnic, and religious tolerance, and thus more readily embrace multiculturalism and affirmative action."

1) This is a clear conflation of the meaning of liberalism as dealt with early in the article (ie, in the context of the political philosophical tradition) with the meaning of liberalism qua contemporary liberal politics. These words are mere homonyms, nothing more. The problem is greater than mere lopsided language with respect to affirmative action or any other singular issue.

2) This language sets liberalism against conservatism as the exclusive contemporary manifestation of liberal political thought. The entire section is misleading at best, and a clear example of soapboxing/political advocacy at worst. It need not take pot-shots at conservatism to violate the NPOV policy--advocacy is enough. Either way, it's distracting (as we have here demonstrated) and it adds nothing to the educational content of the article. It should be cut altogether.

The section does incorporate some rightward-tilting perspectives, like that which arises in response to radical Islam, and the European-libertarian sorts.

1. There is no conflation present. To be clear: a) The topic of the article is liberalism as a whole; b) the contemporary section is meant to deal with modern trends, both leftward and rightward, in certain regions; c) US liberalism is known for its leftward tilt. Item b) may be poorly emphasized. However, regarding item c), there is a clear distinction, marked by the use of the qualifier "In the US", which makes accusation of conflation difficult. I think, though, it might be better if we replaced the term "liberal" with the phrase "self-designated liberal", in which case the accusation of conflation really would be made impossible. Does that sound good?

2. I'm not the person to talk to about conservatism or US usage. As far as I'm concerned, "conservative" is politically meaningless. For I understand it to mean a heuristic of worldly wisdom, meaning: "If a social system has worked in the past to the point where it becomes tradition, then it must have done something right, and the burden of doubt should be placed comparatively highly upon would-be reformers, and comparatively less on those who advocate the status quo". But this is a social ideology at best, not a political one, and not something that can be compared to liberalism, let alone opposed to it. (Rather, the opposite of conservatism would be something like progressivism.) The American conventions, in short, baffle me. But the statement that most people in the US see some conservative-liberal dichotomy is, in all likelihood, true; and the diligent Wikipedian can only really shrug their shoulders and report the consensus. In other words: it might be a gross propagandistic blunder created by muddle-headed ideas and which fosters a vapid national rivalry; but Wikipedia is sadly limited in its aims, and can only aim at reporting consensus through verification, and must neglect the more noble goals of clarity and truth. Hopefully, good political scientists of the future will have conducted enough original research to scrape this particularly misleading dichotomy away like a barnicle from the hull. Meanwhile, we're stuck in the present-day. Lucidish 04:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Harmful Effects of Liberalism

This Wiki article badly needs a section on the harmful effects of Liberalism on society! It is way too biased! PaladinWriter 21:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a section on Comparative critiques. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 21:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

RN to PW:Essentially, all Western nations, plus India and Japan, are liberal societies. So a section on the harmful effects of Liberalism would need to show ways in which people in Africa, China, and the Middle East are better off than people in the West. Maybe you could suggest a start. Rick Norwood 17:04, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Two kinds of Liberalism

There are basically only two kinds of liberalism.

1: The freedom of the individual from domination and opression from rich people, priests, kings and rulers.

2: The freedom of rich people, priests, kings and rulers to continue to opress, dominate and use the poor and opressed people.

Everything else is mumbo-jumbo to support the second, reactionary type of liberalism, a reaction from the current upper class to the liberation movements of the masses of poor and opressed people to liberate themselves from different types of slavery.

There is definitely a need for multiple pages about Liberalism. (Roger)

the first one is liberalism, the second is neoliberalism Lucidish 03:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

There are also different views, what is "oppression", etc. If the mere existense of rich people is oppression, that is not liberalism, that's socialism or anarchism. I think that the kind of contradiction presented here isn't one which is made by a liberal in the true sense of the word. A liberal wouldn't say, that the rigt to oppress other people is any kind of freedom, regardless to the fact who is the oppressor. Further, there are already separate articles for Neoliberalism, Social liberalism, American liberalism, so I think that dividing this article as suggested by Roger is unnecessary. You might want to also see the articles Positive liberty and Negative liberty for different definitions of freedom.--Liberalis 20:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

It is not the existence of rich people that is oppressive, but the existance of an "upper class" who use their wealth to see to it that their roommate at Andover is appointed to a financially remunerative position without regard to ability. We have seen this frequently in the past six years, as CEO's give themselves multimillion dollar bonuses while their lack of ability causes their corporation to loose billions. Of course, the class struggle has been going on throughout recorded history, and will continue. But when -- what is it? -- five percent of the people own ninty-five percent of the wealth, then tax cuts for the rich just don't seem to be the right way to go. In America, at least, the question is not whether or not there should be rich people, but whether rich people should or should not get even more special treatment than they already get. Note that the rich themselves are roughly evenly split between liberals and conservatives.

As for splitting this article, however, I don't think so. It presents both points of view. Rather than split the article, it might be better to move the more wordy sections into subarticles that already exist. Rick Norwood 13:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

hereditary status vs. constitutional monarchy

...liberals favour a liberal democracy in the form of either a republic or a constitutional monarchy...

Liberalism rejected many foundational assumptions which dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status...

How can liberalism conciliate hereditary status with monarchy? Typelighter 14:43, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Good question. Ask a Brit.

No, seriously, the answer to your question is that the monarchy is almost entirely ceremonial rather than political. "With all our faults, we love our queen." - Pirates of Penzance. Rick Norwood 14:13, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The supposed ceremonial way of monarchy isn't a reason to forget the reality of hereditary status and privilege among some groups of people within a monarchy. I recognize the differences between a constitutional monarchy and an absolute monarchy, but in any case the hereditary status is there. We should rewrite it carefully because this part of the article is very confusing and falls into evident contradictions. Typelighter 10:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

The contradiction is, sad to say, in human nature, which wants equality but is endlessly fascinated by royalty. Maybe you can find a way to do the careful rewrite you suggest. Rick Norwood 13:57, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Liberals for Free Market?

Really? Please enlighten.

Please study televant documents on international liberalism. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 22:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It all depends on what you mean by a free market. Most liberals are capitalists, and favor free enterprise, but with some reservations. In particular, they are suspicious of monopoly, and of the ever increasing concentration of power in the hands of fewer and fewer corporations. Also, liberals think that the government must act to prevent the "free market" from acting in ways that will cost the taxpayers money, or that will put lives at risk. The recent "commercials" providing disinformation about global warming "CO2, some call it polution. We call it life." are a good example. Let's suppose a corporation can make a billion dollars burning fossil feuls, but the rising water levels will then cause a trillion dollars in damage to Miami. The company keeps its billion, the taxpayer gets stuck paying the trillion. Is that a "free market"?

But, yes, except in the relatively small number of cases where there is a clear and present danger to the public, most liberals favor free markets. Rick Norwood 21:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Liberals do not believe in an absolute free markets or absolute property rights. Intangible 21:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

False. Laissez-faire liberals are identical with libertarians. Most modern liberals, however, are neither. Lucidish 22:14, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

As long as laissez-faire liberals or libertarians approve of the state, they do not believe in absolute property rights. Intangible 23:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, but what's this line of reasoning -- concerned with absolutes -- got to do with support for free markets, which is the topic under discussion? Lucidish 02:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

If your political end of free markets becomes relative, what will become of your means? Intangible 02:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Guns. Rick Norwood 13:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

The goal (free markets) is not necessarily relative; it's generic. And sure, generic terms are frought with vagueness; and vagueness is relative to precise goals in mind.

But this has no necessary impact on "means". Example. Sally is about to go to the store with the goal of returning with a chocolate bar. You may say, "You're being vague; I don't know if you're going to buy an Aero, or a Snickers, or a Coffee Crisp, and I don't know if you're going to steal it or buy it." So we, the listener, are at the edge of our seats, wondering what specific kind of bar that Sally will buy, and how she'll get it. But all this necessarily means is that your desire for more information has not been met in some way or another. It doesn't necessarily mean that she's a delinquint pig who will shoplift. In other words, nothing necessarily "becomes" of one's means. Lucidish 19:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

True. Some of us don't even believe in absolute zero. Rick Norwood 21:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

"Liberals" in Germany, Austria, Switzerland

In these three countries liberal parties have a long history, going back to 1848 in Germany and a few centuries more in Switzerland. Most educated liberals here will uphold the name of Adam Smith, freedom from oppression by a repressive government with high taxes and tariffs being their main political theme. In recent times in all three countries liberals (mostly educated business people) have come to represent the extreme right of the democratic political spectrum in most regards, which is reflected in the actual sitting order in parliament. Here is to say that taxation and social welfare in Germany is not comparable with taxation and social welfare in the US, with the ministry of health and social services comprising more than 30% of the overall budget. So while liberal parties in the German speaking countries are the only parties with a decided free market, pro-business and low taxation stance (including the so called Christian Conservatives that have just voted for the highest tax increase in post-war Germany), at the same time the head of the German liberal party is openly gay, posing with his "life-partner" for the cameras. The German liberals are definitely "pro-choice", anti-racist, pro gay-marriages, but they strongly resent "affirmative action", where they clash with the governing coalition.

Conclusion: Liberal in Europe seems to mean the near opposite of the meaning in the US! Wikipedia should at least point to this as an "alternative usage" of the term, that seams to stem from a different history.Hirsch.im.wald 07:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Being pro free market doesn't mean extreme right. The FDP is not extreme rightwing in the German spectrum. it is one of the parties with a very good record on Rechtsstaat. The article itself gives a clear outline of trends within liberalism, inclusive of Wirtschaftsliberalismus (economic liberalism) which is high on the FDP-agenda, so this alternative usage is in the article. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 09:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Connections with communism

I deleted the following text: Communist theory--though not practice--has also been found to have some basis in the writings of Marcus Aurelius in his Meditations. According to Marx, the notion of equality of the whole would create a society with equal rights for the whole. Marx even regarded communism as “liberalism in its purest sense.” Lenin, and other Soviet leaders latched on to this notion during the Russian Revolution. However, practice has shown the governments to be far from liberal. This section is unsourced, out of place (in the beginning of the article) and as far as I can not true and irrelevant. Communism and liberalism are antipodes, since communism starts with the collectivity, with class, and liberalism is based on the individual liberty. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 08:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Editorial Slant

I really think this article is slanted in favor of the liberal political movement. The critique of liberalism is in desperate need of expansion. Also, I find it hard to believe that liberals are classified as in favor of free markets. Most of the liberals I know would be perfectly happy with communism and or socialism in our country. Deepdesertfreman 03:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

What country? This is not an article about American liberalism, but about worldwide liberalism. I do not know the liberals you know, but the liberals I know in my continent are all strongly anti-totalitarian, anti-communist and completely different from the socialist parties. Try not to be US-centric in this article. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 07:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

In America, the Republicans have achieved political power in large part by spending a lot of money to broadcast lies about what liberals believe. (Liberals hate Christianity. Liberals love criminals. Liberals hate America. Liberals love to brag that they have no relition. (This last from Ann Coulter's new best seller.)) Thus, Deepdesertfreman can honestly believe that liberals like communism. Since he is smart enough to have read Dune, I suggest he look into what liberals say liberals believe. I've never met a liberal who had anything good to say about communism. Rick Norwood 13:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The "communism" assertion is just confused. Even if you have "liberal" friends who believe in communism, it is not the opinions of people who call themselves "liberals" that matters to an encyclopedic entry, but reasonable people who are even modestly acquainted with its history. These reasonable people need not be supporters; they may be critical. Some, like the libertarians, have quite reasonably and validly laid claim to the term and argued that it is misused by present-day social liberals.

The definition of "socialism" will largely impact the truth of the original statement. It is widely used in a number of ways. It requires some qualification in order to be anything more than just a vague assertion.

No doubt that the criticisms portion could use some work. (Until a few moments ago, it was a hidden section, due to a poor edit.) All that is demanded is that the critiques must be reasonable ones. In the section, you'll find critiques from a number of perspectives. What do you suggest be improved in the section? Do you have specific ideas? Lucidish 15:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Cite required

This sentence: Broadly speaking, liberalism seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on power, especially of government and religion, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports relatively free private enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of minorities are guaranteed.

covers a lot of ground. Where is the proof of, in which the rights of minorities are guaranteed.

Prove it or lose it. WP:OWN violation. Scribner 23:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I think a link to Martin Luther King's "I have a dream..." speech should do it. Rick Norwood 23:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

MLK was a christian socialist, not a liberal. Intangible 18:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

No, actually it won't, Rick. The speech wasn't referenced to liberalism. Don't get liberalism and American liberalism confused. Scribner 00:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I will come up with a reference in short time (not today), but for me it is clearly inherent to liberalism, which created liberal democracy, a model that protects minorities in society against majorities and implies the non-discrimination principle. In a liberal programma is doesn't matter if somebody is hetero or gay, white or yellow, catholic of jew etc. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 08:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I did it today and added three citations. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 08:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Especially see the Oxford Manifesto of 1947. Very succinct. Lucidish 17:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, excellent cites. The word guaranteed prompted the tag. Scribner 19:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand your point, Scribner. American liberalism is not all of liberalism by any means, but it is a part, and any example will necessarily be from some part of the whole. Having said that, Electionworld's examples are probably better than mine. Rick Norwood 12:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Summary style

Most readers needs are better met by around 3 concise paragraphs, compared to 9 paragraphs for that section.--Nectar 14:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

That might be true, but there is allready a more comprehensive article on the issue and this section has allready been summarized. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 17:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE VOTE: Should the Liberalism article be a disambiguation page?

Shall the article titled Liberalism be changed into a disambiguation page that references articles like Classical liberalism, Social liberalism, American liberalism, etc.? Or should it be left as is (more or less)?

Arguments in favor of a Liberalism disambiguation page

1. Please don't ignore the fact that possibly a majority of readers coming here are from the US, where the word Liberalism has a totally different (and often opposite!) meaning from the European one. It is not enough to account for all "forms" of liberalism, since the current American (that is, a major English-speaking) usage already has a tradition of its own, with only a thin connection to the European concept (notice that they are not two parts of a whole, but separate full-fledged ideologies). Ostensible disambiguation will make things clearer for everyone right from the start. Xemoi 00:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
2. If you want to talk about the etymology or conceptual history of the word, please do it, but don't forget that this must be above all an encyclopedic definiton - and one that is supposed to be coherent and precise. Merging wildly opposite ideologies into a single entry without further explanation (in this case, almost a "translation") of other usages of the word would be anything short of misinformation, really. A disambiguation page is surely necessary. Xemoi 01:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
3. When the term liberalism is used in the U.S., what is generally meant is not what is described in this article and summarized in the opening sentence: "an ideology, philosophical view, and political tradition which holds that liberty is the primary political value". What IS meant is an ideology, philosophical view, and political tradition that perceives a need to balance liberty with a vague concept of "equality" (by which is usually meant an equality of outcome or results). These are fundamentally different (some would say diametrically opposed) ideologies, views and traditions having little if anything in common. The fact that they need to be treated separately is illustrated by the separate Wiki articles on classical liberalism, social liberalism, American liberalism, etc. The attempt to describe a concept that encompasses all of them does not seem to make sense, or work. Describing the British/European concept under this title is confusing. --Serge 02:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Arguments opposing a Liberalism disambiguation page

1. Liberalism is here used as a generic term to describe various forms of liberalism. A dab just doesn't allow for the same kind of detail the current page has. Intangible 22:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
2. The term "liberalism" has been used to describe political and economic doctrines long before FDR usurped the term to avoid being called a communist; any etymology starts at the begining and not somewhere in the middle. Intangible 01:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
3. According to the logic of one of the first two "pro-" arguments, we are to expect that the word "animal" is internally contradictory, since it contains both beavers and non-beavers. Moreover, the "thin" connection of "being an animal" would be far too distressing for such parties; we had better split up the Animal page into every type of animal to really get at the meat of the subject. Worse still, their logic demands that the exposition upon animals in general would be limited to mere dictionary definitions.
   The third argument is that American liberalism cannot be defined as "holding liberty as fundamental value", because it also values equality fundamentally. Analogously, this is like saying that the utterance, "I like chicken", indicates that the person speaking ONLY likes chicken, and that's all.
   These are bad arguments. They make no sense. Leave the page. Lucidish 04:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

   You confuse the meaning of primary with fundamental. An ideology can have multiple fundamental values, but only one primary value. Either a given value (in this case liberty) is primary, trumping all others when there is a conflict, or it is not. Classical liberalism holds liberty as its primary value; American "liberalism" does not, as it often values "equality" more. This means it is not liberalism in the classical sense, and is arguably diametrically opposed. Does that make sense? --Serge 07:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

   Also, as far as the animal/beaver/non-beaver point, a better analogy would be a word with multiple distinct meanings, like swing. "Animal" is not such a word. If you think anyone is arguing anything like the word "'animal' is internally contradictory, since it contains both beavers and non-beavers", then you're not understanding the arguments for why there should be a disambiguation page here, which explains why you oppose the idea.

   Putting the term liberalism aside for a moment, consider the concepts separately, just for a moment. Would you agree that an ideology with the hallmark characteristic of consistently holding liberty as its primary value above all other values is fundamentally different from an ideology that regularly holds other values (e.g., "equality") higher than liberty? Until one understands and appreciates this distinction, the point of having a disambig page titled liberalism will be missed. --Serge 07:47, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

   The first point is well taken, and indicates a bit of semantics that may be worth clearing up. The second point doesn't take anything about the American ideology seriously, ignores the root commonalities (thus would be inaccurate), and ignores that separate articles can and have addressed the differences in a more specialized fashion (thus unnecessary). The third point: yes, they may be different, in your sense, fundamentally. A monistic system is fundamentally different from a pluralistic one. But even granting your outlook, they have more in common, both historically and philosophically, than with fascism or state socialism. Lucidish 03:50, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

4. The same arguments would say that we should not have articles at socialism, conservatism, etc. A partisan of one of the currents in any ideological tradition might reject other branches of that ideology. Stalin and Jean Jaurès were both socialists. Pat Robertson and Maggie Thatcher are both conservatives. In both cases, the differences are at least as large as between social liberals and libertarians. - Jmabel | Talk 04:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
5. On issues like freedom of religion and freedom of speech there would generally be no significant differences between a libertarian and a social liberal. Libertarianism and social liberalism are two different evolutions from the same 19th century ideology. Political ideologies evolve and branch over time. This article is precisely the place to explain that, and I truly cannot imagine what other article would be a more appropriate place to do so. - Jmabel | Talk 04:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
6. The divide between libertarianism and social liberalism derives, mainly from matters about property ownership, economics. Both sides believe strongly in private property (including private ownership of the means of production) but libertarians believe that the existing division of property is "natural" and social liberals reject that. Disagreement about this does not make either side illiberal. - Jmabel | Talk 04:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
7. Both sides believe that one of the valid roles of government is a system of justice, but libertarians generally believe that all legitimate claims are at the level of individuals, while social liberals believe communities can also have certain legitimate claims. Again, this does not make either side illiberal. - Jmabel | Talk 04:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
8. It looks like the argument being made here is that social liberalism is "not really liberalism". One could equally argue (I am not advocating the case, just pointing it out) that in their minarchism, libertarians have broken with 19th century liberal traditions, which included strong support for public education, the building of roads, etc. while social liberals have remained true to this part of the liberal tradition. Obviously, any time there is a divide in a tradition, one can point to one's own points of continuity and the other side's divergences, but to those outside of the fray, matters may look very different. I imagine that very few of us working on this page have an opinion that one of over a dozen Trotskyist factions in the U.S. carries on the "true legacy of Trotsky" while the others do not. I suspect that from a Trotskyist's perspective, the divisions among currents of liberalism do not look much greater. - Jmabel | Talk 04:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
9. Economic liberalism and social liberalism are two major trends within liberal democracies. Consider these trends from the perspective of non-liberal states and the similarity is much more clear.--Pharos 06:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
10. Every decent encyclopedia in the world has an article on broad-brush liberalism; the topic has been covered in thousands of books and has been directly studied by many millions of university students.--Pharos 06:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
11. I think the article is a good article outlining various traditions inside liberalism. Do not forget that European liberalism is alos inspired by American liberals like John Rawls. A disambig party would lead to the question what the name of the present article should be (international liberalism, political liberalism). Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 07:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments

1. I started this poll in order to resolve the issue and get rid of the tag one way or the other. However, I have not voted yet, because I am conflicted, and find both arguments compelling. I will continue to abstain for now and will instead reread the entire article, read any other arguments made here, and mull it over... --Serge 01:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Shannon/Ling seems to have voted for both oppose and support. I'm not sure what the intent is, whether it's undecided, abstained...? There should be an 'abstain/undecided' category just in case. Lucidish 19:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
3. Jmabel, I think you got it wrong. Nobody is saying that other political ideologies called liberalism are "not true liberals" or "illiberal". Please do not use straw man arguments. The most important thing to realize here is that American so-called "liberals" are often, if accurately translated to European terms, social-democratic, not "social liberal" as European usage goes. The word liberal in this case is simply a historical American euphemism for Left-wing. We MUST point out the distinction to avoid terminological confusion. You insist that we're talking about the same subject, when in fact these are two independent ideological currents incidentally dubbed with the same word. For example, should Russian "Conservatives" (i.e., translated, Hardcore Commies) be mentioned in the article about Conservatism alongside American conservatives? C'mon, people, let us think for a moment and be reasonable. The fact that we have a single word doesn't mean that we have a single subject, and there's nothing ideological about this. It's a simple issue of semantics.Xemoi 12:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

We do have an issue in semantics, but it arises entirely out of your (forgive me) ignorance and misinterpretation. Historically, for those who actually advocate certain views and call themselves American liberals, they do not believe in merely "left wing stuff". That is a vulgar mischaracterization, and trying to make it is to propagate falsehood. This really is a case where you need to read some of the literature: even Hayek's "Road...", or the Oxford Manifesto of 1947, or read up on how the term became used as a means of differentiating American social democrats from the communists they disagreed with. Lucidish 18:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

On the one hand, Xemoi" you say "Nobody is saying that other political ideologies called liberalism are 'not true liberals' or 'illiberal'", and then you refer to "American so-called 'liberals'" and an "American euphemism". While I generally try to assume good faith, this strains at my ability to do so. - Jmabel | Talk 05:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

RN to Xemoi -- Russian conservatives, that is, hard core communists, are mentioned in the article on conservatism. Rick Norwood 13:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Xemoi, the fact that "liberalism" is not homogeneous but heterogeneous, and that it hasn't got the same sense in the US and in Europe, simply points out the needs to explain this in the main text of the article. As some have argued using the "animal" argumentation by absurdum, your scepticism on the legitimity to join together these various types of liberalism is, at the end of it, questionning the possibility and the legitimity of the claims that a "liberal tradition" as such exists. This may of course be questionned, and few will totally agree on which authors to include in this tradition and which parts represent the "true", liberal tradition. As Jmabel has pointed out, in this case we shouldn't include neoliberalism in the "liberalism" article, because 19th century liberals were not opposed to basic public, state interventions which are strongly opposed by Friedman, Nozick and others. In two words: you are right to discuss the legitimity of this concept and of this tradition, and it is actually an on-going debate which, by definition, will never find a conclusion (at least until Fukuyama's claims that "liberalism represents the only alternative" — that is that there is no alternative at all — are proven and enforced. Ironically, my own POV would call this annihilation of any alternative "totalitarianism", but hopefully liberals are diverse enough that even if this was the case, than further political distinctions would be made.). By definition, a concept abstracts heterogenous reality under a homogeneous term, which is thus always a "fictional operation". Should we stop talking simply because langage is fictional? Tazmaniacs 13:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Votes

(Please vote/sign below with "# '''Support''' ~~~~" if you support a Liberalism disambiguation page, or with "# '''Oppose''' ~~~~" if you oppose it.

1. Support. Xemoi 00:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Support. LibertariaNZgo 01:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
3. Support. Justice III 01:46, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
4. Support. Serge 07:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
5. Support. Bjsiders 20:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
6. Support. Shannon^{duck talk} 07:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
7. Support. E.Cogoy 16:49, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
8. Support The article "Libertarianism" should also be a disambiguation page, for the same reason - it means the opposite outside of the United States from what it means inside the United States.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.120.29.150 (talk • contribs)
9. Support since the term is used in such a broad spectrum of senses in so many places. CRGreathouse 00:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. Shannon^{duck talk} 06:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC) changing my vote. Shannon^{duck talk} 07:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

1. Oppose. Intangible 22:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Oppose. Jheald 01:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
3. Oppose. Lucidish 03:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
4. Oppose. Jmabel | Talk 04:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
5. Oppose. Pharos 05:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
6. Oppose. Per Intangible and Jmabel. Tazmaniacs 13:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
7. Oppose per Jmabel.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Rick Norwood (talk • contribs)
8. Oppose per Jmabel and Intangible. (this is a vote during a holiday period) Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 13:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Opening sentence/overall problem?

The opening sentence of this article is:

Liberalism is an ideology, philosophical view, and political tradition which holds that liberty is the primary political value.

This is true for Classical liberalism, but is it true for all the "liberalisms" covered in this article? Consider the footnote/quote that is used as a reference: "'Liberalism' is defined as a social ethic that advocates liberty, and equality in general." (emphasis added). Is liberty the primary political value of liberalism, or is equality just as important? The answer is, I believe, it depends on what liberalism you're talking about. And that's the problem. Does it make sense to have an article about a concept for which we cannot even accurately describe in a general sense in a simple sentence? Still mulling it over... --Serge 01:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

It also depends on what "equality" you're talking about, is it equality before the law or equality in the sense of "having the same opportunity in life." Intangible 02:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is true for all the liberalisms in this article, at least according to their own views. Lucidish 04:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

"Their own views" is irrelevant. Organized crime leaders may also believe they hold liberty as their primary value, at least according to their own views. That does not make it so... What we need to be guided by is the NPOV, not their views... --Serge 07:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Afraid not, seeing as this is an article about ideology. Lucidish 03:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

"Does it make sense to have an article about a concept for which we cannot even accurately describe in a general sense in a simple sentence"? Do you mean that there is actually no reason to write whole essays on liberalism since we can't describe it in a sentence? In other words: the matter is too complex to be treated with five words, so we shouldn't talk about it? Doesn't this appears absurd to your own eyes? And, if contributors decided to follow your advice and include "equality" in your definition, do you think writing in one sentence that "liberalism is defined as a social ethics, policies etc. which has as values liberty & equality" would make it easier? I mean, what exactly does "liberty" and "equality" means? Are you refering to metaphysical liberty (stoicism: free in mind, although the body is in chains?)? "Political liberty"? But does this means, as the liberty introductory sentence bravely states: "Liberty is generally considered a concept of political philosophy and identifies the condition in which an individual has immunity from the arbitrary exercise of authority." Accepting this presupposition, what then defines "arbitrary exercice of authority"? What does "authority" means? Shouldn't we forget about the "liberty" article, because clearly it is unwise to reduce the definition of liberty to the above mentionned, definition (which remains meaningless until you have filled up the meanings of "arbitrary", "exercice" and "authority"). Why has Isaiah Berlin's definition being favored over any else (apart from it being common enough in Anglo-Saxon,liberal, circles)? This introductory sentence doesn't even mentions its main presupposition: that "liberty is the property of an individual". This philosophical assertion is clearly a founding block of "liberalism". If you were looking for a rigourous, meaningful definition of liberalism, I would actually humbly propose: "Liberalism is a philosophical and political tradition which asserts that liberty is the property of an individual and that has as main aims to protect the rights of this individual" (of which, first of all, private property). If you accepted (a second) this definition, than it would follow from it that the so-called conflict between "equality" and "liberty" (or balancing one with the other) is only, IMO, a false problem which derives from this restricted conception of liberty. If you considered liberty not as a private, personal property of an individual, but rather as (forget my imprecision) the living state of a collective group, or as the specific conditions of a living and autonomous (per opposition to heteronomeous) society, than liberty wouldn't necessarily be "opposed" to equality. Actually, as you know, in the eyes of many people, liberty without equality is simple oppression, and I don't know how you could call "free" the Athenian democracy in which a minority of citizens dominated a majority of slaves, on the grounds that these citizens enjoyed "political rights" and were thus "free" (the condition of their freedom being the enslavement of the rest of the population — being slaves, they were not "men", in Aristotle's words). I don't know either how you can call free a regime which gave voting rights only to the masculine population, while all women were deprived, just as children, from being political subjects, owners of political rights, of which the first one is today considered to be the "right to vote"? I mean, you could say "men were free", but the vast majority of "women" would certainly not agree with you in this definition of freedom... And can one really be said to be free if the condition of his freedom are founded on the oppression of others? Reread Hegel's dialectics of the slave and the master: the free man is not necessarily where you think he is... Tazmaniacs 13:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

This debate

I voted oppose above, but now wonder if I should have. Since the word 'liberal' doesn't have any real meaning anymore, there is no way to start this article with one definition for liberalism. It starts out describing classical liberalism and goes straight into modern liberalism. The two are diametrically opposed in most ways. It makes the whole thing just an impossible task, because of the way this article is arranged. Shannon^{duck talk} 06:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. I'm beginning to see that this article is trying to describe two different concepts that appear to be similar yet are fundamentally different, and happen to be referred to using the same term. --Serge 07:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Nope. The purpose is to explain the whole tradition. That will include the differences internally, sure. It will also include the commonalities. As has been warned, one should refrain from making comments about the meaning of the term until they've understood its history. Wikipedia is not the place for the memory hole, no matter how confusing the present political climate is. Lucidish 03:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Look to Wikipedia:Disambiguation

• Disambiguation in Wikipedia and other Wikimedia Foundation projects is the process of resolving ambiguity—the conflict that occurs when a term is closely associated with two or more different topics. In many cases, this word or phrase is the "natural" title of more than one article. In other words, disambiguations are paths leading to different topics that share the same term or a similar term.

This is clear enough.

Often an article arises by one connotation. Afterwards autors arise in different connotations without to take notice of it. In the end one editor chip in that you need Wikipedia:Disambiguation against an opposition, of course.

So, if you want to write something in an other topic of a term then you may do it. It is your full right. The consequence is Wikipedia:Disambiguation. You must do it only this way. --Irgendwer 08:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant in this case, of course. Lucidish 03:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Troll. --Irgendwer 08:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Please be respectful. Lucidish 16:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Shannon, you're apparently coming to see that defining liberalism is not a NPOV endeavourement, and thus that this article can't be NPOV. You are correct, but does this impossibility mean it shouldn't be written? Isn't Neutral point of view always doomed to failure, and be followed only as an ideal? The conflictual traditions inside liberalism should only be isolated and contrasted as such, but this is more a problem of article organization than of specific contents. If everything is well organized, than the needs for a DAB page fall down. Tazmaniacs 14:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction in introduction

I added the {{Contradict-section}} tag to the intro because the first sentence specifies the scope of the concept covered in this article:

the term liberalism generally refers to an ideology, philosophical view, and political tradition which holds that liberty is the primary political value.

Yet later in the intro the following assertion is made:

In many countries, "modern" liberalism differs from classical liberalism by asserting that government provision of some minimal level of material well-being takes priority over freedom from taxation.

This contradicts the first sentence. If "liberty is the primary political value", then other values cannot take priority by definition. Is this article about the ideology which holds liberty as its primary value or not? Which is it? Trying to have it both ways is contradictory... If this article is about any ideology that values liberty, but not necessarily as the primary value, then it should cover everything from fascism to socialism and conservatism as well. All ideologies value liberty to some extent. What distinguishes classical liberalism from all other ideologies (including social liberalism, American liberalism, and any ideology that asserts "that government provision of some minimal level of material well-being takes priority over freedom from taxation") is that it consistently gives liberty priority over all other political values. So is this article about that concept (like the initial sentence claims) or not (like is claimed later in the intro)? --Serge 08:13, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Conservatives and classical liberals often like to pretend that modern liberals have almost nothing in common with classical liberals. In fact, of course, modern liberals and classical liberals have almost everything in common except the libertarian claim that classical liberals opposed taxation -- a claim for which I would like to see some evidence. Liberty is a primary value. But when there is a huge disparity in wealth, it is very easy for the freedom of the rich to come into conflict with the freedom of the poor, and in any conflict, the person with the most money usually (not always, but usually) wins. Only anarchists believe in absolute freedom. Rick Norwood 19:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Under no conditions do collectivist ideologies like fascism or theologism endorse freedom. They are explicitly anti-liberal. Take a look at Mussolini's fascist manifesto if you don't believe me. Lucidish 02:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Benjamin Franklin is listed as an American liberal in that article. Read "The Compleated Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin" and note the policies he advocates versus those supported by the modern Democratic Party, and other self-described "liberals" and you'll find them to be almost complete polar opposites. Frankling strongly opposed taxation and instead felt that even more money could be extracted from the economy to serve the crown by voluntary tithing from the colonies. He and almost all liberals opposed the Stamp Act. He went to London and spoke on this before Parliament. He didn't believe in making people "easy in poverty" by giving them money, but by "shaming or driving them out of it." No sir, I don't believe your assertion is wholely correct. Bjsiders 13:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

True, but the problem has to do with the crappy terms that people are familiar with in political science. It would obviously be wrong to say Franklin wasn't an American liberal; he was American, and he was a liberal. But he wasn't a contemporary American liberal; which, in modern parlance, is confusingly truncated to "American liberal". Anyway, it's semantic, and can be fixed pretty easily. Lucidish 02:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The reason, though perhaps poorly explained here, is that freedom of opportunity that comes hand in hand with well-being IS a kind of freedom. Your critique would be accurate if wellbeing really were prized over freedom (as I've said many times before on this page). However, modern liberals have a more robust understanding of "liberty". That is the fundamental difference between them and classicos. It is also a point that classico F. Hayek explicitly takes pains towards refuting in his "Road to Serfdom". Lucidish 04:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, okay. I am an anarchist. I value freedom over all else. Sorry, Rick Norwood, but classical liberalism is the exact opposite of (socialistic), modern liberalism. Serge said it very well. Classical liberalism is based on the ideals and writings of Paine and Jefferson, mostly. They both wanted as little government intervention as possible. Modern liberals always call for more and more government control. One thing that many modern liberals get confused is the concept of free enterprise (capitalism) and a corrupted capitalism. We are in a big-time corrupted capitalistic state right now. It's called a fascist dicatatorship. The solution is not socialism as so many liberals think. What we started out to have, and what so many of us poor folk lost our lives fighting for was a free libertarian government with few restrictions and as little meddling as possible. An incredible thing, also, is that although we are in a fascist dictatorship it is strangely heavily mixed with socialism. To be honest they both make me sick. I want my country back.

"Have a more robust understanding of liberty"? They have no understanding of liberty. Shannon^{duck talk} 04:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between positive freedoms and negative freedoms. This goes a long way to explain the seeming contradiction. The contradiction is there because the term freedom does not stay the same in this case. The original freedom is of negative liberty, the modern (or backward) freedom is about positive liberty. Intangible 13:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Ling, your political opinions do not legislate anything when it comes to whether or not the article should exist. The purpose is to explain an ideology or set of them. Critiques are welcome in their respective sections (with citations, which are not difficult to find). Lucidish 16:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

RN to Bjsiders: Just finished reading a biography of Ben Franklin. He was liberal on some issues, conservative on others, as am I. But he was a liberal in opposing the claims of privilege on the part of the upper class, especially in Philadelphia, he was a liberal in respecting the value of honest hard work, and he was a liberal in opposing prudishness. He was a conservative in having deep doubts about social programs which, in the name of helping the poor, encourage shiftlessness.

RN to Intangible: You say liberals want more government. I say all politicians want more government: federal government involvement personal matters such as medical care, drug use, censorship of media, marriage, respect for the flag ... need I go on? Non-politicians generally want less government, but don't know how to get it. You focus on social programs, but a) there is a lot more to liberalism than that and b) conservative politicians vie with liberal politicians to see who can give away the most money (buy the most votes). Rick Norwood 14:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Valuing honest hard work is not something you can say puts a man on the "liberal" side of political philosophy. That's like saying, "he believed in a stronger America, so he's a liberal." That's a political advertisement, not a philosophical belief. My point is not to argue about Franklin, but to demonstrate that some of the assertions you are making are statements of opinion, not fact, and not belong in a Wikipedia article. Bjsiders 16:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Bjsiders, I was just going to say the exact same thing but saw that you said it already. This debate is getting full of you know what. All we need to do is define liberalism in the article. Shannon^{duck talk} 16:44, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Rick, it may be true that all modern liberal politicians and all conservative politicians want more government, but I dare say that any classical liberal politician or libertarian politician that actually advocates more government is neither a classical liberal nor a libertarian. That's what makes the distinction between an ideology whose highest priority is liberty, and those who have other high priorities like expanding positive liberty (e.g., making wealth distribution more egalitarian) even when doing so means violating the negative liberty of others. Perhaps the contradiction in the introduction stems from an ambiguity about the type of liberty being referenced. --Serge 16:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

See also Negative and positive rights, which also make a good article to reference to. Intangible 17:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

This article needs to be rewritten

I just went over the article and can see that the entire thing needs rewriting. This article is not based on simple fact like an encyclopedia article should be. It is confusing and is actually downright propagandized with strong socialistic influence. I will try and find the time to work on it. But like I said, the whole thing needs to be written all over again. Shannon^{duck talk} 16:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Since the term "liberalism" means so many things to so many people, and those specific things have changed over time and been assigned new names, this article might be best off as a summary of each with links to more detail. "American liberalism" is unique from "Canadian liberalism," which is completely different from "Enlightment liberalism" which is distinct from "classic liberalism" which is not the same thing as "social liberalism," etc. What do you all think of something like that? The scope of a term like "liberalism" is like trying to write one article that fairly and accurately captures all of its facets is fairly ambitious and may even be impossible. Bjsiders 17:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea to me. How about voting in Support of such a disambiguation/summary page above? --Serge 18:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Ling, it would help if you made specific comments, and not general assertions. BJ, that's a fairly specious argument; generality may be just as interesting and full of content as particularity. Lucidish 17:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Generality is exactly what I'm suggesting we look into. Bjsiders 17:21, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it isn't. What you just suggested was fragmented particular wikis, not a general wiki. Lucidish 01:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Look to the connotations in meriam webster dict. [6] --Irgendwer 20:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you suggesting, seriously suggesting, that the "gold standard", or "essential goodness of the human race", be used as a necessary condition for liberalism? Classical liberalism, maybe; but there are other conditions which have withstood the test of time, such as "free competition" and "autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties", and which modern liberals support in their revised way. Lucidish 01:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that the article does a good job of covering the various types of liberalism. As for splitting the article again, please look at the history of the article. It has been split, and split again, and now the various subarticles are being split. It's a big subject, and the most we can have here is a quick overview. Rick Norwood 22:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

attempt to rewrite this article from a Libertarian POV?

Rick, My changes were not an attempt to rewrite the article from Libertarian POV. I'm trying to explain the differences in concepts of liberty, and, hence, liberalism - one of which happens to be shared by libertarians. I'm not saying it didn't need some work, I know it did, but did you really have to revert the whole thing? --Serge 23:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Well he should have put a POV banner on, and explain his reasoning here. Intangible 23:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

That's fine. I might have slipped with respect to POV. But I'm sure it can be fixed, rather than reverted entirely. I've restored it.--Serge 00:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me, Serge. Gets right to the heart of the debate. It may be a bit long, but content-wise, it may be a good thing that positive-negative rights and freedoms were established from the start. However, the lines which divide may not be especially clear, even now. Evidently Adam Smith believed in progressive taxation (I tracked down the footnote a while ago somewhere on this talk page). Lucidish 02:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Disputes in Wikipedia are settled by reasoned debate, not by "votes", with the excpetion of motions to delete an entire article. And even in that exceptional case, if the results are mixed, the article is kept, even if the majority vote to delete.

So, let's discuss. The fact that Lucidish supports your rewrite carries a lot of weight. Here is my view. It seems to me that the Libertarian view gets a lot of play in Wikipedia, because a number of Libertarians write for Wikipedia. But it is a minority view. I don't have any figures about how many Libertarians there are, but my guess is a few million, as compared with more than a hundred million worldwide who consider themselves liberal. That would make the libertarians only about ten percent of liberals. If my data is wrong, please let me know. I would like more information on the subject. Rick Norwood 13:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

For that to wash, you must assume that all liberals who do not declare themselves libertarians do so because they are aware of what libertarians believe and choose not to self-associate with that ideology on the grounds of principle. I think this is a pretty bold and baseless assumption to make. I can't tell you how many libertarians I know who voted for Senator Kerry because they were less concerned with principle than with getting President Bush out of office in 2004. Bjsiders 14:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I've attempted a rewrite. The jargon about negative rights and positive rights is not something most people are familier with, so I've tried to explain the various views of what constitutes "rights". Also, the new material at the beginning was repeated later on, so I've removed duplication. Let me know if this is an acceptable compromise between the two points of view. Rick Norwood 14:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

A definite improvement. Thank you. I like it. --Serge 21:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

RN to Bjsiders: There are, of course, various strains of Libertarianism -- for example some would keep tax supported schools, others abolish them. I think few self-avowed liberals would go along with all of the Libertarian proposals, most would probably go along with some of them. Rick Norwood 20:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

enough!

Rather than go around and around and get absolutely no where, let's have a poll.

Here's my suggestion. Who's in favor of an article that states the differences of the term 'liberalism', as opposed to confusing the different historical usages of the word 'liberalism' and making it appear to be the same thing?

Support

1. ~~~~

Oppose

1. ~~~~

Find question incoherent

1. ~~~~
2. Jmabel | Talk 16:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
3. Bjsiders 16:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
4. Lucidish 19:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

rewording of poll

Bjsiders said this:

"Since the term "liberalism" means so many things to so many people, and those specific things have changed over time and been assigned new names, this article might be best off as a summary of each with links to more detail. "American liberalism" is unique from "Canadian liberalism," which is completely different from "Enlightment liberalism" which is distinct from "classic liberalism" which is not the same thing as "social liberalism," etc. What do you all think of something like that? The scope of a term like "liberalism" is like trying to write one article that fairly and accurately captures all of its facets is fairly ambitious and may even be impossible."

I am saying the same thing that Bjsiders said. Different ideas exist about the term 'liberalism', by varying groups of people, in certain historical times. The article tries to combine all these different ideas and portay them as if they were one and the same thing. That's all I'm saying. Is that more comprehensible to you?

Who is in agreement with Bjsiders of rewriting the article as a summary of each concept of liberalism with links to more detail? Shannon^{duck talk} 18:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Support please sign ~~~~

1. Bjsiders 19:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC) I love my own ideas.
2. Shannon^{duck talk} 00:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
3. Serge 01:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC) (seems like a repeat of the previous and still ongoing disambig poll from a couple of days ago above, but whatever)
4. at least a question of good taste --Irgendwer 15:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Oppose please sign ~~~~

1. Similarities and differences make for a good article. Otherwise, is POV by ommission. Lucidish 19:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Start with an etymology. Intangible 19:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
3. And let's try to do one poll at a time. - Jmabel | Talk 00:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Comments

1. I'll wait for the first poll to die down first. Intangible 01:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
2. Wow hey! I finally read to the bottom of the talk page. My, how passionate you all are. <cut and paste> I'd first like to say I don't like calling this a vote. There's room for a wide variety of ideas on wikipedia. Rather than say either/or, say both. Moving on to the actual subject...Doesn't anybody speak Serbian on this wiki? Can we ask them to give us some ideas from the Serbian article? For a disamb page, can I see an /(DAB) example? If liberalism has a historical start, pick a date and a handful of people to start writing about, and make that an article? There's a policy on avoiding self-references; maybe the excessive use of "in this article, we define such and such" means this should truly be a dab page. I've now noted that ordoliberalism is mentioned in the series template box and the See Also section, but nowhere in between (maybe we're not as liberal as we thought (sorry, that was out of etiquette; but to my initial perceptions of this article and talk page, it just seems like there's too much liberty being taken, sometimes it's time to stop)). Really, how much of the text of this article is echoed on other, equally vibrant articles accesible from a potential dab (we should remove those sentences and see how the rest of this article stands)? I guess the true question is, what does a reader want to find when they come to the liberalism page? Why do people come here? (I'm just nosey and was following somebody else's vp rfc). I'm truly sorry if I've soapboxed, I only hope to see things move forward without people getting pissed off or pissed on. Xaxafrad 03:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Excellent points... part of the problem is the regular disputes over the meaning of the term, and even over the scope of an "ideology". It would be best if we were to stick to a few scholarly texts and grow from there. Also, sure, certain figures will be important: Adam Smith, John Locke, JS Mill, LT Hobhouse, Lloyd George, Roosevelt, JM Keynes, F. Hayek, etc. Lucidish 17:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

problems with liberalism article

The intro to the article has changed drastically since yesterday however, there is still a huge and deliberate tendency to confuse classical liberalism with modern liberalism, and the two couldn't be further apart.

this sentence is not necessarily true and it's leading: Classical liberals often strongly object to this kind of liberalism, asserting that the freedom of private property takes precedence over the personal freedom that depends on health, education, and a place to live; they claim that private charity does the job as well, or even better. Real classical liberals (Jeffersonians of that time) did not revere private property. The whole thing is a bit confusing to me even.

this is complete invention and mind warp Broadly speaking, most advocates of liberalism seek a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on coercive power, especially of government and religion, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports relatively free private enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of minorities are protected. In modern society, liberals favour a liberal democracy with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law and equal opportunity.

modern liberals do not like freedom of thought as evidenced in so many ways in the past century. i.e. the creating of terms like 'negative liberty' or with laws like 'hate crime' type laws.

modern liberals do not like limitations on coercive power. They always call for more government intervention, not less.

modern liberals like the additions of bi-laws which tend to confuse the constitutional law, similarly to the way right-wingers, like the subversion of constitutional law.

modern liberals like a transparent system of government in which the rights of minorities are protected, classical liberals advocate individual liberties per Thomas Jefferson.

This sentence also "In modern society, liberals favour a liberal democracy with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law and equal opportunity." That's nice, but classical liberals, (the Jeffersonians) wanted equal rights for everyone also. Shannon^{duck talk} 17:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the specific critiques, they are more useful than blanket ones. I think you have something on the "government size" issue; that phrasing should be changed, and the difference between classicos and moderns on that issue should be emphasized.

The rest seem like fodder for normative critique and interpretation, not statements of fact, and which you're welcome to add, though cited critiques would ultimately be the most help. Some are bold claims, like "modern liberals like the additions of bi-laws...". I'm a liberal and I hate the way my government is criminalizing smoking and ownership of all pitbulls. There's a certain parentalistic ethos which some people associate with liberalism, but is really just a stereotype (albeit, not one which is entirely ungrounded in fact). But to be clear, actual data should be shown.

The phrase "minority rights" is misleading. There are only *rights*. The use of the phrase "minority rights" is often used to speak of rights as applied to minorities, simply because they'd not be questioned in the majority.

I can go on, of you like. Lucidish 17:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Lucidish, for your input. I can go on if you like, too. The reason for my 'fodder' as you call it, is because it is fact not fiction, and amazingly well known fact, too. Judging by a few comments you just made, are you sure you're a liberal? This is 2006, not the late 1800s or late 1700s. I would have been a liberal in a heartbeat in the days when it was Jefferson, Patrick Henry, etc. versus Hamilton, Madison and John Jay. When people say they are a liberal now they generally mean a modern liberal, because, after all, these are modern times. I have a sneaking suspician that you may be a libetarian at heart. (Libertarian is not a dirty word, the concept has been warped by yuppies and other, bigger gold diggers like the ultra-rich Bushan-Cheney-ites, etc. Anyway nice talking with you. Shannon^{duck talk} 18:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I consider myself a social democrat with extreme tendencies toward liberalism. (I prefer regulation over nationalization, for example, and my personal affiliations are towards third-way mixed economic positions.) But I have an understanding of those terms based on the history of liberal thought(s) and ideology(ies), from what I know of what they allow and what it, as a whole, stands firm on (though I should say that my positions are not exhausted by liberalism; I am an individual, and I have other commitments, sentiments, and social philosophies. So my positions about what is right are not necessarily identical with what liberalism necessarily demands, my positions only presume that liberalism may allow the positions I take).

In any case, it all depends on what we mean by the words. I take the case of American usage to be a shortening of a broader description, using the word "liberal" instead of "modern liberal", sort of like when people use acronyms instead of full descriptions. This, at least, seems to make the most out of the history of liberal thought, and allows for the understanding of how liberalism has its different branches, all of whom grow from the same tree. Meaning, although not exhausted by history, cannot escape history, so it would be wrong (and Orwellian) to simply make use of a word without at least examining its roots. (Incidentally, this has a corrollary in fact: you will find that many, many people in History departments are also enthusiastic ideologues. That's no coincidence.) Also, a proper understanding of the historically-based intuitions which propel people toward one tag or the other will allow those people to be informed by the actual divisions and points of similarity between the sub-ideologies. This will both help avoid needless squabbling, and allow activists to know what the serious points of disagreement are.

Still, people use terms the way they like. I can't stop them. But if they're not informed on the basis of historical philosophy (and critique), usage will be, more often than not, a misrepresentation of those who really do hold the positions and call themselves liberals. And of course that's not what Wikipedia is about. Lucidish 19:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Most of what passes for public discourse these days commits the logical fallacy of black and white thinking. People root for the liberals or for the conservatives the way they root for their home town team. One form this team spirit takes is that conservatives find the nuttiest liberal thay can dig up, and say, "liberals believe this". And liberals love the conservative nut cases. The important issues: war, education, jobs, global warming, government power and taxation -- are really too important to be decided on the basis of which team you root for. Rick Norwood 13:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't root for either of those teams. I only root for us, the people. Those teams are rotten to the core. Shannon^{duck talk} 13:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

"Certainly the game is rigged. Don't let that stop you; if you don't bet you can't win." -- The Notebooks of Lazarus Long. In other word, yes, politics is rotten to the core, but it's the only game in town. Rick Norwood 14:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The Republican and Democratic party are catch all parties, so you cannot describe them as conservative or as liberal. Intangible 14:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

This article is about liberalism in its various variations and the debate now seems to be part of the big American confusion about liberalism. Classical liberalism is a form of liberalism not very much adhered by liberal parties around the world. This article tries to find the common ground between liberal policies worldwide, therefore it often uses the ideas inside the [Liberal International] or other global or continental liberal organizations (like CALD or ELDR). The member parties all uphold liberty as there primary goal, but they differ about the degree of government intervention necesary to have a free society. Now I continue with my holiday. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 13:57, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the American Democratic Party is a founding member of the Alliance of American and European Democrats, which is clearly Third Way center-left.Justice III 12:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

the only game in town

Actually that's not true. It's the corrupt rotten to core game in town that never worked, never will. Grassroots activism is the game in town that does work. The only one that ever did. Margaret Mead. Shannon^{duck talk} 14:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

"This is often called classical liberalism"

Is their any citation of someone who is not him- or herself a self-declared "classical liberal" using the term "classical liberal" uncritically as their term for the tradition of Hayek, von Mises, the Libertarians, etc.? - Jmabel | Talk 06:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Say what? Shannon^{duck talk} 11:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think I was being unclear, but I'll reword. Clearly, there are people in the tradition of Hayek, von Mises, the Libertararians, etc. who call themselves "classical liberals". What I'm asking is whether there is someone outside the tradition who calls them that (other than, for example, in scare quotes, etc.). - Jmabel | Talk 01:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Alexander Rüstow called them "paleoliberals." Intangible 12:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, which I believe is mentioned in that article. If I remember correctly, you added it there. But that doesn't address my question.- Jmabel | Talk 01:14, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Depends on how "broad" you see that tradition. Rüstow was a neoliberal (ordoliberalism), not a classical liberal. So that should answer your question, I hope. Intangible 01:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The point Jmabel makes is part of a larger issue. There are a number of articulate, energetic libertarians writing for Wikipedia who would like this to be a Libertarian encyclopedia. They believe, sincerely and strongly, that the libertarian view is the correct one, and edit articles accordingly.

Of course, libertarian views should be and are represented in Wikipedia. More problematic is the rewriting of articles, using jargon such as "positive rights", "negative rights", "classical liberal" and so on, to assert that 1) the founding fathers were all classical liberals and 2) so-called liberals who are not libertarian, that is, who assert the existance of positive rights, are not liberals at all. This is POV and is unacceptable, but it takes a lot of time and energy to keep this under control.

Examples of this activity are currently going on in American Liberalism and in Family Values. Sadly, negotiating or discussing issues has prove to be a waste of time. Because I've been able to work with conservatives in the past, I have tried for many months to compromise, rewrite, work with mediation, all to no avail. The demands of the libertarians are non-negotiable. I would appreciate any help that non-libertarians can offer. Rick Norwood 12:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I just discovered the astonishingly badly written new article Classical Liberalism which begins (sic)

"Classical liberalism is a term used to describe the following:

the philosophy developed by early liberals from the Enlightenment until John Stuart Mill

the philosophy developed by early liberals from the Age of Enlightenment until John Stuart Mill and and reclaimed in the 20th century by Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman.[1]"

Rick Norwood 13:03, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd help but I'm also a libertarian so my contributions can't be trusted, apparantly. I wonder if there are any other Wiki policies that any of us need to review. Bjsiders 14:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Bjsiders, I would be delighted to have you help. I hope what I wrote above did not sound like a characterization of all libertarians. I know from experience that you would never have written a first paragraph like the one I quoted above. I considered naming the three people who seem most doctrinaire and unwilling to play nicely with others, but decided not to. You can recognize them by their propensity for name calling. Please, all libertarians, assume you are not one of the three, and help improve articles where dogma and jargon are displacing reason and balance. Rick Norwood 14:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Good, good. We've worked well on difficult subjects together before, I really thought your tone on the libertarian conspiracy was casting too wide a net. Bjsiders 14:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Rick Norwood. Funny but I find just the opposite to be true. Badly written edits, i.e. blatant attempts at removing meaning from articles, are mostly done by left-leaning (socialist, modern liberal, etc.) editors. Also, the large majority of editors, and not suprisingly, admins here at the wiki, are socialist and in general left-leaning and are dominating many of the political articles. The meaning of words, the correct charictarization of ideologies, and history itself, is being altered. This article is a prime example of this aricle take-over and the propaganda that is being strongly pushed here. I predict it will be the downfall of Wikipedia. This is sad to me because, what could have been a free and inclusive collaberation of knowledge, has been turned into a giant machine that spits out non-fact, censorship, and well, just plain propagandistic cow flop. Sorry if that sounds harsh. That's what I see. I love Wikipedia and would like to see it be, once again, what it started out to be. Shannon^{duck talk} 17:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

As Bjsiders rightly chided me above, don't cast too wide a net. From the left, everything right looks wrong. From the right, everything left should be left out. There are reasonable and unreasonable editors on both sides of the political divide, and I find it much easier to work with a reasonable person I strongly disagree with than with an unreasonable person who shares my views. I have been accused, at verious times, of being both a lying liberal and a fascist conservative. Rick Norwood 21:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Electionworld's edit

Your edit has greatly improved the article. It flows much more smoothly, now. Rick Norwood 12:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Serbia and more disambiguation comments

How's that debate going? Has a consensus been reached? The Serbian version of this article became a Featured Article, why can't ours? Who knows somebody who knows how to read Serbian? Xaxafrad 03:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I think Electionworld's edit is a step in the right direction. Rick Norwood 12:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

classical or modern?

Did classical liberalism really advocate free public education? I know a few classical liberals, such as Benjamin Franklin, favored free publicn education, but was this belief generally held by classical liberals?

The suggestion that classical liberals are propents of progressive taxation was even more strange . I have reverted those changes. Intangible 18:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

No, contrary to popular belief, Adam Smith, the most classical liberal of them all, was in favor of progressive taxation. Rick Norwood 18:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Well not exactly: "The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state." Intangible 18:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds pretty progressive to me, though I see how it could be read two ways. Read one way, it says the greater the ability, the greater the proportion they pay. Read the other way, it says the greater the ability, the greater their proportion is. The ambiguity arises from the fact that a proportion can either be a percentage or a percentage of some whole. Rick Norwood 19:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Dear friends, this section describes modern liberalism. To consider these elements not to be part of modern liberalism is not right. I doubt that our classical liberal friends :-) would agree with progressive taxation. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 21:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

the debate between classical and modern liberalism

To Intangible: Please read the article that you pointed me to in your last summary: Classical_liberalism
Classical liberalism is a political philosophy that supports individual rights as pre-existing the state, a government that exists to protect those moral rights, ensured by a constitution that protects individual autonomy from other individuals and governmental power, private property, and a laissez-faire economic policy.

When I type 'modern liberalism' into the search box it brings me to social liberalism
Social liberalism is a political philosophy that emphasizes mutual collaboration through liberal institutions. Social liberalism, as a branch of liberalism, contends that society must protect liberty and opportunity for all citizens. In the process, it accepts some restrictions in economic affairs, such as anti-trust laws to combat economic oligopolies, regulatory bodies or minimum wage laws, intending to secure economic opportunities for all. It also expects legitimate governments to provide a basic level of welfare or workfare, health and education, supported by taxation, intended to enable the best use of the talents of the population, prevent revolution, or simply for the perceived public good.

Modern liberals want lots of government control. classical liberals did and do not. Modern liberals tend to favor group rights, shown in their advocacy for special privleges for minority groups. Classical liberals advocate individual rights. This is rather well known and indisputable. What is your problem with my edits? OceanDepths 13:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

People who are not liberals love to tell liberals what they believe. Wouldn't it be better to ask liberals what they believe, instead of telling them. Presumably they know what they believe better than you do. Rick Norwood 19:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

"Modern liberals tend to favor group rights, shown in their advocacy for special privleges for minority groups." Are you speaking of affirmative action, here? Because that's a controversial issue, not a defining one (on the world stage). Lucidish _{{ Ben S. Nelson }} 19:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

edit wars

The way to settle edit wars is not by reverting, but by citing sources.

I've looked through a number of social science dictionaries, and do not find any that use the phrase "social liberalism", which is all over Wikipedia. When I google "social liberalism" the top two sites are both on Wikipedia, the third is on amazon.com for a book called "Porn Generation".

The standard term for this idiology seems to be "social democracy". Let's use standard terms whereever possible. Rick Norwood 19:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Social liberalism and Social democracy have both differint historic backgrounds and seek both different political ends, roughly, the former wants individual emancipation, the latter wants social egalitarianism. This difference occurs only in nations with a multi-party system. American liberalism for example, encompasses both, but has some other specificities. Intangible 20:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Intangible. SOrry Rick, but your last edits were no improvement, you have to make a clear distinction between (social) liberalism and social democracy. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 21:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Rick, you are welcome to add your sources, but please to add social democracy as a form of liberalism. It ain't. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 21:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Rick to Electionworld. I respect your opinion, but the uses of words that I quoted were not my uses or your uses but, according to a number of sources, standard uses. I would think, rather than revert sourced material, you would at least supply one reference supporting Intangible's definition of the phrase. I quoted two Ph.D.'s, who say that social democracy is a form of liberalism. You and Intangible say it isn't. Does that settle the issue in your favor? Rick Norwood 00:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Rick, see the next section. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 07:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Liberalism and social democracy

Just some examples from my own library: Jan van Putten in Politieke Stromingen (translated: Political currents); J.W. de Beus and others in De ideologische driehoek (The ideological triangle) and Klaus von Beyme in Parteien in westliche Demokratien (Parties in western democracies). Most political litterature makes a difference between liberalism as the ideology of individual liberty and social democracy as a (my words) moderate variant of democratic socialism. It might be true dat in de meantime modern social democrats adhere to many liberal values, their starting point is not individual liberty. The same goes for conservatism and christian democracy, they share a lot of liberal values, but that does not make it part of liberalism. A year ago this article had a section Liberalism vs social democracy. It might be good to re-add such a section, with the remark that there are scholars (like the Ph.D.'s you quoted) that consider social democracy part of liberalism. The section had a time the following text

Liberalism vs. social democracy

The fundamental difference between liberalism and social democracy, besides their different origins, is the role of the state in the economy. Social democracy seeks to achieve some minimum equality of outcome, and upholds egalitarianism as the source of its moral values. Social democrats support a large public sector and the nationalization of utilities such as gas and electricity in order to avoid private monopolies, to achieve social justice and to raise the standard of living. Liberalism prefers much less state intervention, choosing for example subsidies and regulation rather than outright state ownership. Social democracy also places more importance on the positive conception of rights and liberties. Liberalism would more commonly frame rights and liberties as more strictly (though by no means completely) negative. Beyond these, liberalism shares many basic goals and methods with social democracy.

It should be noted that, in the 1990s, many social democratic parties adopted neoliberal economic policies such as extensive privatization and open markets, much to the dismay of many of their own voters. This has led these parties to become de facto neoliberal, and has often resulted in a drastic loss of popular support. For example, critics to the left of the German Social Democratic Party and the British Labour Party accuse them of pursuing neoliberal policies. This last case has led to the odd situation where the Labour Party is seen by many as being to the right of the Liberal Democrats.

Your text was

In contrast, social democracy is defined as "a general term for political doctrines that claim an important role for the state and the community in the shaping and directing a society's economic and social life. Social democracy differs from socialism because it is committed to preservation of a largely capitalist and free market economy, but shares with it an emphasis on the importance of redistribution of wealth and income so that citizens may have social and economic conditions that effectively provide for reasonable equality of opportunity. Modern welfare-state liberalism is closely allied to social democratic ideas."

BTW: I do not think this Dictionary made by Robert Drislane, Ph.D. and Gary Parkinson, Ph.D. with very short definitions of liberalism and social democracy, justifies adding this text in the intro of this article on liberalism. Furthermore, that definition of social democracy says only that modern welfare-state liberalism is closely allied to social democratic ideas.

But I hope we can work towards such a new section. For that section, it might be useful to use the interview on liberales.be I googled with social liberalism (one of the first hits after wikipedia and affiliates among 135.000 hits) with Anthony Giddens. My conclusion is that in this economic field one can distinguish economic liberalism, social liberalism, social democracy and democratic socialism, which are distinct but each of them with overlaps with its neighbours.Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 07:36, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

As you know, I was fairly happy with the article before the recent edit war. What I was trying to do, with my edit, was to cite references, rather than write an article on "What Liberalism Means to Me".

What makes this so difficult is that everybody seems to use "liberal" to mean whatever they want it to mean, like Humpty Dumpty. I am less concerned with which word we use for which concept than I am with finding some more or less standard academic source for definitions and sticking to it. I discovered the online dictionary quite by chance, and it seemed like a good choice because it was by what seem to be respectable scholars and was easily accessable. I would be just as happy with any other standard source. I am not happy with spending all of our time changing the meanings of the words to support one side of the classical liberal/"social" liberal debate. And I think the phrase "social liberal", which I may have been the first to use here, was a bad mistake, and should go away. Rick Norwood 12:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree with you that social liberalism should go away. It is an often used term to describe progressive liberals, especially in Europe. We can still use it. I like to have more soures, but this online dictionary is not a very useful source. I still think the intro is well balanced and doesn't need real alterations. What do you think about a section on liberalism and social democracy. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 15:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I assume you mean the very last paragraph in the article. I like it. Rick Norwood 19:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reminding me that is was allready in (not as a separate section). Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 20:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

What's up with this statement?

"Broadly speaking, contemporary liberalism emphasizes individual rights as opposed to group rights. It seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on power, especially of government"

Contemporary liberalism emphasizes group rights in the US., at least, (affirmative action). Modern US liberals don't like freedom of thought too much, apparantly, as they are the ones that push for hate crime laws. Modern liberals want more government interventon, not less. See Democratic Party (United States) or modern liberalism. OceanDepths 22:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I Fully agree. Some weeks ago the earlier version of this part of the article made sense, but some recent edits by user:Intangible (which were reverted, criticized and then re-inserted by Intangible) have really inverted the order of what might be logically expected from the description of Modern and Classical Liberalism. It is quite obvious that "Modern", as well as "Social-" Liberalism emphasizes "group" rights much more than Classical Liberals and their comtemporary counterparts Libertarians, who are the ones that favor more individual rights as opposed to the Modern liberals' policies of "social responsibility", "public utility", "welfare", "special rights", "positive discrimination", etc, etc.Justice III 04:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I fully disagree. I am a European social liberal and was active in social liberalism for some time. Social liberalism starts from the individual and wants the maximal possible liberty for every individual. But at the same time, social liberalism believes that starvation, poverty are not compatible with individual liberty. In order to ensure maximal liberty for all, government intervention is that view necesary. That doesn't mean that group rights are emphasized over individual rights: it is about liberty for every individual, not only for the strong and wealthy. Electionworld (prev. :Wilfried) (talk 07:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Electionworld speaks the truth. Conservatives try to brand liberals in various ways with ideas few liberals actually hold. The one I've been hearing lately is "group rights" over "individual rights", whatever that means. It seems to mean something like -- if you want Blacks to vote, then you are favoring the rights of a group of Blacks over the rights of individual Blacks. Put that way, it obviously doesn't make any sense. But I can't think what else it could possibly mean.

Affirmative action is not about group rights and, in any case, the "group" who benefits most from affirmative action is white males. If it were not for affirmative action for white males, the top universities would be all women and orientals, because they get the highest scores.

"Special rights", of course, is a Rush Limbaugh phrase, implying that homosexuals who who want to live normal lives are asking for "special rights", as if non-gays didn't have such rights as a matter of course.

"Liberals don't like freedom of thought too much, as they push for hate crimes laws." No. hate crimes laws do not criminalize hate. Rather, they provide for a harsh penalty when, for example, you murder someone because they are black or gay (or, for that matter, white or straight). If someone hates Christians, and murders a Christian for that reason, that falls under the hate crimes laws, too. Rick Norwood 13:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with the original commentators. The wording of this-over-that is far too strong to be plausible, and too vague to be useful. The whole sentence could probably be scrapped without any loss in the wiki's quality. It may be more useful to re-emphasize the "robust sense of liberty" point to get at the heart of what the sentence seems to be trying to say. Lucidish _{{ Ben S. Nelson }} 19:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if your are saying that you agree with the original commentators that the section in question is not well written, or if you agree with the original commentators that liberals favor group rights over individual rights and oppose freedom of thought? Rick Norwood 20:41, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I should've been clearer. I believe that either statement, of (1) "liberals support group rights over individual rights" or (2) "liberals support individual rights over group rights", would be off track. In part, this is because it's not even clear to me what a "group right" is, if it's meant to be distinct from an individual right. It seems to me that any statement of preference or emphasis is analogous to someone saying that person X supports class action lawsuits over individual lawsuits, or vice-versa; for someone who cares about rights, both are equally sound. To the extent that (1) or (2) are regarded with suspicion by Justice III et al., I'm with them (though we may have different reasons).

Meanwhile, though, I must confess that I don't agree with any criticism that's based on the notion of modern liberals giving "privileges" to certain groups; even if it were true, (which is at least arguable in cases like affirmative action), it wouldn't have anything to do with *rights*, because a privilege is by definition not a right. Lucidish _{{ Ben S. Nelson }} 15:52, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, of course, and Electionworld has taken out the offending phrase. Rick Norwood 17:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Er, wrong. That is, btw, a straw man argument. Nobody said (at least I didn't) that "liberals" don't care a damn for individual rights as you implied, only that modern/social liberals strongly emphasize collective rights as a priority, whereas Classical Liberals believe that only by holding individual(or self-centered, or egotistic, as you wish) rights above "collective" ones can society be truly free. It is a difference of degree and specially method: how can personal freedom be best protected? Social Liberals say: "by compelling individuals by force of the law and social regulations so that, e.g. the banning of the right to racially offend someone will protect the rights of all potential victims. Oh, and the State must enforce it, off course!"; A Classical Liberal would say: "by maintaining by all means every single personal right, including the right to be stupid and discriminate against someone on the basis of color - and then facing by himself all the social and economic consequences for that (e.g., social pressure, demonstrations, boycotts, public loathing, etc.). The State need not meddle with that, since, for every right that is allegedly upheld by force, another one is taken away from society, and there comes a time when nobody knows where is the limits for state power are, which is the looming signal of authoritarianism, no matter how 'benign' it seems at first". Here you have the difference. And by the way, another point: both users Rick and Wilfried are avowed social-(modern-)liberals themselves, so that their objectivity on this issue is somewhat, say, disputable. This is nothing personal (please by no means take this as an offense, just a friendly suggestion), I just think that sometimes we should keep away from articles we are emotionally or ideologically attached to. I for one almost never edit articles on religion, since I know that as a radical secularist I would hardly manage to be fully objective, even citing external references. But as I said, this is only a suggestion. You have the individual right to edit it, even if taken collectively partisanship isn't a good idea here. I guess you get what I mean, don't you? ;)Justice III 04:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

First remark: Dear Justice III, though I am a liberal I have always tried to be neutral in my edits and tried to make the article comprehensive about the various forms of liberalism. I know Rick considers himself a liberal, as do I, but that doesn't mean we necesarily have the same view. I know a lot of liberals with whom I disagree on issues. BTW, I keep away from discussions about ELDR and Democraten 66, two parties I am active in (only editing on facts).

Second remark: I thought the sentence in questionw as part of the section on liberalism and scoial democracy. Read more carefully, it is a sentence in the intro. Therefore I think we can delete as opposed to group rights. The sentence about limitations on power kan stay, even if part of the liberals want more government in the case government intervention is too limited. Electionworld (prev. :Wilfried) (talk 07:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Because I am a liberal -- that is, I favor freedom -- I bend over backwards to cite sources and avoid loaded language. I am well aware of the temptations of confirmation bias, and do my best to control for it.

In particular, I avoid putting words into the mouths of people I disagree with. Justice III wrote, "Social Liberals say: "by compelling individuals by force of the law and social regulations so that, e.g. the banning of the right to racially offend someone will protect the rights of all potential victims."

I am a social liberal. For example, as a Southerner in the United States, I fought against segregation and for the right of Black people to vote. I oppose laws that give religious beliefs the force of law, and oppose the teaching of religion in the public schools, and the posting of the Ten Commandments in court houses. But I would certainly never vote for anyone who wanted to ban the right to insult people. European liberals have gone down that road, and are now finding that it leads into places they really didn't want to go. Rick Norwood 14:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Affirmative action, in the view of most of its proponents, and especially its liberal proponents, is not about "group rights". It is about counterbalancing the effects of discrimination. Taking African Americans as an example (probably the canonical example), you would find very few people (and most would be well left of liberals) who would argue, for example, that African Americans as a group are entitled to a particular number of positions in the entering class of a university or a particular number of union jobs. What liberal proponents of affirmative action say is that (1) we assume that African Americans are as capable as anyone else. (2) If they are not represented in roughly proportional numbers in universities or unions, then that is prima facie evidence of discrimination, whether by the institution itself or in terms of access to the resources by means of which people usually arrive in the institution. (3) It should be government or institutional policy to counterbalance thid discrimination. (4) The most efficient way to do so will vary from institution to institution, but is likely to include active recruiting of African Americans, possibly extending to remedial skills programs. Earlier forms of affirmative action also included plain old quotas, easier to enforce, in some respects, but the courts ruled it illegal. Still, even then the intent wasn't to create a group right, even if courts determined that had been the unconstitutional effect. - Jmabel | Talk 07:11, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Another argument is that students benefit from rubbing elbows with a variety of people, different races, different religions, different social classes. And a third argument is that society benefits when people see members of their own race/religion/class rise to positions of respect. Rick Norwood 00:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

taxes from introduction

Since when are "progressive taxes" a major tennent of liberalism?

Roughly, from the time they were introduced. The argument in favor of a progressive tax was that without it the concentration of wealth produced an upper class that was hostile to the egalitarian liberal ideal. For more information, see progressive tax. Rick Norwood 13:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I doubt that it is a typical liberal issue, since I am aware of liberals supporting flat tax. I wouldn't say that progressive taxes are an essentialium for liberalism worldwide. Electionworld (prev. :Wilfried) (talk 19:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't say it is necessarily fundamental, but it seems to me important -- and also the reason a lot of people switched from being liberals to being conservatives when they got rich. Thomas Jefferson and Adam Smith both supported progressive taxation. I don't know about John Locke. It seems to be generally accepted now that tax rates of, say 70% to 90%, are a bad idea. I think 70% was the highest the US got, but the UK was up to 95%, if the Beatles are to be trusted (19 for me and 1 for you). On the other hand, it sickens me to see the super-rich screaming bloody murder and allowing the US to spiral ever deeper into unsupportable debt because they have to pay 35%. Rick Norwood 14:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Progressive taxes are not a liberal issue, at least in the world wide original understanding of liberalism. Progressive taxes were introduced by progressives and socialists, who in America renamed themselves liberals. Liberals however did call for taxes which would be paid by everyone, whereas the old aristocracy Europe allowed the wealthy nobility to avoid taxes. Liberals never would have called this "progressive" in the way it is used today. As progressive tax today generally means, "lets make the rich pay a higher percent" which, technically is inequality before the law...but that is another debate. BTW, the US government is going into debt not because the rich are not paying enough in taxes, the top 10% already pay the vast majority of taxes, the reason the government is going deep into debt, is because IT SPENDS TOO MUCH!!!(CosmopolitanCapitalist 14:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC))

Progressive taxes doesn't belong in the text as something emphasized by liberals. The text as it is now with the remark that many liberals etc. (third paragraph I think) is enough. CosmopolitanCapitalist: In most countries liberals agreed with a progressive taxation system and only a few liberal parties argue in favour of a flat tax. Even in European countries were progressives and socialist never governed, there are progressive taxes. Electionworld (prev. :Wilfried) (talk 14:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

That may be true, but in no way does progressive taxation define a liberal. Furthermore, a progressive tax system may be the only viable political option available as voters may be demanding envious satisfaction from the liberal politicians. (CosmopolitanCapitalist 14:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC))

Cosmo (may I call you Cosmo), see the article progressive tax for plenty of evidence that progressive taxes were not "introduced by progressives and socialists". They were introduced and supported by the founders of liberalism, and for sound economic reasons, not out of "envy". On the other hand, I agree with Electionworld's recent edit and comments. Progressive taxation is not an essential part of liberalism. Rick Norwood 14:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Call me what you like, but the interpretation of Smith and Jefferson texts are poor at best. In no way do they constitute progressive taxation in the modern sense. In fact, a flat tax can be a progressive tax, if for example, you taxed income above a certain amount. Such a tax is today argued for by libertarians. Smiths regards on taxing transportation is NOT about making the rich pay more but making the transportation that damages the road more pay more. IE the heavier carriage is the rich carriage. Jefferson was arguing against pure free market persons who would have argued that tariffs harm the poor by suggesting they only consume what they produce and thus are not harmed. NOT PROGRESSIVE. I believe your interpretation, and the interpretation on the progressive tax page are bad. (CosmopolitanCapitalist 15:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC))

While it would be fun to discuss this, Wikipedia is not the place. I'll only say that it is no fun to play Monopoly when one player owns all the property and has all the money. Rick Norwood 14:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC). Furthermore, a Monopoly is not a free market and illberal. Electionworld (prev. :Wilfried) (talk 15:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC) I'm not sure why Monopoly is not a free market. You can buy and sell property at any price you want and can get. Rick Norwood 13:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Monopoly may or may not be deseriable in a free market...it depends on several factors. But please do not confuse the idea of "free market" with anarchy. That is often done by those who wish to attack the free market. Free market does not mean a complete absense of an authority. (CosmopolitanCapitalist 13:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC))

An aside, I hope an interesting one: The game of Monopoly derives from an earlier game invented by a Georgist and intended as a critique of landlordism. (See History of the board game Monopoly.) - Jmabel | Talk 21:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Global liberalism

Seems this article deals with the American form of Liberalism, in the main. --MacRusgail 14:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that this article deals more with the European form of Liberalism in the main than with the American form of Liberalism. Electionworld Talk? 16:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

ROOSEVELT???=

How come?

Quoting from The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia: "He acted quickly during the so-called Hundred Days to rush through Congress a flood of fiscal and social reform measures aimed at reviving the economy by a vast expenditure of public funds."

This was the essential split between the so-called "Classical Liberals", who believe that economic freedom is paramount, and the so-called "Modern Liberals", who believe that people cannot be free when virtually all of the wealth is in the hands of a few.

In the words of Allen Jay Lerner, "The money rings out like freedom!"

Rick Norwood 18:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Rather appalling paragraph

Most liberals now oppose multiculturalism, while preferring pluralism. While a liberal society tries to be neutral generally, not all cultures are equally meritorious or noble, nor are all cultural inheritances and practices acceptable in a liberal society. For example, while different ways of preparing food enriches diversity, likewise forms of entertainment, those cultures that mutilate human genitals in no way can be approved or tolerated. Likewise, cultures that devalue women are limited in their expression of this cultural value, as a pluralistic liberal society insists upon equal treatment of all genders, at least in the public square. Thus, a pluralistic liberal society fosters and relishes variable modes of life and different cultural expressions within a liberal democratic structure, provided these variations do not harm others. Conversely, multiculturalism espouses a basic indifference and relativism to all cultures, when, in fact, not all cultures are equally valuable or relatively equal.

Uncited and opinionated. I would appreciate if someone else would edit this. Otherwise, I will feel free to remove it pending replacement by something citable. My strongest objections are to the phrases "not all cultures are equally meritorious or noble" "not all cultures are equally valuable or relatively equal." Pure opinion, in Wikipedia's narrative voice. No doubt the writer intends this to be read as favoring European and North American civilization. After all, not Europeans ever tried to kill or oppress anyone on a racial or ethnic basis. That's why there are so many Jews in Central Europe and why all the African Americans are descendants of free immigrants. Uh-huh.

As for devaluing women: women were denied the vote in virtually every Western country 100 years ago. If this meant that a culture were incurably illiberal, how does one then account for the subsequent spread of liberal democracy?

By the way, cultures don't mutilate genitals. That may be a cultural practice but it is not a culture. It is an abhorrent practice but, again, the West is not incapable of abhorrent practices.

Which really leads us to the point: there are illiberal practices, but it is very opionated to claim that there are inherently illiberal cultures. 50 or 60 years ago we in America were routinely being told that East Asians were incapable of democracy. Look at Japan, South Korea, and the Republic of China today. This claim about cultures, as against practices, is totally out of line.

I'll give at least 48 hours on this, probably more, but if someone doesn't turn this into something at least defensible, preferably something citable, I will feel very free simply to remove it. - Jmabel | Talk 03:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph is clearly an editorial, and needs to go. Rick Norwood 17:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Liberalism as freedom

I think more thought needs to be given about the many statements on this page that freedom/liberty is the most important common thread that links liberal movements through the ages. I don't think this is true, and I think it is based on a wrong etymological association between the words liberal and liberty. It seems to me that the main unifying principles of liberalism have been social progressivism and fostering a climate where the strong are happy to help the weak (although not under compulsion). This may imply a libertarian ethic, but the libertarian ethic is not what makes liberalism unique. Zargulon 02:41, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

You are mistaken. "Social progressivism and fostering a climate where the strong are happy to help the weak" may be the thrust of what is called "liberalism" in the US, and then only in the last half-century. Historically and originally, liberalism was about individual rights, freedom of thought, and limitations on government power. You won't find any altruist redistributionist bullshit in the writings of classical liberals or liberal luminaries until the 20th century. Hogeye 02:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Both of you are mistaken. The strong happy to help the weak is Christianity, not Liberalism. But there is plenty of commentary, by the founding fathers and others, about the need for the government to protect the ordinary citizen from the rapacity of the rich. Here is one easy counterexample for Hogeye: "I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies . . . If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] . . . will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered . . . The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs. Letter to the Secretary of the Treasury Albert Gallatin (1802) ; later published in The Debate Over The Recharter Of The Bank Bill (1809)" Thomas Jefferson Rick Norwood 01:32, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Rick, that supports my position. Jefferson was warning against government-ordained monopoly banks issuing currency, as opposed to free market bank notes backed by specie. One major issue back then was Hamilton's plan of a national bank vs. Jefferson's opposition to a banking monopoly. (I can see how, if you didn't know the historical background, you would misinterpret "private banks" in Jefferson's letter.) Jefferson was against (what today we would call) fiat money, having seen the revolution war script and "continentals" become worthless.

"Specie is the most perfect medium because it will preserve its own level; because, having intrinsic and universal value, it can never die in our hands, and it is the surest resource of reliance in time of war." --Thomas Jefferson to John Wayles Eppes, 1813. ME 13:430

"Paper is poverty,... it is only the ghost of money, and not money itself." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, 1788. ME 7:36

"Experience has proved to us that a dollar of silver disappears for every dollar of paper emitted." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1791. ME 8:208

(More pertinent quotes here.) Hogeye 01:56, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I freely admit to being often mistaken.. but what non-authoritarian political movement doesn't espouse liberty as a virtue? Also I have a problem with the paragraph which begins with the etymology of the word liberalism.. it then mysteriously goes on to refer to the freedom-related writings of Livy, M. Aurelius, Machiavelli and Locke, all of whom predated the birth of liberalism as a concept, and who likely did not even use the word liberal (except of course the Latin authors who meant "generous"). Many other political movements could claim equal inspiration from these authors. I rather feel that paragraph has a sense of being about freedom, rather than about liberalism. Isn't the reader expecting something more specific there? Zargulon 09:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Other political philosophies may consider liberty a virtue, but generally not the primary virtue. Others elevate e.g. equality or group solidarity (nationalism) or class interests to an equal or higher level of importance. I don't know about those other guys mentioned, but Locke is universally considered the "father" of liberalism, as he brought all the main ideas together for the first time. I didn't know that other political movements claim Locke as a major inspiration. What would these be? Here's the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on liberalism. Hogeye 15:19, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me modify my stance slightly as a result of being educated by the encyclopedia reference you gave. What it seems from there is that one could legitimately say that the defining characteristic of liberalism is that restrictions to freedom must be explicitly justified.. that the burden of proof is on those proposing the restrictions. I acknowledge that this is the primary virtue of liberalism, and I don't claim that other political movements would say the same about themselves. However, the paragraph in the WP article which I referred to would be equally valid, if not more so, in an article on anarchism or libertarianism. From what I read, it seems to be misleading to say "liberalism is the belief in individuals freedom" but rather "liberalism is the belief that restrictions on individuals freedom must be scrupulously and individually justified by the state" (or something, your reference says it better than me). I withdraw my criticism of the reference to Locke .. I am still unhappy about Machiavelli, and the Roman authors even more. There is circumstantial evidence that the original writers of that paragraph were prejudiced by their mistaken view that liberal comes from the Latin word liber (free), which is how the text stood until I corrected it. Any thoughts? Zargulon 15:49, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course, by asking us to consider "non-authoritarian" ideologies, you've essentially redefined the debate to include liberty. (Who else would oppose gratuitous authority besides someone who loves freedom?) Anyway, arguably, social conservatism and political realism do not emphasize liberty (however conceived) as a main value, and whether or not they qualify as "authoritarian" is open to interpretation.

I don't know what Livy, Aurelius, etc. have to do with Enlightenment liberalism. Still, as Hogeye pointed out just now, Locke is well recognized as a classical liberal. You're sort of right to point out that many other liberty-oriented ideologies pay tribute to the classic liberal tradition, in the sense that anarchists and libertarians may have found inspiration there. However: a) I fail to see why the fact that certain Enlightenment writers inspired offshoot philosophies is significant. b) keep in mind that Liberalism, in the holistic historical sense that this article is concerned with, encompasses the statist forms of libertarianism. That leaves only astatal anarchism as an ideology that sits outside of liberalism, while still placing main value on liberty.

If we're left to wonder why it is that anarchism isn't therefore a kind of liberalism, we should appeal to degrees of similarity between doctrines for an answer. Any ideology which wholly rejects core tenets of classical liberalism (i.e., not those who differ in degree of support, but outright deny the significance of some tenet) cannot be conceived as "liberal". All classical liberals supported the existence of a government, and so astatal anarchists are totally outside of the liberal strain, however connected they may be to the tradition. Social liberals can be put up to the same test. As Rick noted, there are a number of classic liberal writers who have made comments which are in spirit sympathetic to what we now call modern liberal tenets (including Adam Smith on graduated taxation and young F. Hayek on redistribution [surprisingly]). And the points of disagreement most often cited, i.e., over size of government, are differences of degree, not of kind. Lucidish _{{ Ben S. Nelson }} 15:51, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi Lucidish, that is very interesting. We edited at more or less the same time so I refer you to my contribution of 15:49 UTC. Zargulon 15:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Zargulon, I agree that the Roman guys and Machiavelli were not liberal, and should be deleted. Lucidish, I think that anarchism is the radical branch of liberalism. There have been anti-statist branches of liberalism going way back, e.g. Wilhelm von Humboldt, Frederic Bastiat, Gustav de Molinari, Herbert Spencer, and Auberon Herbert. You note that "all classical liberals supported the existence of a government," but it should be kept in mind that the term "government" was not always intended to mean "State." For many liberal writers, "government" meant an organization which defends rights. Jefferson's use of the term in the US Declaration of Independence is perhaps the best known example. Albert Jay Nock made this distinction explicit in his book "Our Enemy the State." This Jeffersonian/Nockian meaning of "government" is totally compatible with anarchism, or at least liberal anarchism. I noted in an earlier version of the liberalism article that anarchism is a radical radical form of liberalism. Perhaps Thoreau put it best in "Civil Disobedience":

I HEARTILY ACCEPT the motto,—"That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe,—"That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have.

Hogeye 17:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Zargulon: Yup, I read your post. I think my reply dealt with some of the material there, for what it's worth. Anyway, the demand that authority need to justify itself does not seem to be unique to liberalism, so it isn't doing any heavy lifting in the analysis. Rather, the demand for justification seems to be a rather generic kind of political skepticism, which liberals have indulged in, but others also have. I think what Gaus@Stanford was trying to convey was that, not only does authority need to be justified, but also the presumption should default in favor of liberty, and the latter is one of the aspects which is uniquely fundamental. My point about state/government as a mark of differentiation between anarchism (as popularly understood) and liberalism are meant to be a second fundamental, though this is not reflected by Gaus. Presumably, this may be because Gaus's project was to describe liberal philosophy, and not get into practical details.

Last I checked, you're correct about etymology. "Liberal" wasn't used until around the 1800s as a politically viable term. Previously, it had meant something like "excessive" and so on; and when it did come on the political scene, it was first used as a term of abuse, but gradually was used positively.

Hogeye: I think that all hands agree about the inappropriateness Machievelli et al. being considered "liberal", but I think that particular section was more interested in etymology and the formation of liberalism in modernity. That can be made more clear, though, surely. (This is of course assuming that the wiki's statements are even correct. Was Machievelli really the first noteable to lay down the principles of a Republic?)

The state/government distinction is news to me; I was using the terms as if they were synonymous. (I'm fairly skeptical of the distinction, myself, but I'd have to know more to either keep or reject it in good faith.) In any case, the spirit of my remarks still holds if we were to talk about distinguishing non-governmental philosophies from the liberal pantheon. Anyone who seeks ultimate decentralization, as in the breakup of a government with an army at its disposal, can be regarded as what I called "astatal anarchism"; and those sorts are not liberal by any measure. I wonder how far off the mark my original examination was, then, when I said that no liberal abandons the state (or government) entirely. IIRC, Spencer was a libertarian, and libertarians seem to view themselves as distinct from anarchism, presumably to avoid the non-governmental baggage which the latter has carried both etymologically and popularly. On first blush, Thoreau's "governs not at all" sentiment seems implausible both from the libertarian and liberal standpoints, unless it was meant to be contingent upon a virtuous public or something like that. Lucidish _{{ Ben S. Nelson }} 18:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The classic discussion of the distinction between "government" and "state" can be found in Albert Jay Nock's "Our Enemy the State" available online here. The gist of the argument starts in chapter two.

Anarchism has had purely negative forms (e.g. Burke's Vindication of Natural Society,) but since the 19th century it has also had a positive theory of how society might be organized sans state. You wrote, "Spencer was a libertarian, and libertarians seem to view themselves as distinct from anarchism..." The latter is mistaken; libertarians are well aware of the "minarchist" and "anarchist" subdivisions, and there have been many debates between these two factions, and have been for years. This is a common discussion on libertarian forums. Spencer was definitely a libertarian. In his younger days he was anarchist or near-so, in his later days he became less radical - a minarchist. This is illustrated by his removal of the chapter "The Right to Ignore the State" from his book "Social Statics." Spencer's most famous protege, Auberon Herbert, was an anarchist (though he preferred the term "voluntaryist.") Hogeye 17:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the state-gov reference (despite the counterfactual op-eds in that edition; Roosevelt's election was a "coup"?). Anyway, my bad guess over Spencer's leanings can hopefully be excused in that I used the expression "seem to". And anyway I am aware that "libertarian socialist" has become something like a synonym for anarchist; but it was never quite clear to me whether this could count as a subdivision of libertarianism, or as distinct from (but continuous with) it. Anyway, I'll keep your points in mind in the future. Lucidish _{{ Ben S. Nelson }} 02:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Our defining example of a Republic is the Roman Republic (not, for example, what Plato called a Republic). Livy is a primary source about the struggles that arise in any republic, in particular about the inevitable conflict between liberals and conservatives. Everything in Livy sounds as modern and up to date as Fox News. The conservatives are rich and maintain that property rights are the most important rights, and that religion demands that the old ways be preserved. The conservatives start foreign wars with the explicit aim of profiting from them personally, while distracting the mob from their demands for free grain, land, and equal rights. The liberals demand freedom, equal rights with the upper class, redistribution of wealth, a limit on the political power of the rich, and the right of the poor to hold public office. All of the founding fathers, in fact, every educated person (in Europe and America) in the 18th Century, had read Livy. Certainly both Locke and Burke assumed an understanding of Livy as a necessary basis for their own ideas. Machievelli, in "Discourses on Livy", was not defining a Republic but rather giving a realistic commentary on how a Republic actually worked, as contrasted with the idealistic nonsense usually spouted by politicians. It is a companion to The Prince, which did the same for autocratic government. Rick Norwood 13:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey Rick. Although I think you may have identified something like the spirit of liberalism, it's largely agreed that the "liberal" ideologies are a creature of the Enlightenment. The word "democratic" (or "populist" in our tongue) would certainly apply to the ancient systems, as described by (and derided by) Aristotle. At most, they might be appealed to as "proto-liberal". But it's regarded as historical fact that the birth of liberalism was in the modern era. Lucidish _{{ Ben S. Nelson }} 02:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I think your "historical fact" would have sounded very strange to the philosophers of the Enlightenment. The new ingredient added to philosophy in the Enlightenment was science, not liberalism. America was the first modern liberal democracy, but it was consciously founded on the principles of the Roman republic and the city states of the Italian Renaissance.

For one philosopher who would object to your "historical fact", see George Santayana, who believed that no new political or philosophical idea had been propounded since Plato and Aristotle.

Of course, to some extent this is a question of terminology, but if it smells like a rabbit, and hops like a rabbit... Rick Norwood 13:06, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

You may be right to trace the democratic and republican strands to the ancient times, but it seems to me that attributing the same genesis to liberalism is going against consensus, as understood by mainstream sources like Britannica (for example): "Historically, liberalism... originated as a defensive reaction to the horrors of the wars of religion of the 16th century". If liberalism really can be interpreted into these earlier writers, we'd have to know which scholarly camp (and which members in it) endorse that view. Otherwise, it's O.R. Lucidish _{{ Ben S. Nelson }} 03:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Lucidish that liberalism is a product of the enlightenment. In no way would I say that the Roman Republic of the City States of the Italian Renaissance were liberal states and certainly they were not democratic states. Are there sources that consider Livy and/ore these states as liberals / liberal societies. Electionworld Talk? 13:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

The main difference between the Roman republic and the American republic is that in Rome people voted by tribe while in America they voted by state. In the Italian city states that had (small r) republican government, only male property owners could vote, but that was also true when the American republic was founded. If, as this article maintains, freedom is the defining issue for liberalism, then the many passages in Livy and in Machievelli about freedom are liberal in intent if not in name. In Rome, the primary freedom the plebians demanded was freedom to hold public office. They demanded it and they got it. Their first major success in this area was the establishmentment of the tribunes, who had veto power over the patrician senate. In Italy the primary freedom the people demanded was freedom from the direct control of the Pope. They fought for it and lost. Electionworld asks for secondary sources to back up my claims. Since I concentrate my reading almost entirely on primary sources, I'll have to wait for someone else to provide secondary sources. Rick Norwood 12:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your arguments, but to prevent original research I think we need some secondary sources. Electionworld Talk? 13:48, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Liberal Neutrality

I've created a new article on the concept of liberal_neutrality as found in the works of Rawls and many other liberal philosophers, would be good if anyone could contribute to it as I feel this is a concept that needs an entry but currently lacks one.Cxk271 16:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Historical political deviances

It looks to me like this whole section should be deleted. It implies that liberal opposition to theocracy and religion-based violation of rights is new. In fact, liberalism has been opposed to religious authoritarianism from its inception. The section alleges "a conflict between cultural toleration and the individual rights." In fact, liberalism has never condoned the violation of rights. It has never tolerated such aggression - cultural toleration is about voluntary conduct and beliefs, not aggressive acts. Rather than any deviationism, the section merely gives the modern equivalent of the fight against witch-hunts and torturing heretics. Hogeye 01:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

A deletion for this section may very well be in order. It violates NPOV at the very least. -- Cielomobile ^minor7♭5 01:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. it was unbalanced. Electionworld Talk? 08:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Needs Archiving

This talk page is getting huge and it seems to me somebody should archive it, but I don't know how and when this is done. Grand Slam 7 00:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

The info on how to archive a talk page is hard to find. I've found it three times before, but I can't find it today. Rick Norwood 13:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)