Talk:Classical liberalism/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

For an alternative to mere propaganda...

This article as it stands is laughable American propagandizing that ignores history. For a little of that history, sample yesterday's New York Times, written by a prof:

Why Islamism Is Winning By JOHN M. OWEN IV Published: January 6, 2012

In 19th-century Europe, that ideology was liberalism. It emerged in the late 18th century from the American, Dutch, Polish and especially French revolutions. Whereas the chief political divide in society had long been between monarchs and aristocrats, the revolutions drew a new line between the “old regime” of monarchy, nobility and church, and the new commercial classes and small landholders. For the latter group, it was the old regime that produced the predatory taxes, bankrupt treasuries, corruption, perpetual wars and other pathologies that dragged down their societies. The liberal solution was to extend rights and liberties beyond the aristocracy, which had inherited them from the Middle Ages. Suppressing liberalism became the chief aim of absolutist regimes in Austria, Russia and Prussia after they helped defeat France in 1815. Prince Klemens von Metternich, Austria’s powerful chancellor, claimed that “English principles” of liberty were foreign to the Continent. But networks of liberals — Italian carbonari, Freemasons, English Radicals — continued to operate underground, communicating across societies and providing a common language for dissent. This helped lay the ideological groundwork for Spain’s liberal revolution in 1820. From there, revolts spread to Portugal, the Italian states of Naples and Piedmont, and Greece. News of the Spanish revolution even spurred the adoption of liberal constitutions in the nascent states of Gran Colombia, Argentina, Uruguay, Peru and Mexico. Despite their varied grievances, in each case liberalism served as a rallying point and political program on which the malcontents could agree. A decade later, in July 1830, a revolution toppled France’s conservative Bourbon monarchy. Insurrection spread to Belgium, Switzerland, a number of German and Italian states and Poland. Once again, a variety of complaints were distilled into the rejection of the old regime and the acceptance of liberalism. The revolutions of 1848 were more numerous and consequential but remarkably similar to the earlier ones. Rebels with little in common — factory workers in Paris, peasants in Ireland, artisans in Vienna — followed a script written in the 1790s that was rehearsed continuously in the ensuing years across the continent.

John M. Owen IV, a professor of politics at the University of Virginia, is the author of “The Clash of Ideas in World Politics: Transnational Networks, States, and Regime Change, 1510-2010.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/07/opinion/why-islamism-is-winning.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.150.175 (talk) 20:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

How do you think Owen's description of [classical] liberalism differs from that of this article? TFD (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Owen's description is excellent, and could be used in the article Liberalism. This article is about a movement which today is called "classical liberalism", "neo-classical liberalism", or "libertarianism". The political philosophy discussed in this article arose after the facts outlined by Owen. I agree that most of the views of Americans today who call themselves "classical liberals" are mere propaganda, and ignore history. However, this article should present their views accurately, just as the article Scientology accurately presents the views of Scientologists. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Bias - Joeedh (talk) 05:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

This article violates the neutral point of view in a number of ways, some of which I list here.

American 19th buisiness depressions

This quote makes a clear judgement:

Despite the common recurrence of depressions, classical liberalism remained the orthodox belief among American businessmen until the Great Depression.

The causes of the 19th century American business depressions are disputed by historians, but are usually blamed on a fragmented financial system and the lack of a central bank, not economic ideology.

My impression is that the lack of a central bank was due to economic ideology.Rick Norwood (talk) 11:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Your impression? So, I suppose it had nothing to do with 19th century populism and Andrew Jackson's distrust of money power? If classical liberal theory was as anti-central-banking as you claim, why didn't any of the other classical liberal powers (like Britain) abolish there central banks? Joeedh (talk) 00:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Joeedh. The business cycle is not something inherent to Classic Liberal ideology. As he points out, although the cause is disputed, the majority of trade cycle fluctuations are due to central banking currency debasement and interest rate manipulation. Existence of a central bank is neither part of Classic Liberal ideology, nor is it an end state one would arrive at by following that ideology to its logical conclusion. (Kckranger) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.156.124.185 (talk) 20:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

As just explained two postings up, there was no central bank in 19th century America. TFD (talk) 20:23, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Andrew Jackson's administration, which was the first to adopt classical liberal economic theory, abolished the central bank and encouraged fragmentation. But the text does not say that classical liberalism was the cause of recesssions. Modern liberalism differed from classical liberalism in its response to recession. To varying degrees welfare programs help those hardest hit, while spending is aimed to stimulate the economy.TFD (talk) 13:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

No, modern liberalism uses central banks to smooth out the business cycle. Paul Krugman himself calls our current mess "highly unusual" and that vulgar Keynesian solutions "work now, but not in normal times." By no means does modern liberalism embrace discretionary countercyclical fiscal policy. The global neoliberal movement wasn't significantly damaged by the Great Recession, despite the high hopes of leftists for a return to traditional social democracy. Joeedh (talk) 00:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I do not understand your comments. Following classical liberal policies, Jackson abolished the central bank. Whether or not that was a good thing is not commented on in this article. TFD (talk) 00:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

4D's argument is supported explictly by Susan Hoffmann (2001). Politics and Banking: Ideas, Public Policy, and the Creation of Financial Institutions. JHU Press. p. 16. Rjensen (talk) 00:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Irish Potato Famine

A rigid belief in laissez-faire also guided government response in 1846–1849 to the Great Famine in Ireland, during which an estimated 1.5 million people died

Ethnic prejudice, not laissez-faire, blocked government assistance during the Irish Potato Famine. A prime minister early into the crisis did start public works projects, but was ousted from power and replaced by a prime minister who hated Irishmen. The political rhetoric were couched in terms of laissez-faire, but ethnic prejudice was the larger factor.

From Wikipedia's own article:

Sir Charles Trevelyan, who was in charge of the administration of Government relief to the victims of the Irish Famine, limited the Government's actual relief because he thought "the judgement of God sent the calamity to teach the Irish a lesson".

(By the way, you can see the source cited for this sentence here).

Motives are very hard to sort out, and in most cases we have to go with statements because that is all we have. Some people who praise laissez-faire invoke God to explain poverty and wealth, but their reason for wanting laissez-faire economics is, like all human motives, complicated. I do note that the section on the Irish has been rewritten recently. Is it improved? Rick Norwood (talk) 12:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The famine article also says that "Sir James Graham, who had served as Home Secretary in Sir Robert Peel's late government, wrote to Peel that, in his opinion, "the real extent and magnitude of the Irish difficulty are underestimated by the Government, and cannot be met by measures within the strict rule of economical science."" Bigotry and prejudice probably played a role too, but then that could be said about any policy on welfare. And Trevelyan was not in charge of setting the policy but, as a civil servant, responsible for carrying it out. TFD (talk) 14:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

You're rationalizing. How can you possibly deny that ethnic prejudice was the dominant faction, after this: "the judgement of God sent the calamity to teach the Irish a lesson." Political will matters a great deal, and if the people in charge of administering aid oppose it, and are simply going through the motions, that aid will be ineffective. That's as true today as it was then, by the way. Joeedh (talk) 00:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The same thing is said about neoliberals today. They cut welfare payments because they do not wish to encourage dependency. Welfare is a hand-up not a hand-out. Are they trying to help the poor or to hurt them? Are they racist because most poor people are minorities? TFD (talk) 00:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

That's offensive. Most of my relatives are white trash who've abused welfare programs at one point or another (my parents are "chain-breakers" who escaped that culture). There are plenty of places in America (and the world) where welfare recipients are the same race as the local majority. I don't understand this attitude that bad parts of town or poor people are always black. Joeedh (talk) 18:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

This edit appears add a view of the famine which is not supported by the sources used.[2][3] The first source (On fairness, p. 344) is used to support the statement, "After Great Famine struck Ireland in 1845, the Corn Laws were finally repealed in 1846...." This implies repeal of the Corn Laws was intended to relieve the famine, while the source says Peel was concerned about the famine extending into England. The next sentence says, "repeal of the Corn Laws came too late to stop the Irish famine, partly because it was done in stages over three years." The source says, "Although repeal was achieved in the summer of 1846, it was too little and too late to have any impact on food shortages in Ireland" (A Death- Dealing famine, p. 59). While repeal of the Corn Laws may or may not have alleviated the famine, it was "too little". The source says on p. 58, "By the spring of 1846, it was becoming increasingly evident in Peel's speeches that the repeal of the Corn Laws was unlikely to benefit the economy of Ireland either in the short or long term". TFD (talk) 17:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

First sentence implies that famine in Ireland was one of the main reason why repeal of the Corn Laws was contemplated. Of course there was a concern that famine will also spread to England but that only straightens the sentence that you removed.

In your second argument, you are mixing "famine" and "economy" - two different things. Second sentence that you removed doesn't talk about economy. Also, if you are quoting from the source please quote all relevant material. Sentence that you quoted: "Although repeal was achieved in the summer of 1846, it was too little and too late to have any impact on food shortages in Ireland" is followed by: "Furthermore, the Corn Laws were dismantled in stages over a period of three years." -- Vision Thing -- 19:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

In other words, immediate repeal of the Corn Laws would have had little or no effect on the famine. (Bear in mind that as Ireland was a major exporter of grains to Great Britain during the famine, repeal of the Corn Laws would have led to lower incomes.) was If you want to add your spin to the story please find a source.

Christine Kinealy, the writer whose book you use as a source explains the connection between the famine and the Corn Laws in her article "Peel, Rotten Potatoes and Providence: The repeal of the Corn Laws and the Irish Famine".[4] There is nothing in her article to indicate that repeal of the Corn Laws would have done anything to alleviate the famine and also note that all duties on imports of foreign grains were suspended before the famine reached its zenith.

TFD (talk) 22:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

How have you reached a conclusion that "immediate repeal of the Corn Laws would have had little or no effect on the famine"? No source says that.

Article "Peel, Rotten Potatoes and Providence: The repeal of the Corn Laws and the Irish Famine" starts with sentence: "The repeal of The Corn Laws in 1846 has tended to be linked inextricably with the onset of the potato famine in Ireland in 1845." While she states that relationship is "complex", according to her this is how connection is usually seen.

For example, Stephen J. Lee writes in his "Aspects of British Political History, 1815-1914" that "The timing of the repeal was dictated by the Irish crisis. [...] Peel was convinced that starvation would occur on a massive scale if urgent action were not taken. But relief could not be provided while the Corn Laws kept the price of bread artificial high." [5] -- Vision Thing -- 21:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Please explain, or rewrite, the following sentence: "It was expected that private enterprise and free trade, rather than government intervention, would alleviate the famine." Expected by whom? Were these expectations realistic? Rick Norwood (talk) 13:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I put in that this was the expectation of the chancellor. The implication in the source, and also in the writing of Kinnealy, who is considered to be an authority on the famine, is that the expectations were unreasonable, but there are no defenders today of the government's approach. TFD (talk) 15:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

VT, Kinealy was talking about popular opinion. She goes on, "the traditional notion that the need for famine relief in Ireland was a trigger for repeal may be seen as a convenient political myth. In reality, the attempt to link repeal to the need for famine relief was an example of political opportunism and administrative pragmatism rather than a practical proposal intended to alleviate suffering in Ireland." There is no source that immediate repeal of the Corn Laws would have had an effect. However my edits did not say it would not have had an effect. I suppose the fact that the price of grain reached its lowest level sinee 1780 in 1847, the year before the peak of the famine, and that subsidized grain was available at a penny a pound, would mean that the immediate repeal of the corn laws would not have resulted in lower prices in the short term. In any case, you have put a spin on the sources which is OR and in fact not supported by any other sources. No one today defends the actions of the British government during the famine. TFD (talk) 22:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

It's not popular opinion, it's consensus opinion. According to Britannica, "The failure of the Irish potato crop in 1845 persuaded Peel to support the repeal of all Corn Laws, which was achieved in 1846." [6] Also, in your reply you completely ignored source that says "the Corn Laws kept the price of bread artificial high." -- Vision Thing -- 08:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

The secondary sources you provided both say that Peel was committed to ending the Corn Laws and the famine provided an excuse, although Kinealy says Peel stopped using it because no one believed repeal would relieve the famine. Your new source about bread says, "If expensive bread forced the English into more reliance on potatoes, thought Peel, the situation would be grave."[7] Note that Ireland is not in England, already relied on potatoes, and the main grains used for food were oats and maize. Ironically this source too says (on the same page), "Peel... was gradually persuaded of the sense of these arguments [repeal of the Corn Laws].... Then in 1845 came news that the potato blight... had struck Ireland."

Here are two more sources that discuss the famine, the Corn Laws and economics.[8][9] The consensus appears to be that the famine was used as a pretext to repeal the Corn Laws, that repeal of the laws would have had little or no effect on suffering, and that the effects of the famine were increased by government's failure to take adequate action. They also say that Malthusian and extreme religious beliefs, which were also elements of classical liberalism, contributed to the inaction, because the famine was seen as either natural or God's will.

TFD (talk) 15:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

"Elements of classical liberalism"? I wasn't aware classical liberalism was so organized it had its own religious canon. Do you think Adam Smith would have approved of dead Irishmen as God's very own will? People use religion to justify ideology all the time (political Islamism and the recent "Jesus is a socialist/a free-marketeer" memes come to mind). That doesn't mean a Muslim who, say, believes jihad is an eternal war against one's own foolish pride is necessarily tarred by those who believe jihad is a divine imperative to kill infidels. Joeedh (talk) 02:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I do not believe that Smith would have seen the famine as God's will. However, 19th century liberalism combined various elements, including Malthusian pessimism and religious nonconformism. If you can find sources that describe it differently, then please provide them. TFD (talk) 05:16, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

TFD, I don't know about what you are talking about. Source that you keep deleting, "Aspects of British Political History, 1815-1914", says that "The timing of the repeal was dictated by the Irish crisis. [...] Peel was convinced that starvation would occur on a massive scale if urgent action were not taken. But relief could not be provided while the Corn Laws kept the price of bread artificial high." [10]

As for consensus, Wikipedia policy says that "Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, especially when those sources contradict each other." That is why I provided Britannica quote, since there are sources that contradict each other Britannica, reliably published tertiary source, shows us what is general consensus. -- Vision Thing -- 11:51, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Your source says the famine provided a pretext for the repeal, not that it was Peel's motivation for repeal. Even if EB says otherwise, we do not use facts in tertiary sources when they are in conflict with the consensus in secondary sources. That Peel did not think relief could be provided if the corn prices were high is presented as his opinion, not as a fact. Peel intended to buy corn and distribute it to the Irish, hardly a free market solution. But Peel resigned, relief was reduced and tariffs were effectively eliminated. TFD (talk) 17:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

We use tertiary sources to determine what is the consensus in secondary sources. -- Vision Thing -- 11:28, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

TFD: This edit war is not getting anywhere. Please explain why you find the compromise I suggested unacceptable. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Here is a comparison between my re-written version and the compromise version. The source on bread was speaking about the price of bread in England, not Ireland. There was no expectation that Irish famine victims would start eating bread, which is made using wheat and would require the establishment of bakeries, employment and training of bakers, and distribution systems. The grains consumed in Ireland were oats and maize which would be prepared in individual homes. Also, no source says that repeal of the corn laws would have had any impact on the famine. Tariffs were effectively eliminated by 1847, two years ahead of schedule, and prices dropped to their lowest level since 1780. The source says "too little too late", and does not support the view that immediate repeal would have had any effect. The people affected were subsistence farmers and therefore had little means to buy reduced price grain. What income they had depended on working for landlords who exported grains and meat to England. Lower grain prices would lead to lower wages or termination of employment. if we want to say that elimination of the Corn Laws would have had an effect, then we need a source for that. But even libertarian writers do not say that. TFD (talk) 16:18, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Here is the disputed sentence: "The famine was used by the Peel administration as justification for repeal of the protectionist Corn Laws, but had little benefit for Ireland, which exported grains and meat, and provided an argument against government action to alleviate the hunger." Note that it does not say that the repeal of the Corn Laws would help the starving Irish, it says that the Peel administration used that as justification for the repeal. And it says (and you agree) that it had little benefit for Ireland. I'd be happier if the last clause named the group that argued against the repeal.

You clearly know more about this subject than I, but my reading suggests that the Peel administration said, in effect, "Pity the poor Irish, repeal the Corn Laws." and the other side said, "Irish are the scum of the Earth, don't repeal the Corn Laws." That repeal of the Corn Laws had nothing to do with the plight of the Irish is just politics as usual.

What we really need is something more focused on the way Classical Liberalism was viewed at the time. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:57, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

The Irish through British Eyes: Perceptions of Ireland in the Famine Era,[11] says, "The current consensus of politicial historians is that Peel did in fact primarily use the potato blight as an excuse for repeal of the Corn Laws." The leading opponents of repeal, Disraeli and Bentinck denied the crisis existed. When the repeal was introduced in early 1846 the famine had not yet begun.(pp. 63, 69) [The "Irish are scum" crowd did not oppose repeal of the corn laws".] "The Fall of Peel" in Disraeli's biography says, "even if bread had been made as cheap as it could be by the complete removal of import duties on grain, it would still have been far beyond their purchasing power. [Peel's] principal remedy was to open the ports to duty-free foreign and colonial grain.... The mass of the Irish peasantry lived so far below the bread level that the relatively slight fall in the price, which might be expected to follow, could not have made bread a substitute for potatoes."[12]

i agree here should be something in the article about how classical liberalism was perceived.

TFD (talk) 16:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Your quote certainly seems to confirm the first part of the disputed sentence. But the issue still seems to me to be confused. Did Peel favor Classical Liberal economics, and use the famine as a political club to get what he really wanted, repeal of tariffs? Did Disraeli deny that Irish were starving, or claim that, per Malthus, somebody had to starve, so why not the Irish? The only reason for this subject to be in this article at all is how it relates to Classical Liberalism, therefore we need to know which players advocated Classical Liberal economics and which favored protectionist economics. Did either side favor direct food aid to Ireland, which would be the antithesis of Classical Liberal economics? What role did Christianity play in the debate over Classical Liberalism? We need a good paragraph here, or none at all, and it seems to me that you, TFD, are in the best position to write one, maybe in collaboration with Vision Thing. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

TFD, first of all, "primarily" means just that – primarily. According to your source: "There is no evidence, however, to support the contention that Peel did not believe in the reality of the crisis". From what I can tell from all the sources, Peel believed that repeal of the Corn Laws would be good for Ireland. According to The Routledge Companion To Britain In The Nineteenth Century it was the failure of the Irish potato crop in 1845 and the outbreak of widespread famine in Ireland that persuaded Peel and Parliament of the need to repeal the Corn Laws. [13]

Also, your source says: Protectionists denied Irish distress in the campaign to maintain the status quo. so it is clear that protectionists would do even less for Irish people. -- Vision Thing -- 11:37, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me that the two of you, TFD and Vision_Thing, are very close to agreement. You agree that Peel wanted to repeal the Corn Laws. You agree that the repeal didn't do much for the Irish. The big question is, where does Classical Liberalism come into the picture? Neither of TFDs sources use the phrase. Does Routledge?

I am not a historian, but the more I read on this subject, the more interesting it is. Apparently the Conservatives supported protectionist tariffs, because they favored the rich land-owners, while liberals opposed them. Peel broke with his party, and his government fell, because of his support for repeal. Apparently, though he cited the Potato Famine as his reason, his real reason was fear of violent revolution if the Conservatives did not make some concessions (From the Corn Laws to Free Trade, Schonhardt-Bailey). Rick Norwood (talk) 12:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC) Rick Norwood (talk) 12:25, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Whether Peel had decided to repeal the corn laws before the famine, which is the consensus of historians, or was persuaded by the famine, which is said in some tertiary sources, is irrelevant to the short mention in the article. (Curiously, Routledge says he was persuaded by the crop damage in 1845, although the famine did not begin until the severe crop failure of 1846.) Rick Norwood's latest source also supports that view. He certainly used it as justification for repeal of the corn laws. The issue is whether this represented an adequate response. All the sources I have seen say it did not. (I agree that the two sources I provided that Peel intended to repeal the Corn Laws before the famine do not mention classical liberalism.) The passage is not about the Corn Laws it is about the famine. Sources say that the only way the famine could have been minimized would have been the extension of government relief. In fact, Peel's Conservative government began to do this, with the support of the "protectionists", but the new Liberal government ended these efforts. Modern governments, even the most free-market ones, do provide assistance to their own citizens during natural disasters, as happened in the U.S. in response to 9/11, Hurricane Katrina and mining disasters.

Richardson refers to "the second [phase of contending liberalisms] over the economic and social implications of liberal values ("classical" versus "social" liberalism")" in the introduction to his article (p. 17), but calls the section "Second Phase: Laissez-faire vs. Social Liberalism" (p. 32). The subsection is called "Political Economy", which is defined as "laissez-faire economic policy"(op. 32). About the famine he says, "In England itself the effect of the ideology was always tempered by politcal crosscurrents.... Ireland experienced the effects of the doctrine in its purest form" (p. 34). This supports inclusion of the comment, "A rigid belief in laissez-faire guided the government response" in the Politcal Economy section of the article.

The other source I used, Russell's biography says, "Tragically, the famine took place at a time when laissez-farie and Malthusian population theories were predominant. The classical economists argued that the government should not intervene in the economy, since it did more harm than good." (p. 158) Again it appears relevant to the article.

TFD (talk) 16:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Both of these quotes are on topic. Maybe the Corn Laws, though superficially they sound like something Classical Liberalism would get involved with, are a red herring. Maybe the Classical Liberal repsonse to the Irish Famine is the real reason to have a paragraph on this subject. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:18, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The Corn Laws are already mentioned twice in the article under "History" and "Political Economy". While the famine may have triggered the debate that lead to final repeal, they were effectively suspended for Ireland before the famine began. I believe we should mention the famine because it is often presented as an example of the effects of a doctrinaire approach to a natural disaster. No sources have been provided that present an alternative interpretation. TFD (talk) 17:52, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Will you write it or shall I? Rick Norwood (talk) 12:34, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Why don't you write it. TFD (talk) 13:48, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that if we are going to address issue of Irish famine there should be some discussion why that happened. Main reason why Irish people were suffering is that they were a colony of England. If someone has a slave and lets him to die from hunger, you can't say that is a consequence of his classical liberal ideology or let it be. It seems that prevailing view in England at that time was that Irish were a lower class of people and that there was a strong anti-Catholic bias, so the ideology was at most just a cover for actions of the government.

Richardson is not a historian or expert in liberalism. According to his book description [14], he wrote his book as a polemic, with intention to present "wide-ranging critique of current endeavours to construct a world order based on neoliberal ideology", so it is hardly a neutral source. In my opinion it shouldn't be used at all. -- Vision Thing -- 10:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

It is an acadmic book. The author is a professor emeritus in international relations, the book was published by Lynne Rienner Publishers, an independent scholarly and textbook publishing firm that publishes in the fields of international studies and comparative politics in relation to the world. The chapter in the book previously appeared in an earlier academic book by Richardson and was published in the peer-reviewed European Journal of International Relations (1997). A Google Scholar search returns 214 hits[15] and the article has been used as part of university political science courses. The passage is sourced to Anthony Arblaster's Rise and Decline of Western Liberalism (Anthony Arblaster, Wiley-Blackwell, 1987). You are confusing reliability with neutrality. Sources must be reliable, we must be neutral.

Ireland was not a colony of England, but under the Acts of Union 1800 was part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Catholics had been granted full civil rights under the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829, which is mentioned in the article as one of the successes of classical liberalism. Although Home Rule was not yet an issue, it would be championed by classical liberals.

The other sources presented provide the same conclusions. If they are wrong then you need a source that says so.

TFD (talk) 14:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Classical Liberalism is a belief system. The importance of the famine in Ireland is not what caused it, as far as this article is concerned. Presumably a potato blight caused it. But rather the importance here is how a belief in Classical Liberalism influenced the behavior of politicians at the time. We need examples of politicians who expressed Classical Liberal beliefs and who based their recommendations about the famine on those beliefs.

I'll try writing it up, at TFD's request, but I really think he would be able to do a better job. If Vision_Thing would like to help, that would be appreciated.

Rick Norwood (talk) 20:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I wrote two versions.[16][17] I prefer the first because we already mention that the Economist campaigned for free trade and already discuss the Corn Laws. I would rather you wrote the section. TFD (talk) 21:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok, taking parts for both of your versions, and the quotes above, here is a first draft of a suggested paragraph. I'll work on putting the references in order next. You, TFD, will need to fill in the info on Russell's biography. Comments? Suggestions?:

Despite the pragmatism of classical economists, their views were expressed in dogmatic terms by such popular writers as Jane Marcet and Harriet Martineau. The strongest defender of laissez-faire was The Economist founded by James Wilson in 1843. The Economist criticized Ricardo for his lack of support for free trade and expressed hostility to welfare, believing that the lower orders were responsible for their economic circumstances. The Economist took the position that regulation of factory hours was harmful to workers and also strongly opposed state support for education, health, the provision of water, and granting of patents and copyrights. The Economist also campaigned against the Corn Laws that protected landlords in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland against competition from less expensive foreign imports of cereal products.

In 1845, the Irish potato crop was destroyed by a blight, and there was widespred famine. At first strict laissez-faire principles governed government policy toward Ireland. Malthusian population theories dominated. The Conservatives fought to keep tarriffs and prices high, classical economists refused to consider any form of direct aid. Prejudice against the Irish also played a part.

Conservative Prime Minister Robert Peel broke with his party and agreed to the repeal of the Corn Laws, using the famine as an excuse, but in fact the repeal did nothing to help the Irish. Absentee landlords continued to export food from Ireland while the Irish starved, and the little relief Peel offered was scaled back by Lord John Russell... As far as British politics went, the split between protectionist and free-trade factions could not be mended, and the Conservative government fell.

Nobody has commented on this version, and I hesitate to add it to the article without comments, one way or the other. Also, TFD, please provide the reference for your "Russell's biography". Rick Norwood (talk) 12:03, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Here is a link to the Russell biography. Here is a link to an academic paper, "Classical Economics and the Great Irish Famine".

I have trouble with the last two paragraphs of your re-write. Peel actually began relief policies but they were scaled back by Russell. The relief began before the onset of the famine. Also it implies that repeal of the Corn Laws was an attempt to alleviate the famine, and would have been effective and implicitly criticizes the Conservatives for opposing it. I cannot find any source that argues in support of the British government's approach.

TFD (talk) 13:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I've done a rewrite of the last two paragraphs. See if this is closer to the mark. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:43, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this edit, above, has been added to the main text. Do we need to do some housekeeping to get the article up to date with existing changes? Please correct me if I am wrong. Accord 3702 (talk) 03:28, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

There have been many changes to the article since this 2012 discussion, but I don't think the particular changes discussed above were ever made. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:21, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

It was re-written. It currently says, "repeal of the Corn Laws came too late to stop Irish famine, partly because it was done in stages over three years." The sources say that repeal of the Corn Laws would have had no effect on the famine, but the comment "too little too late" is read to imply that it would have. Ironically repeal of the corn laws harmed Irish peasants whose main source of income during the famine was corn. TFD (talk) 15:46, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Emphasis on Anti-Charity Anti-Welfare Faction

I find the emphasis on Social Darwinism (an intellectual disease hardly limited to classical liberalism) also disturbing. The article seems to use it as a bludgeon against libertarians. I agree that modern libertarianism is problematic (to put it mildly), but that isn't relevant to this article.

This is Wikipedia; rewrites are always an option. If you decide to do a major rewrite of this article, I recommend doing a little at a time, and waiting for comments before going on to the next bit. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

This article is not about libertarianism. TFD (talk) 15:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

It should not be, but in my opinion it is. Joeedh (talk) 00:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

In The Making of Modern Economics (M. E. Sharpe, 2009), Mark Skousen, who is a libertarian, says that 19th century liberalism came under the influence of Malthus and Ricardo, whom he believes misinterpreted Adam Smith, and this error was only corrected with the advent of neo-classical liberalism in the 1870s.[18] There is no difference in interpretation between them and the sources used for the article. TFD (talk) 17:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Natural Law / Rights

I agree that this article suffers bias. It is also internally contradictory. For example, in relation to natural law it states:

'Classical liberalism is built on ideas that had already arisen by the end of the 18th century, ... stressing the belief in free market and natural law,[5] utilitarianism,[6] and progress.[7]'

and later states:

'Classical liberals saw utility as the foundation for public policies. This broke both with conservative "tradition" and Lockean "natural rights", which were seen as irrational.'

Bentham memorably referred to natural rights as 'nonsense upon stilts', and was no believer in natural law more generally. This points to the real problem with the article: for every proposition it makes about 'Classical liberals' important, even critical, exceptions can be found. Sometimes this produces apparent contradictions, as above. More often, competing liberal arguments are simply ignored.

The article needs to be:

a) more specific about the ideas held by and developed by individual political philosophers;

b) very careful when declaring common positions such as are introduced by the phrase 'Classical liberals believed ...';

c) clearer about the evolution of liberal ideas;

d) very careful when outlining the parts of the various doctrines that were actually implemented;

e) mindful that academic interpretations of individual philosophers still vary to this day.

At the moment any casual reader must come from the article thinking the philosophy cruel and unsympathetic (eg. 'they believed population growth would outstrip food production; and they considered that to be desirable, as starvation would help limit population growth'), and yet sympathy is one of the foundational ideas of utilitarianism, and starvation of the poor is absolutely not a part of the 'greatest happiness' principle. Accord 3702 (talk) 00:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

This is a controversial article, and needs attention by informed individuals who are not so passionate in their beliefs that they allow their passion to cloud their objectivity. Any improvements you can make are welcome. Part of the problem is that different classical liberals have said different things at different times. Rick Norwood (talk) 00:56, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I corrected the sentence in the lead,[19] using Hudelson as a source.[20] The source used for "natural law"[21] did not support the text. As Hudelson points out, natural law and utilitarianism are contradictory, but both influenced classical liberalism. Nowhere does the article say the ideology was "cruel and unsympathetic" - that is your interpretation of what Malthus said. I agree it may not have been the "greatest happiness" theory, but it was part of "the greatest happiness for the greatest number." So a state that has a higher per capita income even if it has high income disparity has the greatest happiness for the greatest number.

The controversy comes from libertarians who fail to recognize that the Austrian school rejected classical liberalism even though they believe they are closer to them than other liberals. Note that Menger's marginal revolution is a rejection of Ricardo's labor theory of value.

TFD (talk) 03:29, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Re TFD: Thank you for correcting the natural law reference. Unfortunately I am still not sure that the casual reader would understand the substantial evolution of attitude towards natural rights when comparing Locke with Bentham. Bentham ridiculed natural rights, but argued in favour of legal rights. This shift followed both the American War of Independence (considered entirely unnecessary from a utilitarian perspective - don't stand on natural rights, look at happiness instead) and the French Revolution (a blood-soaked disaster from the dominant utilitarian perspective).

In relation to the starvation issue, the sentence I quoted from the article provides no differentiation between Malthus's ideas and the ideas of other classical liberals. Instead it merely suggests that classical liberals 'adopted' these ideas. The sentence might better read: 'Malthus believed population growth would outstrip food production; and he considered that to be desirable, as starvation would help limit population growth'. The article might then go on to discuss to what degree these propositions (there are several of them in the sentence) were accepted by other key classical liberals. This goes to my more general point, I think reinforced by Rick Norwood's subsequent comment above, that the article should not confuse the theories of individual liberals with whatever theories classical liberals might have had in common. It is worth noting that John Stuart Mill and Francis Place did not believe Malthus's cure necessary or desirable. Apart from such a sentiment appearing nowhere in their writing, in the 1820s they were arrested for handing out contraceptives to help overcome unwanted pregnancy. They, and their colleagues, also fought for policies they believed would lower the price of food and increase its production. Their little clique was substantially responsible for the public works that resulted in life-saving sanitation in cities. However, let's not get bogged down in this example. The quoted sentence is just one in an article full of slippages. The next sentence too, 'They opposed any income or wealth redistribution, which they believed would be dissipated by the lowest orders.' is equally open to criticism for being too generalised and not taking into account utilitarian constitutional design and legal reforms. I think it fair to restate that 'any casual reader must come from the article thinking the philosophy cruel and unsympathetic'. Different, more humane, and more nuanced perspectives are readily available directly from the writings and political agitations of those generally labelled classical liberals. I hope to attend to the article in the future, but right now I am too busy to do anything but note these few items. Accord 3702 (talk) 06:23, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

If you disagree with the depiction, then you should provide sources that describe it differently. Certainly utilitarianism could lead to a different course of action, so could the labor theory of value. And JS Mill would take liberalism in a different direction. But the article is about classical liberalism, not writers like Marx, Mill and the Austrian school that came to be its opponents. Again, it is up to readers whether they think it is cruel. They believed that government should provide no assistance to the unfortunate other than workhouses. You may think that was cruel but that was actually their policy. TFD (talk) 07:18, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Indeed I do hope to provide sources that will describe it differently. Certainly the writings of Bentham published by the Bentham Project at UCL and and writings about Bentham by Philip Schofield and others associated with the project, counteract the depiction in this article. But, of course, references from these and other works require working into a narrative, and that takes time which I currently don't have.

I think the sentence 'They believed that government should provide no assistance to the unfortunate other than workhouses.' gives quite a different complexion to the issue than 'they believed population growth would outstrip food production; and they considered that to be desirable, as starvation would help limit population growth'. When the workhouse policy is coupled with others of their policies, the whole appears far less cruel (if cruel at all) than the original 'starvation' sentence suggests.

I accept the task to provide some possible amendments, and will run them by you in this 'talk' area to see if you (and anyone else interested) agree with them and would like to add to or amend them. Naturally, I will provide full references. This could make for an interesting discussion and between us we should be able to develop this page a little, retaining, perhaps, contrasting views, which, after all, are legion in this contentious topic. I would expect to have much more time in a month or two. Accord 3702 (talk) 00:34, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The article is about classical liberalism, not Bentham, and what is important is how his views were used or misused. You need to provide sources on classical liberalism. Workhouses btw were a replacement for outside relief - if that had not existed they probably would not have set up workhouses. TFD (talk) 01:36, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The article is unclear about what is classical liberalism. From the article we can compile a list of attributes of classical liberalism. For example, according to the article, classical liberals adopted Thomas Malthus's population theory and 'they saw poor urban conditions as inevitable, as they believed population growth would outstrip food production; and they considered that to be desirable, as starvation would help limit population growth. They opposed any income or wealth redistribution, which they believed would be dissipated by the lowest orders'. J.S. Mill did not subscribe to this set of beliefs, but he is labelled a classical liberal economist in the article: '...classical liberal economists, such as J.S. Mill...'?

I agree with your comment 'what is important is how [Bentham's] views were used or misused. You need to provide sources on classical liberalism', though I see no reason why Bentham's works or commentators upon his works cannot also be used where appropriate. I suspect Bentham falls into the same category as Mill - a classical liberal theorist whose ideas differed in meaningful ways from Malthus and others. This might be said for all those referred to in the article - that they all differed from each other in meaningful ways. As I have suggested earlier, the article lacks nuance and clarity. It probably also needs to be clearer about the evolution of the ideas, too.

I will analyse the article, report my findings, and suggest repairs. Should there be a dispute we can submit it appropriately.

I would need evidence re 'if that had not existed they probably would not have set up workhouses'. Accord 3702 (talk) 02:32, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

The view that Malthus coined the term "dismal science" because of Mill's anti-slavery views is fringe. Oddly enough the main article on Malthus on the same website says, "His apocalyptic vision and his widely accepted subsistence theory of wages (wages will drop to the minimum required to sustain a worker because high wages induce population growth) helped stigmatize economics as the "dismal science." I have therefore changed and moved the quote. Mill is best seen as a transitional figure between classical and social liberalism.

Regarding the reporting of influences, by comparison, an article about the Christian Right might say that they draw on the Bible and theologians such as Calvin. But we would not use sources for Jesus, Paul and Calvin that did not mention the Christian Right. If some of these source say that they misread their influences, then we can put that in too, subject to weight, because readers would be more interested in what the Christian Right believed, rather than what their influences actually said, which is rightly covered in other articles. The article already does point out some of the differences between influences and what the original writers said.

Regarding workhouses, one could argue that by reducing entitlements and making them harder to obtain, rather than abolishing them, that governments are showing their support of those programs. The article does say that classical liberals accepted some state intervention. Even the most doctrinaire politicians allow some compromise.

TFD (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Frederick Bastiat

RE: TFD below: The Continental school of Classic Liberalism is regarded among scholars as the purest representation. Ideologically the themes were the same however French classic liberals applied them more broadly & consistently. Bastiat is as key a representation of this school of thought as Thomas Jefferson who you have engaged in an edit war to censure from the opening paragraph. Lesser, but also notable Classic Liberals from the French school of thought who belong mentioned in the article include Turgot & Cantillon. I am going to look at where to appropriately include them later. user:kckranger —Preceding undated comment added 16:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Say, who was French, and his contribution are discussed in the article. So is Hayek's view about the difference between French and English classical liberalism. TFD (talk) 10:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I question the inclusion of Frederick Bastiat in the lead. He wrote long after classical liberalism had developed and is not mentioned elsewhere in the article. It is probably more accurate to say that he was a major influence on Austrian economics. The source, the Friedrich Naumann Foundation, says "he was the preeminent advocate of [classical] liberal thinking in France during a crucial stage of history."[22] Yet there is nothing in the article about French liberalism. I will remove his name from the lead. If someone wants to add a section on French classical liberalism to the article, then we can mention his significance. TFD (talk) 18:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Bastiat was a minor intellectual figure and a very popular writer best known for witty short essays. Politicians read him, but few economists. As for original ideas, perhaps you could point to his use of counterfactual assumptions ("what would have happened if this subsidy had not existed is XYZ and that is better than what did happen ABC") He seems to take most of his ideas directly from Adam Smith. Béraud and Etner (1993) say he never founded a school and his ideas were rejected by the leading economists of his time. [Revue d'Economie Politique, 1993, Vol. 103 Issue 2, pp 287-304] Rjensen (talk) 18:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Carlyle's "dismal science" remark

The article says: "The pessimistic nature of these theories led to Carlyle calling economics the dismal science and it provided a basis of criticism of capitalism by its opponents".

This is actually false. The actual reason why Carlyle called economics "the dismal science" is that most economists of his time strongly opposed slavery: http://www.econlib.org/library/Columns/LevyPeartdismal.html

I'm assuming that Mills (the reference used for the claim) simply imagined a reason for why Carlyle would have called it "dismal", rather than actually reading Carlyle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Upsidown (talk • contribs) 06:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

If true, this should be in the article. I always thought economics was called the "dismal science" because econ 101 teachers were boring. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:21, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

That is David M. Levy's personal reading of Carlyle, but does not appear to have influenced the mainstream view. Note that the source used was written after Levy's book was published. As Levy acknowledges, "almost everyone knows that it was given this description by Thomas Carlyle, who was inspired to coin the phrase by T. R. Malthus's gloomy prediction...." Can you provide any sources that show that Levy's views have gained any acceptance? TFD (talk) 17:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand this usage of "mainstream view". You mean, "the mainstream view of what Carlyle meant"? Surely there is a fact of the matter about why Carlyle used the phrase, independent of whether many people suppose something else erroneously. Austinecon (talk) 17:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The overwhelming majority of economists who have read Carlyle's essay have come to the same conclusion. While it may be that they are all wrong and Levy is right, we need to present the mainstream interpretation, per WP:WEIGHT. Here is a link to Carlyle's essay. Carlyle does not say "I call it the dismal science because it opposes slavery" and in any case classical liberals were divided on slavery. He does say that under the principles of classical economics, the West Indies would have to experience famine before pre-emancipation levels of production would return. TFD (talk) 17:53, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

The references cited so far don't seem to be giving evidence of economists reading and giving an interpretation of Carlyle. Even the Mill reference just says, essentially, "19th century economics was depressing, and therefore it really deserves the moniker of 'dismal science,'" which is somewhat different. (You're right, the hypothetical quote you give does not appear in the Carlyle essay. But even setting aside the title, the paragraph where he first uses the phrase "dismal science" does refer to support for Black emancipation but does not refer to the iron law of wages or Malthusian population theory.) Do we have other references that suggest this is how Carlyle is in fact read by the overwhelming majority? If there are, they might be better citations.Austinecon (talk) 21:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

See for example Diane Coyle's The Soulful Science: What Economists Really Do and Why It Matters, Princeton University Press, 2010, p.42. "[Malthus' "Essay on the principle of population"] earned economics the description the "dismal science" from historian Thomas Carlyle."[23] I notice that the source you originally provided was from the Library of Economics and Liberty. Sources like that tend to present an alternative view to the mainstream. While these views may in fact be correct and the mainstream views wrong, Wikipedia policy requires that we assign greater weight to mainstream views. Levy appears to be arguing the libertarian view that slavery was a remnant of feudalism and not part of capitalism. Carlyle is a convenient scapegoat for the system which was supported by Jefferson and Jackson. TFD (talk) 03:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Not my link. (Though much of Econlib seems to be fairly standard stuff. Not that it doesn't sometimes have a POV (though which POV will vary), but I wouldn't call it generically heterodox in the profession.) Do we have a cite that deals with the Carlyle text directly, or (in the interest of being mainstream) doesn't refer to modern economics as "autistic economics" at the same link?Austinecon (talk) 05:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The source(s) provided are adequate to support the text. If you want to persue this further, I suggest you take it to a noticeboard. But it seems a waste of time to promote an unusual and unnoticed reading of Carlyle that contradicts mainstream consensus. Having read Carlyle's article, I am puzzled by Levy's conclusions. TFD (talk) 06:51, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

If you read Carlyle's article, you will see that it is solely about the foolishness of opposing slavery, and that it does not even mention Say, Ricardo, or Smith, as the Wikipedia article currently and falsely implies. He says that supply and demand don't work in the slavery context, because former slaves are too lazy to work on their own given that pumpkins are so plentiful in the West Indies. (Yes, he really was that racist.) In any event, the fact that "mainstream" people have sugarcoated Carlyle's views does not excuse the incorporation of obvious falsehoods into Wikipedia articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.204.86.141 (talk) 15:31, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Policy requires us to use the mainstream interpretation regardless of whether or not it is wrong. If you disagree with that approach, then you need to persuade Wikipedia to change its policies. TFD (talk) 17:09, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I will open a dispute resolution noticeboard. We are challenging your view that the current interpretation is either correct or "mainstream," meaning it is accepted by most experts. Also, I believe TFD is slightly misrepresenting Wikipedia's policy: just because a lot of people, even most, believe something does not mean it is what should be on Wikipedia if it cannot be sourced as the consensus view of experts. ZG (talk) 20:59, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

The actual source of the quote being referenced is a better cite than someone's opinion about the quote. Really, this whole section looks like someone simply decided to restate one particular book's opinion on the matter, rather then seeking a variety of mainstream views. I suppose that's one of the reasons the article's POV is questioned above.151.151.109.5 (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

There's no evidence of a "mainstream interpretation" other than Mills' one-sided critique of economics as a profession. Moreover, the "mainstream" is often wrong -- if the "mainstream" falsely attributes a quotation to Mark Twain (as is often the case), it is a completely stupid rule to say that the "mainstream" and FALSE opinion should be what is represented as the truth on Wikipedia. So please, stop pushing stupidity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.204.86.141 (talk) 19:36, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

If you wish to challenge policy then present your arguments there. Your source says it is a mainstream view and he wrote the article to show that the mainstream view is wrong. When he succeeds, let me know. TFD (talk) 21:11, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

As I read the Occasional Discourse on the Negro Question (a few years ago), Carlyle considers economics "dismal" not because it's pessimistic (does the essay touch on Malthus at all?) nor simply because it's an argument against slavery (that would imply that Carlyle considered slavery good in itself rather than for its benefits), but because by reducing everything to numbers it blinds its practitioners to the intangible spiritual benefits of a cherished institution (such as his topic at hand, slavery) — a view akin to that of the joke "An economist is one who knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing." —Tamfang (talk) 21:43, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Our article dismal science sucks and needs love. Fifelfoo (talk) 07:39, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution Noticeboard

This article is being discussed at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Classical Liberalism. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:44, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

In the course of the edit war, the paragraph has greatly diverged from the cited sources. For example, the paragraph cites Richardson for the claim that "Utility...became the central ethical value of all liberalism." What Richardson says is, "It is occasionally quesioned whether utilitarianism should be included within liberalism."

In light of what was said at the Dispute resolution noticeboard, I suggest the following replacement for the disputed paragraph:

"Most modern liberals cite utilitarianism as a rationale for the public policies they recommend. This broke both with conservative "tradition" and Lockean "natural rights", which utilitarians argued were irrational. Although utilitarianism inspired wide-ranging reforms, it was also used as a justification for laissez-faire economics, which entered the public discourse not in the moderate form expressed by classical economists, but in a dogmatic version that cited Thomas Malthus to agrue that population expansion rendered all attempts to help the poor ineffectual. According to this dogmatic version of laissez-faire, the only possible economic approach was for the government to refrain from trying to solve social problems. The Poor Law Amendment Act 1834 was defended on "scientific or economic principals" while the authors of the Elizabethan Poor Law of 1601 were seen as not having had the benefit of reading Malthus.. This view led Thomas Carlyle to write "the Social Science ... which finds the secret of this universe in 'supply-and-demand,' and reduces the duty of human governors to that of letting men alone, is ... a dreary, desolate, and indeed quite abject and distressing one; what we might call, by way of eminence, the dismal science." Rick Norwood (talk) 19:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for attempting a compromise. As I understand it, you are recommending a direct quote from a primary source, allowing the reader to decide how it should be interpreted. I do not find that beneficial however because it entails selecting what part of the available primary sources to use, which is choosing an interpretation. I also think that WP:WEIGHT precludes us from even considering the views of tiny minorities when there is a mainstream consensus. We would not say for example in a section in an article about giraffes explaining their evolution, that some biologists believe that they were actually created in their present form 6,000 years ago, although we might mention that some biologists question evolution in an article about evolution. TFD (talk) 19:34, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Your analogy seems strained. Carlyle said what he said, and what he said is relevant to this article. The fact that what he said has often been misinterpreted is at best a footnote, and not relevant to this article. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Bodily integrity

An editor added "bodily integrity" to the first sentence of Classical liberalism#Overview so it would read "Classical liberalism places a particular emphasis on the sovereignty of the individual, with private property and bodily integrity".[24] This seems unneccessary, because sovereignty of the individual is defined is defined as "the concept of property in one's own person, expressed as the moral or natural right of a person to have bodily integrity". Classical liberalism did not emphasize bodily integrity any more than it emphasizes private property. Rather it emphasized the individual's right to bodily integrity and the individual's right to private property. Also it has not been established that the term "bodily integrity" is widely used and therefore there is no reason to include it. TFD (talk) 19:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I concur. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:53, 9 June 2012 (UTC)