Talk:Liberalism/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about Liberalism. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

Remark by KDRGibby

Who, the heck has been screwing up the Liberalism page? Its totally destroyed. You've turned it from the meaning of the ideology liberalism to a mirad of understandings based on societies across the globe. Liberalism does not actually include keynesian policies, or wealth transfers. I originally left that alone so long as I was allowed to include the actual and original definition and supporting evidence from three real liberal economists, Hayek, Friedman, Von Mises, but even that has been deleted by the revisionists. Stop deleting it because it doesnt fit with your macroeconomist-American revsionist view of liberalism. I have not posted bias, I had posted fact. Check out their books and read them yourself! -Patrick R. Gibbons

The truth the macroeconomist socialsts keep deleting is as follows. AND NEEDS TO BE PUT BACK INTO THE ARTICLE OTHERWISE IT IS A BIASED ACCOUNT GIVING ONLY ONE SIDE and not even the original ideological theory behind liberalism...

- Some liberals, including Fredrich Von Hayek, Milton Friedman, and Von Mises, argued that the great depression was not a result of "laissez-faire" capitalism but a result of too much government intervention and regulation upon the market but also that such intervention can and will lead to international conflict (World War I and World War II) but the rise of totalitarian regimes and the loss of political and civil freedoms. Hayek's work The Road to Serfdom remains influential, argued against these "Keynesian" institutions, believing that they can and will lead to the same totalitarian governments Keynesians were attempting to avoid. Hayek saw authoritarian regimes such as the fascist, Nazis, and communists, as the same totalitarian branch that sought the elimination of economic freedom. To him the elimination of economic freedom brought about the elimination of political freedom. Thus the differences between Nazis and communists are only rhetorical. The same outcomes could occur in Britain (or anywhere else) if the state sought to control the economic freedom of the individual with the policy prescriptions outlined by people like Dewey, Keynes, or Roosevelt.

- The term "liberal" is considered to have derived from this time period with its origination stemming from the belief in individual freedom, economic freedom (including free markets), and limited representative government. This original understanding of the word "liberal" carries the same meaning in many parts of the world, but in others (such as the United States) the meaning and ideology behind Liberalism is ironically the exact opposite (welfare state, tariffs, heavy intervention and regulation into the economy, wage and price controls)of its original meaning.

-

Hayek, in his book the Road to Serfdom, believed that the rise of totalitarian regimes, whether they be communist, fascist, or Nazi, were the result of the restriction of economic freedom. Economic freedom was, thus, restricted by government intervention and regulation of the economy. The more economic freedom that was lost, he said, the more civil and political freedom would be lost as well.

Dear Patrick, please read the talk pages. This is not an article about classical liberalism, but about liberalism, which has a broad meaning. The article tries to outline the meaning of the word. You might not like social liberalism, but it is a fact that it a form of liberalism. I protected the page, since you were reverting the page often. You are now vandalizing the page. I will unprotect the page soon, but please stop imposing your view. Electionworld 19:10, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

EXACTLY RIGHT! BUT liberalism has ONLY ONE MEANING! This is an article about LIBERALISM...it only became classic liberalism after people perverted the meaning of liberalism. If you want to explain modern revised liberalism MAKE ANOTHER PAGE instead of destroying a perfectly good page because a few left leaning socialists like calling themselves liberals.

You keep deleting everything I've posted which is accurate and cited understandings of world events. You keep deleting a side of the story you don’t want to see because you prefer the macroeconomic explanation. THIS IS BIAS!!!!!!!!!!!!

I haven’t vandalized the page, I've been trying to revert it back to what it was about 2 months ago, which was correct! But before I did that, I left your inaccurate information alone and re-added the correct now classic interpretation which keeps getting deleted.

If you are so concerned with bias, leave it in and then try to explain why its wrong. I originally left your macro interpretation alone and put in the micro understanding which demonstrated the fallacious nature of macro beliefs. You are censoring not helping. You are making everyone who reads this get a biased one sided view. I am not surprised however, I have noticed that macro loving people are often very deceptive in their presentation of information just as their own policy preferences are deceptive to market information.

The word "liberalism", indeed, has only one meaning. Your idea of it, however, is not that one meaning. Meaning: one who advocates liberty of individuals in government policy. Lucidish 21:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

1) Please sign your posts.

2) Anyone who does not agree that your view is the one and only true view is obviously biased against you.

3) This has all been discussed here many times. Your ideas have been incorporated into the article. So have the ideas of others. We are working to present all major forms of liberalism, not just one.

4) In fact, all liberal governments in the world today accept social liberalism to a greater or lesser extent. To eliminate liberalism as the word is used and practiced from an article on liberalism would be to omit far more than half the story.

5) Your theories of liberalism are all theories. Maybe governments caused the Great Depression, maybe not. Certainly modern liberalism has avoided the extremes that occurred during the Great Depression. Maybe social liberalism caused World Wars I and II, maybe not. Certainly modern liberalism has avoided World War III.

6) You describe your fellow wikipedians as "a few left leaning socialists (who) like calling themselves liberals." You are confused about who are the few and who are the many. Vandalism is not going to help. Rick Norwood 21:12, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Patrick, please sign your comments and place at the bottom, as everybody does. If you follow the development of the article a lot of editors of diverse identity try to make an well balanced article that gives attention to the various forms of liberalism. Your edits were clearly not neutral. E.g. you deleted the reference to social liberalism and I can see you dislike other forms of liberalism, but it is a reality. BTW, I am not a left leaning socialist and I am not from the USA. I am a European liberal recognizing that liberalism is pluriform. Electionworld 21:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

the Liberalism page is not about actual liberalism it is about American liberalism since 1933 with alittle bit of the origin but non of the actual liberalism since 1933 and that is eximplified by the elimination of Hayek, Friedman explinations on issues such as the great depression.

I did not "vandalize" until my posts, very fair posts, were deleted. I felt the only appropriate option was thus to delete the portions of the article that were not consistent with actual liberalism. By deleting FA Hayek's explination on why the market did not fail but governments did you are in fact showing that only your macroeconomist "modern" liberal (aka perverted liberal) viewpoint is the correct one and the only one worthy of being viewed by the public. Somehow Keynes explination is fact and unbiased by Hayek's is not? GIve me a break you guys are full of it and don't even know what you are talking about. I bet you guys dont even know what the definition of BIAS is!

"modern" liberalism is a perversion of what liberalism actually was and is. Liberalism is not pluriform. Liberalism has a very defined but inclusive definition. "Social Liberalism" is redundant if you actually understood what you talked about.

Liberalism is the belief in limited governments, individual rights, free markets, private property. It is that and only that. Gay rights, civil rights, free speech, religious freedom, capitalism, etc all derive from the the collection of individual rights, free markets, limited government, private property...NOT FROM BROKEN DOWN AND PERVERTED definitions of liberalism.

If you expand government power, continually regulate and over regulate, advocate fixed exchange rates, wealth transfers, "progressive" income taxes, ABC agencies, minimum wages, universal healthcare, government run enterprise, price caps, tariffs, quotas...YOU ARE NOT A LIBERAL! Those are ILLIBERAL. Most of your entire article is about illiberal polices and explinations. -GIBBY-

It is possible to discuss things with Hogeye, who also has strong views. From what you have written above, it does not seem possible to discuss things with you. You do not respond to any of the comments you have received. You simply restate, over and over, that you are right and everybody who disagrees with you is wrong. Let me point out again that at best your views are theoretical liberalism, without any reference to liberalism as it is actually practiced in the world today. Rick Norwood 13:14, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I have every interest in keeping Hayek, Smith, and so on in the article. They were important thinkers.

But you admit that certain things, capitalism for example, are derived from liberal ideas. But what you aren't seeing is that, to social liberals, notions of welfare and positive rights actually originate out of the same ideas. Namely, the protection of the person's freedom from harm. That is why social liberalism can be considered part of the same tradition. Lucidish 17:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Gibby, what you are writing about is what we are calling economic liberalism in the article. Historically, the early liberals (aka classical liberals) were economic liberals. But the meaning of "liberal" has shifted considerably (some would say 180 degrees) since then. Nowadays "liberal" means what we (in the article) call "social liberalism."

Basically, I agree with you that the original meaning of liberalism has been "perverted" from its original classical sense. But, hey, that's how people use the term today, so we have to acknowlege that in an encyclopedia article. There is something you can help with in this regard - some research. There is some question on when social liberalism started (or became significant). Rick opines that it was in the late 1700's, and I think it wasn't until the 1800's.

So here's an interesting question: who was the first social liberal thinker/writer? (I.e. Who's the culprit who began the perversion of liberalism?) I'm not sure. My tentative theory is that John Stewart Mill may deserve the honor/blame. Although in his early days (when he wrote "On Liberty") he sounded like an economic liberal, his utilitarianism in effect founded social liberalism. Then again, while he supplied the ammunition (utilitarianism), it is not clear that he himself was ever a social liberal. To solve this historical question, we need to find the first liberal to endorse government education and/or "poor laws" (govt welfare for the poor). Can you find the culprit and a supporting quote?

By the way, your comments about Hayek, Friedman, Mises, Keynesianism are right on, and should probably be included in e.g. a section on modern economic liberalism, or in the economic liberalism article. Or the article on libertarianism. Face it, the authoritarians have captured the term "liberal" - that's a done deal. Nowadays, economic liberals generally call themselves "libertarians." (A term captured from anarcho-socialists - but that's another story.) Hogeye 17:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I know I only rephrase things, I get that complaint on other boards but there is a very simple reason...there is only one liberalism. Any other form is simply a confusion or perversion from that. If you advocate wealth transfers and claim you are a liberal you do not understand the concept of general welfare. Wealth transfers reduce the general welfare. Liberals are supposed to seek to maximize it.

Today we have so called liberals advocating wealth transfers, progressive income tax (essentially a robbery of property), war, price controls, wage controls etc. Again, those are very illiberal. And there is a good reason why "liberals" advocate this in political practice. Politicians only interest is re-election, not following ideological tenets. Along time ago some people got upset that liberalism wasn’t building enough wealth quick enough. They were upset that poor remained, that in some places working conditions were poor.

It is those people who seemed to think that Liberalism and capitalism that thrived under it created more poor when it had in fact only created more visible poor by reducing the number of poor and increasing the number of well off. Instead of looking at how liberalism was put into practice by those in power they engaged a logically fallacious line of reasoning and blamed liberalism and capitalism itself.

They sought wealth transfers, progressive income taxes, corporate taxes, tariffs, non-tariff barriers, wage and price controls, regulated industries...a host of regulatory agencies. ALL OF THIS PERVERTS THE WAY THE MARKET OPERATES and liberals believe in free markets, economic freedom, and individual freedom. Yet all of this was destroyed or reduced because of this expansion of governmental power. You can not be a true liberal and advocate this.

The problem with "liberalism" in practice is that it is only a pretender. Politicians pretend to help the people to get themselves re-elected. They will keep with the logically fallacious programs and agencies because the people, like yourself, seem to think they work to the benefit of all. But none of this is liberalism. This is some degree of socialism. It is only called liberalism to make people think we are a free market capitalistic country. There are graduate students at my school who seem to think this. Europeans even believe America is the bastion of liberalism. But we have a country that asks Japan for voluntary import restraints, we have 350% tariffs on tobacco, 120% tariffs on sugar (i wont name them all), we have a tax system that increases the price of goods 22% because taxes must be paid at all levels of production, then the taxpayer pays approximately 45% of his or her income to the government, with each payment withheld from our checks like we don’t even own the money we earned. We have a mandatory social security wealth transfer program that is highly regressive and takes money from the poor to give to the rich. We have a host of laws that restrict what we can buy, how we can use our property. We spend billions of dollars to subsidize corporations; our government just ok'd an increase on subsidies for farms which will now go up to $180 billion a year. These subsidize include payments for not using the farm land (so food prices go up)...most of our politicians by the way own these ranches and farms and get a nice supplementary income from this law they put in...but then we have to spend $45 billion a year on food stamps so the poor can buy food. Then the fallacious reasoning kicks in and people demand the government raise the minimum wage, but that never helps the poor, it does help increase the price of goods and the number of unemployed however. We have a country that spends 1 trillion a year in transfer payments and this is untouchable from our own governments budgetary process. We have a country that borrows $500 billion a year to fight aggressive wars of expansion and that cost will be passed down to my children and grand children. We have a country that has a national debt that increases by $1.2 million dollars a minute, and a country run by so called free market, individual freedom loving Republicans who haven’t showed any sign of reducing tariffs, promoting free trade, increasing individual freedom, or balancing the freaking budget.

If you want to make a page about liberalism in practice IT SHOULD NOT BE ON THE PAGE ABOUT THE THEORY OF LIBERALISM. You keep making my point for me. How many of you are fooled by political rhetoric? That is all the practice of liberalism has been. And you all have fallen for it.

The practice of liberalism will only be whatever the politicians in Washington or London or whoever deem them to be so far as they can get elected.

The theory of liberalism will only become practice once we figure out a way to alter the payoff matrix of politicans to follow what they rhetorically claim to follow.

Again, make a seperate page for "Liberalism" in practice. THat is where you can put all the political propoganda you believe in.

-Gibby

And rick I did not write "fuck you and your momma" that is another IP address. Although, "fuck you and your momma" is more politically and historically accurate than calling Greens liberals...I did however put Classic Liberalism in there and I'd prefer it if you would leave it in there. Classical liberalism still remains.

-Gibby

---

Gibby, you are right when you talk about classical or even economical liberalism, but liberalism developed in the nineteenth and twentieth century. The same happened with socialists, some became communists, other became social democrats. You cannot ignore this development. If you don't like it, publish an article in any magazine, but this is an encyclopedia. BTW As a European I do not consider the USA a liberal state, since it is is highly protectionist and accepts capital punishment (death penalty) en does not really fight against poverty. One cannot make free choices if one is starving. Electionworld 22:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

If I could butt in here. The majority of Liberals (lets use members of the Liberal party of Great Britain up to 1914 as a basic defintion) supported the death penalty, because they believed in a thing called justice, or 'liberty under the law'. Also the U.S.A is less protectionist than the EU so I would humbly suggest you have no idea what you are talking about. 81.110.202.57 15:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC) ---

there is a major difference between development and perversion. Pop culture America uses "GAY" to mean stupid. And the Gay community wants to take that back. When in fact "GAY" once ment happy but they took that. Words have meanings people. Are we going to use the proper meaning or just make things up as we go along?

They have destroyed the meaning. You cannot have free markets with regulated interference. Period. Liberals don't believe in using government intervention to fight poverty. And seriously, have you been to the U.S. we spend $40 billion year on food stamps. And nearly $300 billion on transfer payments to the poor. Billions more on housing subsidies... This is what the perverted "liberals" think is helping poverty. My country has spent..actually i forget the number, but its in the trillions of dollars in the "War on Poverty" of course government regulations and interference into the market don't remove poverty it only creates MORE PROBLEMS. Real liberals know this. There are only a small percentage of people that are real liberals. The rest are liberals because they've been convinced by rhetoric or propoganda or they just like to deceive. - Gibby

---

Yes, but lanugage and concepts develop and do change over time. This is a fact of history. It seems clear that in the US a group of people consider Liberalism to be something very different to those countries which practice and develop liberalist ideas. The example of the subsidies to the poor which you cite seem impressive, until you divide the number of recipients by the numbers of dollors involved. An illustration is this, if you are born black and poor in New York, for example, you are more likely to die before the age of 3 than a child born in the poorest part of India. So all those dollers being spent, may not be sufficient or effective, they just represent a big number as opposed to an effective foce of Liberal thinking.

It is a very simple fact that Liberalism, cannot by its very nature be defined in the simple historic way you would like it to be. It is a dinamic concept, just like every other form of political and linguistic concept. It is in fact what Charles Darwin would call "Evolution".

Richard

Yes, so the word FAG should mean stupid and gay people should get over it and move on. Fine I agree! Communists should stop complaining because well their ideology killed 300 million people and saying "Oh it developed into something different" just isnt a good enough excuse.

The fact is, liberalism is a word whose meaning has been perverted by ignorant people who don't understand the meaning. Its original meaning is still widly accepted around most of the world.

And your black fact is most obsurd. And no, the wealth transfer dollars actually hurt the poor by driving up costs, slowing the economy, which eliminates jobs, while also providing strong disencentives toward wealth building behavior. Helping the poor is a noble goal, the way we do it today helps no one. (Gibby 08:43, 3 January 2006 (UTC))

Remarks by KDRGibby Part Duex

Think about it guys... you believe liberalism has many different meanings...dispite think its one ideology. Ok, now lets take the logic train down the track guys. How many communists believe in free markets? If someone believed in free markets and said they were communist are they communist? The answer is no.

Free markets are a major part of liberalism. Without free markets you arent a real liberal...you're a conservative or a socialist or a monarchist, anything but a liberal. Having NO MARKETS is required to be a communist, just has having free markets is required to be a liberal.

Words have meanings gentlemen.

-Gibby

Repeat: to social liberals, notions of welfare and positive rights actually originate out of respect for individual rights. Namely, the protection of the individual's freedom from harm. That is why social liberalism can be considered part of the same tradition. If it were not so, they would not be liberals.

Along the same vein, even social liberals do believe in free markets. It is on that basis that more left-leaning philosophies criticize them on fair-market grounds. However, for social liberals - nay, most liberals, period - mere regulation doesn't interfere with the free market. The dicy issues come up when considering things like price controls, which seems to cross a line between regulation and micromanagement.

Something to consider: Hayek promoted limited regulation; Smith promoted graduated taxation. These are the icons of classic liberalism, and they advocated that which laissez-faire liberals would abhor. What does this tell you about the meaning of liberalism? Lucidish 03:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

When liberalism originated liberals understood what welfare was. The socialists that followed did not understand welfare, and thus advocated wealth transfers as part of their policy perscription for solving social justice problems.

WELFARE DOES NOT MEAN WEALTH TRANSFERS. Those are socialist aspects. Welfare means the good of the people. Wealth transfers do not promote or increase the welfare of the people. At best society is no better off.

Regulation does interfere with the free market. Those who say otherwise are dillusional...or they ignore the effects because they prefer a certain political outcome. Regulation and intervention often causes very serious damange to the market economy. Ironically this damage is often blamed on the market itself when its not even being allowed to work. See Liberalism and your explination of the great depression for that. Again, its a blame the market first response.

Macroeconomic policies are in fact micromanagement. Its not precesily what Keynes advocated but that is what developed, and what developed was far more related to socialism than liberalism.

Fair trade "liberals" are not liberals. Again, they suffer from a misunderstanding of market operations. Often these people call free markets exploitive and if they did understand the market they would understand that free markets cannot be exploitive by their very definition. Again, Fair Trade advocates are socialist not liberal.

As far as FA Hayek supporting graduated taxes I have not heard of such a thing, so I can't respond.

I don't think that your swift dismissal of wealth transfers can be supported by any of the social science done. American Social Security, for instance, has during its lifetime provided minimal income for the elderly. I don't think anyone really disputes that. What people dispute is by what right this system is set up, the feasibility of a Ponzi-like system, etc. But that's a very different kind of claim to the one you're making, if you're simply talking about welfare. Unless you mean long-term welfare, and have an elaborate story about how SS will destroy the economy, etc etc., but still what's necessary to point out is that you have to make that argument on the basis of counterfactual speculation, and not social science. (Though prudence demands we take both seriously.)

One counterclaim is that some limited regulation is what keeps monopolies in check, and so, keeps a free market free. Remember, the threats to a free market come from two directions: both from consolidation in the public AND the private sector. And liberals of all stripes have been very concerned about both.

I agree that "fair trade" notions don't seem to fit with social liberalism. I said as much.

Reread my comments. I said: "Hayek promoted limited regulation; Smith promoted graduated taxation". Nothing about Hayek promoting graduated taxation. If you want to know about how he promoted regulation, just read the older copies of the Road to Serfdom. Lucidish 19:52, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Social Security is a horrible horrible program. The vast majority of social security recipients are more wealthy than the people paying them! Social security is a perverse and regressive wealth redistrobution scheme. Just like Tariffs and quotas, social security redistrobutes wealth from the poor to the rich.

Social security won't last because the workforce will be unable to support it without raising taxes further. But this simply requires the raising of taxes on the next generation to pay for the current payees. If nothing is done to raise taxes or lower benefits, my generation will, on average lose $300,000 in our social security "account". Social security needs to be eliminated, period.

No wealth transfer makes society better off. If there are two people and $2 in a society and one person controlls all that wealth but gives up $1 to the other person, how many $ do you have. THe correct answer is $2. Society has not gotten better off. But in the real world its not that easy. YOu have government officials involved in the trasnfer of that money, a tax system that must be run, defended, and accounted for. And of course people must take the time to pay those taxes (Compliance costs). Making societ worse off because of this transfer of wealth!

I believe that problems with markets are far less than problems with government over-regulation. People like you dont downplay government externalities you ignore them. You wont even go into, let alone know or even bother to understand, the disencentive effects that follow wealth transfers like America's wellfare program.

I've read the Road to Serfdom, I've read Free to Choose, they arent advocating anarcho capitalism, and neither am I. I'm saying, just like them, that we have WAY TOO MUCH REGULATION. SO much that it harms the operation of the market, creates more poverty and unemployment than would be otherwise, contributes to a long lasting nature of racism and bigotry... I dont know where you stand, but I dont think you've paid attention to me. You here deregulate and you think eliminate. I dont advocate the elimination of the government just a massive reduction in its ability and responsibility. -- Gibby

"The vast majority of social security recipients are more wealthy than the people paying them" -- so presumably you admit that the elderly of today have more money than they did prior to SS. Very good. That was my point, and it was in reply to the comments of yours that I was interested in rebutting.

"I believe that problems with markets are far less than problems with government over-regulation." This sounds quite a bit closer to a position that Hayek would endorse. But compare this with the statement "the free market is inherently fair". There is a gulf of meaning between the two. If, indeed, you don't think I've paid attention to you, then I can only say I'm sorry, and that I have tried; and I hope the fact that I've quoted you twice above shows that I am paying attention to what you have written.

I don't appreciate being accused of positions that I do not hold, especially when the accusation is made on the basis of the opinions of others, who are ostensibly "like me". You don't know what I'm like, since I haven't given you the opportunity to find that out. In any case, nowhere will you find me saying on this page that government never does very bad, very wasteful things. They do. I am an equal-opportunity blamer when it comes to those who have vast amounts of unchecked power, whether they be in the private or public sectors. That's one of the key maxims that you'll find in the Oxford Manifesto of '47. Lucidish 18:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

The vast majority of SS reciepients are more wealthy than the people paying into them. Wealth is more than money. You did not make your point. You have failed in your point. The elderly are not better off because of social security they are better off because we have a market that operates somewhat better than it did 50 years ago!

The free market is fair. You appear to assume, (maybe because you read too much Stiglitz) that the Free Market implies total and complete freedom from government. It does not. Free Markets as argued imply freedom from coercion. You simply need to have incentives structured in such away as to discourage cheating, fraud, and coercion. A government can be used but it does not have to be used. As it stands today, governments create much of the coercive forces that disrupt or distort information in the market...thus making it not work well or not work at all...because of regulations, trade barrires, capital controls, wage controls, price controls...

Thus free markets are fair. When you are free from coercion you make arrangements that are mutually beneficial (or where you are not harmed). Thus none exploitive. Thus fair. Thus thus thus thus thus...Free Trade is Fair Trade. (Gibby 08:47, 11 December 2005 (UTC))

Part III

Re: SS, you need to provide statistical surveys by peer-reviewed publications which try to make the same point. Then and only then will we have come around to the reason I brought it up; empirical considerations of welfare.

I did not presume the laissez-faire formulation of free markets. Rather, I was attempting to interpret you in a way that would make sense of your position. I did this because otherwise you would have obviously failed to actually challenge the social liberal position on issues of regulation and graduated taxation on the basis of a classical liberal position. And, note, these are two issues which the social liberal fully agrees are compatible with free markets.

An aside: arguably, "freedom from coercion" is a poor criterion for anything we want to discuss. The government coerces (jails) those who coerce others (theives). Hence, the government coerces in the name of law and freedom: the question is whether or not their coercive tendencies are just or unjust. This is not necessarily something that the classic literature likes to admit, but it's nonetheless cogent as an objection. Also at issue is the definition of "fair" according to classic theorists, and how much it really does match with yours.

Even so, since the phrase "free market" is compatible with both laissez-faire and regulatory formulations, it is too vague for our purposes. When you say "the free market is inherantly fair", I can only reply "maybe", at best; because I don't know which kind of free market you're talking about. And even then, it requires a very particular reading of the literature to tease out whether or not Hayek (for instance) thought that regulatory corrections would spontaniously make the market "fair", or would merely provide slapshod corrections to unfairnesses. Lucidish 18:34, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

What are your empirical considerations of welfare? That it does not make society better off? It doesnt require any source to figure that out. Simple logic would sufice. Welfare as we know it today, is the shuffeling of existing wealth. This means that society, at best, gets no better off. The problem is, there are transaction costs, that deplete that wealth. Thus welfare actually makes society worse off. You cannot eliminate poverty by suffling around existing wealth you can only eliminate poverty by building new wealth!

I do not understand how you can support coercive wealth transfers and be in support of the free market unless you were doing so to be politically rational (ie move free market along now get rid of transfer payments later as the market builds wealth and people no longer see a need).

If you are in jail because you stole you violated someone elses rights through coercive force. Thus you give up your own. That is part of the incentive structure to keep people honest. Its called punishment. You are free so long as you dont violate the rights of others. I believe this has been said before.

The Free Market is not compatible with regulatory "formulations" the free market cannot function well when the government over regulates it. Regulations cause distortions in information thus creating externalities. Often very bad ones, because the government uses force to impose those policies, whereas a market could at least attempt to correct, and possibly correct the externality once it was aware of it. Where the market could not become aware of this externality, the government could (instead of imposing regulations) enforce information disclosure...aka help bring the information to the market, rather that regulating existing information.

When people talk about the free market (ie the people who believe in it) understand that it is only free because you structure incentives in such a way as to keep all individuals involved free from harm that can be caused by others (coercive forces). Free Trade is voluntary trade. Thus fair. The source of the incentive structure could be government, or it could be private arrangements where no government is needed. Eitherway, it is not free, in the sense of the Stiglitz minded straw man critics who think freedom means the will do to whatever one wants regardless of other people. (Gibby 18:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC))

Here is the original claim I made. "I don't think that your swift dismissal of wealth transfers can be supported by any of the social science done. American Social Security, for instance, has during its lifetime provided minimal income for the elderly. I don't think anyone really disputes that." Do you care to dispute it or not? If you do, nothing will suffice except the facts.

Logic, as in deductive validity, has scarcely any significance on its own. Take the following argument: "All eskimos are redheads. All redheads are dead gods. Therefore, all eskimos are dead gods." This is a perfectly valid, and perfectly logical, argument (insofar as we're concerned with what logic, at core, contributes to the analysis of it). But empirically, it is bullshit.

Now you speak of "rights", instead of "freedom from coercion". In doing so, you've done exactly what I said you've done in the last part: namely, appealed to justification of your coercive acts, instead of abstaining from coercion.

First you tell me that regulation is awful, then you say it is okay, and then in the most recent post, you say it is awful again. Well, which is it?

Also, you talk of "over-regulation" as if it were obvious what that meant; but I don't know where you mean for the line between regulation and excess is supposed to be drawn.

We know what Hayek would say on regulation. He would admit it being a practical measure. Additionally, as it turns out, he has a very different idea than you do about "fairness", as he would applaud the goals of SS-style systems. See more of my citations and passages in the next section for evidence.

So by your reading, was he in support of wealth transfers, and hence, against free markets? Or were his recommendations compatible with free market ideas? Lucidish 00:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

(Aside:) From Gibby's remark above "…the shuffeling of existing wealth. This means that society, at best, gets no better off…" Wow. Quite a claim. So if we have, to take an oversimplified but illustrative example, a town in which half the people are millionaires and half are homeless and starving, and 2% of the wealth transferred from the millionaires, which feeds and houses the rest, society is no better off? That's quite a view of society. I'd say it is one you can only arrive at by starting from ideology rather than observation. The welfare (in the older sense of the word) os a society cannot be measured simply from its total wealth regardless of questions of distribution. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Sourcing Hayek and Smith

But you don't have to take my word for it. Sources...

F Hayek, Road to Serfdom: "The successful use of competition does not preclude some types of government interference. For instance, to limit working hours or to require certain sanitary arrangements. An extensive system of social services is fully compatible with the preservation of competition. There are, too, certain fields where the system of competition is impracticable. For example, the harmful effects of deforestation or of the smoke of factories cannot be confined to the owner of the property in question. But a few exceptions do not prove that we should suppress competition where it can be made to function. To create conditions in which competition will be as effective as possible, to prevent fraud and deception, to break up monopolies - these tasks provide a wide and unquestioned field for state activity. This does not mean that it is possible to find some "middle way" between competition and central direction, though nothing seems at first more plausible, or is more likely to appeal to reasonable people. Although competition can bear some admixture of regulation, it cannot be combined with planning to any extent without ceasing to operate as an effective guide to production. Both competition and central direction become poor and inefficient tools if they are incomplete. A mixture of the two means that neither will work. Planning and competition can be combined only by planning for competition, not by planning against competition. The planning against which all our criticism is directed is solely the planning against competition." Lucidish 19:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

A Smith, Wealth of Nations, Book V Chapter II Pt II: ""The subjects of every state ought to contribute toward 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."

Smith includes the footnote: "See Sketches of the History of Man [1774, by Henry Home, Lord Kames vol.i.] page 4'74 & seq." This particular section of the Home work describes one of the rules of taxation as: " 'To remedy' inequality of riches 'as much as possible, by relieving the poor and burdening the rich."

Lucidish 20:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

And milton friedman has a perfect solution. Marketize polution by selling off polution rights. I dont, like Hayek and Friedman, deny that there are market externalities, which you are trying to trip me up on...won't work! Externalities are the result of information not being properly transmited to the market. By placing the costs of pollution out to everyone we can find out how much people really benefit or are hurt by things like polution.

As far as working conditions are concerned, the government can require buisnesses and industries to post their policies, including working conditions. That way the public can see and be concerned if they so wish. If the people wish to pay higher prices they will support better working conditions. But thats not to say the company won't improve things themselves if they discover that improved working conditions or lower howers leads to higher productivity.

But as it stands right now, government overregulation has helped cause more unemployement (with minimum wages for example) or lower yearly wages by forcing companies to pay overtime.

As far as your smith taxation is concerned, that can be easily and fairly achieved by instituting a sales tax rather than a highly discriminatory income tax.

Besidess, think of the historical times from which Smith is writing. The wealth aristocrats were generally exempt from taxation in Europe...and they didnt even have income taxes back then. This was a time when the poor paid taxes and supported the weight of the government from which the wealthy arisocrats helped rule... :p -Gibby

These are all arguments you can make, but they are not the arguments that these two iconic classical liberals made. Friedman may speak his own words on the matter; the point is that it is libertarian, and not classic liberal, thinking (as I see it, anyway).

This is not the time or place for excuses. Wikipedia exists to report what has been written; its mandate, encyclopedic. Lucidish 02:13, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

--- and what is written is that liberalism really means free markets... Not to mention these two liberal scholars are not arguing against the free market, they most certainly are arguing for it! (Gibby 07:06, 7 December 2005 (UTC))

Again: social liberals are arguing for free markets as well. They tend to insist, however, upon fair free markets. Lucidish 19:49, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Sillyness, the free market is inherently fair. Free markets revolve around voluntary cooperation. No body enters a voluntary compact unless they at least get no harm from it. Thus, its always fair! (Gibby 01:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC))

That may be what you believe. In your defense (and in my offense), Hayek certainly disagreed quite strongly (and explicitly) with the social liberal argument that freedom from necessity is a variety of freedom, for example. But IIRC, he wasn't under any illusions about the free market being a utopia or somesuch doggerel.

I wish I could cite pages on that, but there doesn't appear to be any e-text online, and I'm not going to be donating a penny to "Laissez-Faire Books", who seem to hold the rights to the book. (Amusingly, the laissez-faire outlook is one that Hayek explicitly mocks in Road to Serfdom). Lucidish 03:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I can now cite pages. Hayek's main criticism of formulations of "fair" or "just" markets have to do, markedly, with the vagueness of those terms. He also notes that vague laws place rule in the hands of their interpreters, which allows the state to drift away from the rule of law (p83-84; Road to Serfdom, 1944). Nothing there about claiming anything about free markets being inherantly fair. This shouldn't be surprising, since "Road" was written as a critique of central planning, not of regulation.

He also advocated SS-like measures. "It will be well to contrast at the outset the two kinds of security: the limited one, which can be achieved for all, and which is therefore no privilege but a legitimate object of desire; and the absolute security which in a free society cannot be achieved for all and which ought not to be given as a privilege - except in a few special instances... These two kinds of security are, first, security against severe physical privation, the certainty of a given minimum of sustenance for all; and secondly, the security of a given standard of life, or of the relative position which one person or group enjoys compared with others...

"There is no reason why in a society that has reached the general level of wealth which ours has attained, the first kind of security, should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom....

"Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist the individuals in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision. Where... we deal with genuinely insurable risks, the case for the state helping to organise a comprehensive system of social insurance is very strong." (p89-90: first page of chapter 9, titled "Security and Freedom")Lucidish 00:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

When did social liberalism begin?

I've challenged at least two editors to find 'the first' social liberal and a supporting quote. I've been saying that social liberalism began in the 19th century, but both the Wikipedia article on social liberalism and the following source say it's a 20th century thing.

In England economic liberalism became the foundation for an advocacy of free trade early in the nineteenth century by the Whig political party that became the Liberal Party later in the century. The Liberal Party in England declined early in the twentieth century to become displaced by the newly-formed Labour Party in the 1920s. By the middle of the nineteenth century, "liberalism" in economic literature implied a minimal role for government to play in the economy, the so-called "night-watchmen functions" described by John Stuart Mill. These included the establishment and enforcement of the "rules of the game," the protection of property rights, domestic law and order, national security, setting weights and measures, provision of money, etc.

Opposing nineteenth century economic liberalism was British conservatism which was identified with the propertied class and which valued the status quo of one's position and place in the class structure. Nineteenth century conservatives favored the protection of English agriculture by the "corn laws," with the state playing whatever role necessary to preserve the hegemony of the English ruling class against cheap imported grains. Pragmatism in the role of government thus was the eighteenth century province of the Tory Party, which became the Conservative Party in the nineteenth century.

In contrast to the twentieth-century orientation of liberals toward distributive justice, nineteenth century Whig liberalism seemed to be more concerned with procedural justice (free trade) than the fairness of the outcome. And in contrast to the twentieth-century orientation of conservatives toward procedural justice, the nineteenth-century Tories seemed more concerned with distributive justice, i.e., the fairness of a system that preserved their class status.

By the end of the nineteenth century, on both sides of the Atlantic social reformers had become concerned with the well-being of the disadvantaged of society and had concluded economic disadvantage to be attributable to the exploitative behavior of the privileged classes. The nineteenth-century liberal concern with the fairness of social processes gave way to a twentieth-century concern for the fairness of outcomes of social processes. Political liberals, taking up the concerns of social reformers, became ever more willing forgovernments to undertake the relief of social distress. By the late twentieth century, political liberalism had become manifested in paternalistic governments that seemed willing to assume responsibility for nearly all aspects of human existence. - R. Stanford, Liberalism and Social Justice

Hogeye 17:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

You can't go to Wiki as your source, that is bad scholarship! If we are having a problem with the way wiki is handling the definition of Liberalism you cant go to wiki to find evidence to defend what is already on there!

Now, this conversion has mostly been a 20th century thing...in name only. THe rise of socialists began in the late 1800s and steamed their way into the 1900s. They worked particularly well once they comendered the name Liberal for themself.

At any rate, these "liberals" becamse socialists. Von Mises noticed this shift 70 years ago...so called liberals who got to wrapped up in "social justice" and forgot about true liberalism. They became something else. You can call a car a boat, but it will still sink in the water because a car is a car. You can call socialism liberalism but it isnt going to do what it promised to do because liberalism is liberalism. You end up ruining liberalism by distorting information available to the market thus creating massive externalities that lead to inflation, deflation, devaluation, high prices, uncompetitive markets, concentrated wealth, more poverty, more unemployment. -Gibby

Gibby: "You can't go to Wiki as your source, that is bad scholarship!"

Yes, but Wiki should be internally consistent. The liberalism article should use the same definition of "social liberalism" as the social liberalism article.

Gibby: "Von Mises noticed this shift 70 years ago...so called liberals who got to wrapped up in "social justice" and forgot about true liberalism."

True, but face it, the social liberals successfully commandeered the term. For a while Milton Friedman and others tried calling themselves "true liberals" or "classical liberals." Then Murray Rothbard (Mises' student) came along and popularized the term "libertarian" to avoid this verbal argument. After all, wouldn't you rather talk about the real issues than argue over who gets "liberalism"? Especially since "libertarian" is such a well-known appellation. Hogeye 22:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

If social liberals had no reason for using the label, then they would be rightfully ignored, regardless of what the trends of the time were. Counterfactually, Gibby would be quite correct to point out that "social liberalism" is an oxymoron if it were decidedly the case that social liberals believed in planned economies. But they really don't.

I agree with Gibby that history is the first thing to consider when it comes to meanings; popular usage can be horribly mistaken or misleading. It's just that, counter to your position, it so happens that social liberalism is consistent with historical understanding.

It's a horrible thing when I feel pedantic enough to argue with your reasoning when I agree with your conclusion, and argue against Gibby when I disagree with his conclusion but argue with portions of his semantic reasoning. Lucidish 03:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually taking back the meaning of the word is a very important framing issue. It leaves modern "liberals" with their world literally turned upside down. They realize they are no longer the progressive forward looking people but the conservatives. Its a framing issue, that I've used against these socialists in debates at the graduate college that have left some students stunned. Its pyschological and it has a huge impact on them.

Plus I'm tired of having to call myself a Liberal and explain it to people...not to mention libertarians have a bad reputation as pot smokers and hippies in America. Which is clearly evident in the programs the campus libertarian club's do... No one takes them seriously because they put legalizing drugs above far more important issues. - Gibby

I agree that this has important consequences wrt framing. That should not, however, rationally dictate what goes and what stays. The point is that there is a rationale for social liberals calling themselves a species of liberal. That rationale has been presented: that welfare is regarded as an advanced form of protecting the rights of individuals. Social liberals are, indeed, not the only species of liberal; that is a popular misunderstanding in America. However, liberalism does not logically exclude social liberalism, either.

I cannot comment about the popularity or unpopularity of libertarians except with a shrug. Opinions about active political ideologies are frequently based on prejudice and misinformation. This is the case toward anyone on the spectrum, including libertarians. Lucidish 20:47, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I would say it differs per country when social liberalism started. I would say at the end of the 19th century (John Stuart Mill), not before. Electionworld 21:55, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I see that Electionworld got there before me, but, precisely: Mill. -- Jmabel | Talk 10:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Just looked it up for my country, the social liberal current in the liberal movement of the Netherlands started around the 1880s. Famous social liberals were the late prime ministers Pierson and Cort van der Linden (he was the last liberal prime minister during World War I). Electionworld 20:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

No social "liberalism" arose in the 1870s as a response to impoverished people who werent experiencing the same benefits from liberalism. They were progressive movements run by middleclass and upperclass elites in the name of the poor. They advocated tariffs to "protect jobs" graduated income taxes, wealth transfers, minimum wages, work regulations... It was socialism. These "progressives" saw a liberal society, and they saw more visiable poor and they questioned the program because the outcome did not suite the progress. What they failed to realize is that we needed more liberalism not less. But less is what we got. And now all you guys keep their propoganda up calling socialism liberalism. -Gibby

On further examination, I now think that, while Mill popularized what came to be called social liberalism, the very first known social liberal was his teacher, Jeremy Bentham. Bentham endorsed in various of his writings:

... to establish Poor Laws, hospitals for the indigent, workhouses for the unemployed; to levy taxes for redistribution purposes and to decrease the need for direct taxes; to recompense victims of crime when the perpetrator is indigent; to safeguard national security and establish courts and internal police; to disseminate useful information to industry; to label poisonous substances; to guarantee marks for quality and quantity on goods; to set a maximum price for corn; to provide security of subsistence by stock-piling grain or granary bounties to producers; to encourage investment in times of unemployment; to grant patents to inventors; to regulate banks and stockbrokers; to promote government annuities and a voluntary government insurance plan; to establish government banks; to establish and enforce a government monopoly on the issuance of paper currency; to engage in public works to put the unemployed to work; and, finally, to establish institutes, boards, and universities. Laissez Faire in Nineteenth-Century Britain: Fact or Myth?

So: What came to be called social liberalism was indeed born in the late 18th century. (Rick was right.) It didn't really become popular until the 19th century, largely due to Bentham's star student, John Stuart Mill. I highly recommend, for anyone interested, reading the essay linked above. Hogeye 23:47, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

You are entirely within reason to count Bentham as a social liberal. I tend to think of him as a precursor, rather than the thing itself, but I'm probably making an oversubtle distinction. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

--- if you really want a begining try the french revolution. They take some of the ideas of liberalism, mix it with a tyranny of the poor, and you have social liberalism in its ultimate...and violent...form.

:Dear anon: every form of tyranny is incompatible with liberalism, even with social liberalism :-). Electionworld 10:06, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

---

JSM was not the beggining of this "movement" it was already a highly populist movement by the 1870s JSM, like the socialists believed in using the government to help the poor and disadvantaged. Unlike socialists he remained staunchly against tariffs, which he viewed as robbery of the poor. Still, even after wanting heavy, and in my opinion, non liberal intervention, he still is against the use of coersion, such as forced retirment accounts like Social Security. I believe he does make the error in assuming price controls work, or saftey regulations are necessary. Nevertheless the degree of control he wishes to give to governments over the market is hardly anything close to what exists at present. Many liberals who retained their faith in the free market would have little problem with some of what he proposses as they already supported things like establishing courts, police, disseminating information, granting patents, protecting property, establishing a monopoly on the printing and issuing of paper money. The disagreements exist on the level of public works, public education, saftey regulation, and price controls (for corn!). Those are hardly justification for what we have today.

(Gibby 07:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC))

Liberalisms fine meaning...explained...again

Lucidish- Social liberals have a very good reason for using the word liberal. The word liberal is, and for good reason, associated with civil rights, human rights, progressive change (aka progress not the perversion that progressive requires socialist lines of reasoning), liberty, freedom, democracy...the list goes on and on. YOU WANT THAT ATTACHED TO YOU.

Look on the opposite sides. Conservative gets the stigma of being "backward looking" or someone that wants to fight progress. Also tends to be associated with war, violence, and racism.

Leftists, Socialists, and Communists in America were once associated with anarchy, violence, murder, bombings.

So what title would you take?

You'd take LIBERAL and get to keep the freedom, civil rights, progressive change (whether or not you can provide progress or not is another story) etc. You get all these positive things (which you guys are getting hung up on) while you change the very basic function of the definition which is free markets, limited government, and individual rights...the MOST IMPORTANT things about liberalism. Those are the very things that provided, created, and sustained, the freedoms civil rights, and progress we enjoy. But thats ignored, tossed out, and now they have you all focusing on the results as part of the definition rather than what created those results.

Do you see my point?

- Gibby

---

The word "conservative" has the connotations it does because of the direct meaning it has: to conserve what has happened in the past. Quite frankly the word is ideologically as meaningless to me in the same way that "radical" or "moderate" is meaningless. I would guess that others share this tendency, and that may be why it is difficult to convince people of more refined meanings of it up and beyond, as you put it, "backward-looking". It's simply in the etymology of the term.

Socialism and communism, if I'm correct, are still pariah terms in America, frequently with rational justifications. On the other hand, "liberal" garners split opinions, even among those who have some idea of what they're talking about.

Again, social liberals do support free markets as opposed to planned economies. They simply disagree that regulation or graduated taxation (for example) interfere with free markets. They also support individual rights: indeed, that is the entire basis for their support for social programs: that they are providing people with freedom from certain harm. "Limited government" is the only differentiating criterion here, which tends to clash the social liberal from the more laissez-faire liberal. And it is historically of great importance. But it seems to me that the idea of limited government is somewhat farther removed from the etymology of the word "liberal" than these other considerations.

That's where we part ways in our interpretation. Lucidish 21:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

--

And obviously this page has helped contribute to a meaningless definition of liberal. Now it means whatever the hell we want it to mean.

The level of disagreement that you are allowing is massive.

It is seriously like defining two disting groups of communists...one that supports markets and capital and the other that does not. Seriously guys, you are destroying and perverting the theory, ideology, history, and academic understanding of the word.

No, I don't think so, given the historical examples of classical liberals, and the formulation of social liberalism as congruent with liberalism on the whole, and etymology of the word liberalism (and how it emphasizes certain historical characteristics over others). In all three of these respects, the characteristics of the ideology as being "liberal" are pronounced, and it should be recognizable how social liberalism relates. Lucidish 18:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah, right. But they ripped off the word "liberal" over 60 years ago, and you can't get it back. It's a done deal. What do you have against "libertarian?" 70.178.26.242 05:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

nothing other than the association with drug use and anarchy...but we have a perfectly good term already available. Alls it requires is alittle education. Which none of you are helping to provide. You guys are writing down the rhetorical understandings rather than the historical factual understandings - Gibby

Free society?

Why does free society link here? JDR 19:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Probably because the goal society envisioned by liberals is often referred to as a free society. E.g. "In a free society, there would be no victimless crime laws." An open society is something else, having to do with accessibility to government. Hogeye 22:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Shouldn't it redirect to Open society? gonna change it ... JDR

Distinction?

What is the distinction between classic liberalism and classical liberalism? Electionworld 21:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Probably needs a mergeto and mergefrom tags in .... JDR 22:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

None - there is no difference in meaning. I've always used "classical liberal," and it gets more google hits than "classic liberal." (293,000 to 82,200) Classical liberal seems the more accepted term. Hogeye 22:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Somebody came along and changed it. I changed it back. They added a link. Sure, why not link to both. Rick Norwood 23:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

there is no difference both are used. I chose to use the classic rather than the classical one because someone had written stuff on Salmanca that I wasnt familiar with. So I left it alone. I've now taken the info from Classic and put it with Classical. I'm leaving CLassic alone in case Electionwood and Norwood decide to destroy the page like they did liberalism. -Gibby

Wow! Electionworld, did you know that we destroyed liberalism? Did we do it single handed, or did we have help? Rick Norwood 21:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I did we did it together with most of modern liberals around the world. I wonder, which poarty would fit into Gibby's definction of liberalismElectionworld 21:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Words have meanings guys...you've already failed to grasp this concept with the word liberal, now you've failed to grasp words as used in sentences. You've destroyed the liberalism page on Wiki... Electionworld...there is one thing i'm certain of...you are not a liberal by any stretch of the imagination. Your political party pays lip service to the ideals but understands very little of what they stand for and how they were achieved. (Gibby 16:45, 7 December 2005 (UTC))

Ooh, so the ELDR is not a liberal party? Electionworld 21:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Hayek

"Hayek’s thesis in "The Road to Serfdom" was proven true rather quickly as Clement Atley’s Labour Party government instituted wage and price controls, seized private businesses and consolidated them into the hands of the government, and soon attempted to control British citizen’s freedom to work where and how they pleased. Hayek's prediction had come true. Many more examples proved Hayek's thesis over the years, the best of which was Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. Recently data has become available that demonstrates the relationship between economic freedom and civil and political freedom. Separate studies put out by the Frasier Institute and the Heritage Foundation measure the levels of economic freedom, and as both Hayek and Friedman predicted, where there is high levels of economic freedom there is also high levels of civil and political freedom. Conversely areas with high restrictions upon economic freedom also have very limited civil and political freedom."

This is largely true, but a bit weirdly expressed. I've changed it to make clear that Britain did not go totalitarian, because free elections survived and Attlee's reforms were moderated. 81.110.202.57 11:24, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Someone deleted the whole bit so I've done a rewrite that I don't think anyone could have a problem with. If you want to check up the bit about the Wilson government, it's very well known, but for a book reference See chapter 13 of Martin Wolf's 'Why Globalization Works'. 81.110.202.57 15:16, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Anarchists?

The claim that anarchists are economic liberals strikes me as bizarre. The main stream of anarchism comes our of the workers' movements of the 19th century, and was essentially a form of socialism; that continues to be the case in the few places in the world where anarchism is politically significant, most notably Spain. -- Jmabel | Talk 09:51, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Another main stream of anarchism comes from the anti-statist liberals like Bastiat and especially his student Molinari, who published the first anarcho-capitalist treatise "The Production of Security" in 1849. Later, the individualist anarchist publisher Benjamin Tucker published works by liberals Herbert Spencer ("The Right to Ignore the State") and Auberon Herbert ("The Right and Wrong of Compulsion by the State".) Anyone who thinks that the State is an unnecessary evil is an anarchist. Hogeye 14:25, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

As soon as I hear a coherant explanation of what an anarchist is, I'll be happy to have an opinion. As it happens, I've heard both that they can be statists or non-statists. Since that's the only differentiating criterion that I can imagine which would make it a useful distinction, and since it doesn't apply, I have nothing to compare or contrast laissez-faire liberalism with. Unless anarchism is meant to be "one who despises all forms of domination", in which case it again becomes of limited use, since many forms of liberalism (and presumably other ideologies) share that notion. Lucidish 21:05, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I like Hogeye's definition. An anarchist is a person who believes the state is an unnecessary evil. A liberal anarchist is probably someone like Rousseau, who thought that natural man was good by nature. A socialist anarchist would beleive that once the state is destroyed, a workers' paradise will naturally emerge.

"It's Sister Jenny's turn to throw the bomb..." Rick Norwood 21:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Lucidish: "As soon as I hear a coherant explanation of what an anarchist is, I'll be happy to have an opinion. As it happens, I've heard both that they can be statists or non-statists."

You are misinformed. Anarchism is anti-statism. Period. Here's a typical dictionary definition from American Heritage College Dictionary: "The theory or doctrine that all forms of government are unnecessary, oppressive, and undesirable and should be abolished." See definitions of anarchism in Wikiquote

If you follow the logic of laissez faire liberalism to its extreme, you get a form of anarchism. It's the logic of Henry David Thoreau 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..."

Hogeye 21:46, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

If I'm wrong then it is the last time I will go to Noam Chomsky for political advice. He claims that there evidently have been theorists who use the term anarchism and also support de facto states. Whether I'm to chalk that up to confusion, or whatever, I don't know. But I'm not much comfortable with such formulations that go directly against the etymology of the word (essentially, meaning "no rulers"). Lucidish 18:47, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Chomsky was right on (brilliant IMO) about the media (cf: Manufacturing Consent), but due to his anti-capitalist bias is not the person from whom to get a good definition of anarchism. To him, capitalism necessarily implies a de-facto state. He's the opposite side of the coin from capitalists who claim that socialism implies a de-facto state. Hogeye 23:05, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't know; he's more well read on anarchist texts than I am. But at this point I'm only trying to excuse my own ignorance on the matter of actual anarchist beliefs, not actually presenting an argument one way or the other. The chips, wherever they lay...

Off-topic: while valuable, I would complain that 'Manufacturing' is not a complete enough analysis of the institution of news media. The 'filters' model is interesting, and probably accurate (so far as it goes), but the model doesn't have the rigor that I would expect from a thorough institutional analysis. (What about laziness in media? What about stupidity of media persons? Etc.) Also, the historical examples used are confined to his pet interests. Lucidish 23:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

A few comments here:

"Another main stream of anarchism"? This is silly. Another stream of anti-statism, yes, but it is a very recent phenomenon (certainly post 1960) to conflate this with anarchism.
Gustave de Molinari, the first anarcho-capitalist, wrote The Production of Security in 1849. He was a contemporary of Proudhon. Hogeye 22:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
From our own article on Molinari: 'In the preface to the 1977 English translation Murray Rothbard called The Production of Security the "first presentation anywhere in human history of what is now called anarcho-capitalism" though admitting that "Molinari did not use the terminology, and probably would have balked at the name."' Pretty much exactly what I said: conflating this with anarchism is a post-1960 phenomenon. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:19, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

No, you said both earlier and now, that anarcho-capitalism was "conflated" with anarchism. In fact, what Molinari wrote about is anarchism (but Molinari's anarchism was not acknowleged as such until Rothbard publicized it in the 1960s.) Molinari didn't call it "anarchism" himself, because he associated the term with his contemporary, Pierre Proudhon, and socialism. - Hogeye

The previous remark is unsigned, so I'm not sure who wrote it, but I really think you are not getting my point, and I think my point is valid. I'll try one more time to clarify; at that point, if we disagree, then we simply disagree.

There is a mainstream of anarchism. Molinari was not part of it. Some people in the last 40 years, looking back at history, have said that Molinari, because of his anti-statism, should retroactively be called an "anarchist", even though he certainly would not have considered himself to be one, in the meaning that term had at that time. This is a redefinition of "anarchism", conflating two different ideologies that did not consider themselves compatible. Since the 1960s, a certain group, basically extreme libertarians have called themselves "anarcho-capitalist" and have claimed that their ideology is a subset of anarchism. The "anarchists" in the older sense—those who consider themselves the ideological heirs of Proudhon, Kropotkin, Emma Goldmann, Paul Goodman, etc.—nearly all reject this conflation. I can think of exactly one "institution" that has included both—the magazine first known as Co-Evolution Quarterly and later as Whole Earth Review—and it was/is a very broad tent, going well beyond these two groups. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:16, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

We agree that Molinari was not a mainstream anarchist in his time. We agree that Molinari did not call himself an anarchist - to his mind it was associated with socialism. But to the question "was Molinari an anarchist" the answer is clearly "yes" - not only with respect to the modern definition, but also wrt most of the anarchist luminaries including Proudhon, Kropotkin, Goldman, and Benjamin Tucker. The only big name anarchist that defined anarchism as socialist that I know of was Bakunin. See for yourself. (I used a 'history' link because the page is often vandalized.) Hogeye 05:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

One does not go to the average dictionary to get clarity on a word like anarchism or fascism (although I would be interested in what the OED has to say). This is territory where the average lexicographer lazily echoes common prejudice.
It's not just dictionaries. Most of the historical anarchist luminaries defined anarchism as (pure) anti-statism.[1] Hogeye 22:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
"By the word [anarchy] I wanted to indicate the extreme limit of political progress. Anarchy is... a form of government or constitution in which public and private consciousness, formed through the development of science and law, is alone sufficient to maintain order and guarantee all liberties." - Proudhon (Jmabel | Talk 02:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC))

"Anarchism means that you should be free; that no one should enslave you, boss you, rob you, or impose upon you... It means that all men are brothers, and that they should live like brothers, in peace and harmony... That is to say, that there should be no war, no violence used by one set of men against another, no monopoly and no poverty, no oppression, no taking advantage of your fellow-man... In short, Anarchism means a condition or society where all men and women are free, and where all enjoy equally the benefits of an ordered and sensible life." Alexander Berkman (Jmabel | Talk 02:35, 10 December 2005 (UTC))

"Anarchism, the name given to a principle or theory of life and conduct under which society is conceived without government - harmony in such a society being obtained, not by submission to law, or by obedience to any authority, but by free agreements concluded between the various groups, territorial and professional, freely constituted for the sake of production and consumption, as also for the satisfaction of the infinite variety of needs and aspirations of a civilized being. In a society developed on these lines, the voluntary associations which already now begin to cover all the fields of human activity would take a still greater extension so as to substitute themselves for the state in all its functions." - Kropotkin, (emphasis mine Jmabel | Talk 02:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC))

Hey, to save yourself from reinventing the wheel, check out Wikiquotes definitions of anarchism.

Anarchism is necessarily anti-statist, but it is not necessarily anti-statist above all other principles. For example, during the Spanish Civil War, anarchists actually joined the Republican govenrnment, because they say it as so much a lesser evil than Franco. Similarly, Chomsky, who counts himself an anarchist, has over the past decade been far more concerned with what he has referred to as the "private tyrannies" that occur in large companies than with what he sees as the moderately democratic and at least potentionally reformable government of the United States. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Anti-statism is the primary consideration for anarchists. The fact that an anarchist may choose the lesser of two evils does not qualify as a counterexample. Most anarchists, after reading Chomsky's pro-state comments, do not consider him to be an anarchist. Perhaps he used to be. Hogeye 22:18, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

As I have said before, I think it is a fantastic mistake to eliminate etymology from formulations of ideology (or any meaning). In fact, this understanding has formed the basis for my argument for social-liberalism-as-liberalism contra Gibby (and it is such a methodological and pedantic point that it couldn't possibly count as original research). If you declare that etymology is entirely unenlightening, then you have, in my opinion, destroyed the legitimacy of the article as it stands today. In which case, Gibby's conclusions would be entirely validated. Lucidish 02:04, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Lucidish: Am I correct in understanding that conversely you do not endorse Hogeye's statement immediately following, which appears to reduce definition to etymology? -- Jmabel | Talk 02:21, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't interpret Hogeye's following statement as a complete theory of lexical semantics. But to be sure, I would not endorse a completely etymological approach. There are many considerations to the lexicographer, like popular usage, authoritatively preferred usage, etymology, etc. I merely emphasize etymology as the first thing to look at, and believe it has relatively larger normative weight than the other considerations. Lucidish 18:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Right. The etymology of anarchism: Anarchism derives from the Greek αναρχία ("without archons (rulers)"). Thus anarchism, in its most general meaning, is the belief that rulership is unnecessary and should be abolished. Hogeye 22:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

How did this page get this way?

How did we go from a fairly correct article on Liberalism in October to this disaster by December? This page was disputed and it seems those disputing it won. I dont know if Electionwood and Norwood gave in to the uninformed like Ruzmanci, or if they were part of the problem. But I seriously dispute not only the validity of this page but neutrality as well! _gibby

As you might have seen we had to do a lot of discussion not to get one interpretation of liberalism dominant in this discussion. Therefore we had intensive debates with Ruzmanci. Now we have the same kinds of debates with Gibby. Hayek was a liberal, but not all liberals agree with Hayek. Rawls was a liberal, but not all liberals agree with Rawls. The page is quite neutral now, but wouldn't be neutral is we would lable social liberals as socialists. That would mean that European liberals are socialists, since they all or most of them accepted some government regulation of the economy. Electionworld 12:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Gibby -- human beings assign words to ideas in order to communicate. The meanings of these words change over time. I believe in fighting to resist the change in meaning, so that we can read the great writers of the past with understanding, but I hope I know which battles can still be won and which battles are lost. For example, the battle against "electrocute" is lost, and it would be Quixotic to try to revive it. On the other hand, there is still hope of saving the distinction between "imply" and "infer", even though Webster's Third notoriously allows them to be synonyms.

You are fighting a battle that was lost more than fifty years ago -- at about the same time that the battle against the word "electrocute" was lost. Every modern dictionary includes under liberalism more than just freedom. Every modern liberal government includes social programs.

Continue to fight for your lost cause. If nobody tilted at windmills, the world would no doubt be overrun with windmills. But this article will reflect the way the word "liberalism" is actually used, with, I trust, ample information about what it used to mean, which is what you hope it someday will mean again. Rick Norwood 15:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

---

I'm fighting this relativistic constructivist BS. When you can make words and meanings whatever you want nothing means anything? The law can mean nothing! And thats exactly what has happend. The same logic that dictates your belief in a plulualistic liberalism is the same logic that has destroyed legal jurisprudence. Its why morons in America when millions of dollars for driving their car with the sunshade up and crash it. Its why women can have a man thrown in jail because she felt raped rather than LEGALLY was raped. Same logic.

You run a website that has a very one sided approach to liberalism anyone. THe revisionist version. This is why you deleted my portions on Hayek and his take on the depression. THREE TIMES! You arent trying to educate anyone!

You have a page on the rhetorical practice of liberalism. NOT THE ACTUAL IDEOLOGY! - Gibby

--

Electionwood you are an Fing MORON! You delete Hayek's interpretation as PROPOGANDA? What BS. Yet you leave in the interpretations that say the great depression was caused by free markets and limited governments that the rise of totalitarian dictators was the result of the great depression.

Have you heard of the word IRONIC? Have you heard of the term EMPERICAL EVIDENCE? You are a freaking idiot. I hate to bring in this fallacious attack on you, but my god. You dont even know the definition of propoganda. You dont know the meaning of bias. - Gibby

I stand with you in that I think Hayek is an important liberal theorist. However, he is currently featured a number of times in this article. Lucidish 19:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Hayek is an important liberal theorist. What I deleted was the paragraph where was said that he is right. That is not encyclopedic. As you might have noticed I kept his comment on Keynesian liberalism in. Furthermore, seeing the way Gibby, whom I treated with respect, is attacking and insulting me, makes it necesary not to discuss anymore his remarks. Liberalism implies respect for anothers opinion. That is what I miss in his comments. I will keep on editing this page to make it a well balanced article on the diverse forms of liberalism. Electionworld 21:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough Lucidish 23:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Gibby -- When you start calling your fellow Wikipedians names, you place yourself beyond the range of rational discourse. I see no need to discuss things with such a person.

All -- this discussion pages has gotten too long for my browser. Does anyone know how to archive. Rick Norwood 21:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Done. I hope I didn't cut off any ongoing discussion. Hogeye 22:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

---

I think calling nobel prize winning economists a propogandists is far worse. I already said I hated to stupe to such fallacious logic...but well...EW is what I said he is. Hayek...propoganda. WTF? What was written was fact. Hayek was proven true by historical evidence as well as statistical evidence. If encylopedia's arent about facts then...well what the hell is? He is not making a "diverse" well balanced article...he's making a very one sided article and one that favories a higly macroeconomic view on history and politics. -Gibby _Gibby

No comment (see above). Electionworld 07:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

No Commment EW? You include Keynes as a liberal. The Green Party as liberals? Hayek and Friedman would throw a fit. They disrupt the very basic foundations of liberal thought. So much so that you no longer have a liberal government. I am really sad you fail to see the importants of it.

I originally let that slide insofar as I would be allowed to post the classic understanding of LIBERALISM...which you helped to delete multiple times. Its only been after many attempts that I've actually been able to see it up each morning rather than deleted. You can't sit here and tell me EW that you are writing a non biased page when you helped delete my posts offering the original Liberal interpretations of events.

And who wrote free markets lead to less individual freedom? That person certainly hasnt paid attention to history. As far as Chile is concerned, Friedman argued that by instituting economic freedom reforms the country would soon become politically free. Chilean government still retained quite a few restrictions upon the market and upon economic freedom but they did in fact open up to free elections in about 17 years. - Gibby

No comment. Just three questions: 1. Where did I say the Green Party were liberals? 3. Where in the article did I claim that social liberalism is the only right version of liberalism? 2. Who deleted social liberalism as a form of liberalism? Electionworld 22:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

1. Refrences to the green party as liberals are in the word wide usage section and just below that. 2. 2 comes before 3. 3. By deleting, EVERY TIME, the interpretations of hayek and friedman on things you didnt agree with you made the article sound like...and it did sound like...the great depression and rise of totalitarian governments was the result of the free and unregulated market. 2.1 I deleted social liberalism as a form of liberalism after attempting to include "my side" of the story. With that attempt thwarted by socialists such as yourself who won't want an alternative view point that you can't explain way expressed, you delete it on the grounds of POV. Which is Bull! Social liberalism thus deserved deletion because it was not factual but a result of someones POV because they subscribe to political rhetoric rather than a scholastic understanding of terms. Encyclopedia's will be the last hiding places of revisionists and thought police. (Gibby 16:59, 7 December 2005 (UTC))

May I remind you of the following:

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Liberalism/Archive 5 page.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

If being a supporter of the ideas of Goeman Borgesius, of Karl Hermann Flach, of Dahrendorf, of Rawls means that I am a socialist, If being a supporter of the principles of my party (see Democrats.nl) means I am a socialist, what can I say. BTW, I still cannot find the place in this article where I said that the Green Party (which Green Party, which country) was liberal. Electionworld 22:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Rawls somehow gets to the conclusion that wealth redistrobution is good!!!! He's not a liberal...nor is his theory of justice correct. If he or you had any knowlege of market operations beyond the rhetoric you hear from politicians then you'd realize that the theory of justice would lead the "ignorant man" to support a free market limited government the classic liberals favored. The reason why you can't find anything on greens is because i finally deleted that crap (Gibby 01:22, 8 December 2005 (UTC))

Minor cleanup

I've done a little minor fixing. Whoever is writing on Hayek needs to be aware of the apostrophe required in such constructions as "Hayek's book". I also removed one sentence, even though I agree with it, because it was unsourced, and also because paragraphs should not argue against themselves, and articles should not argue back and forth. The idea that free markets lead to less individual freedom has been argued sufficiently earlier. Time to give Hayek his say. Rick Norwood 13:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

John Wesley

I've found out a little more about John Wesley. He was a liberal in the sense of wanting to end slavery and ease the plight of the poor, but he attempted to do this not through government action, but through the church. At the time, the church had the power to tithe, and the money taken from the rich by John Wesley's church was used to provide benefits for the poor. This is probably what Ben Franklin was talking about in his letter in which he discussed the possibility that easing the plight of the poor might sap their industry. This is, probably, the origin of that branch of liberalism that seeks to aleviate inequality between rich and poor. It is still liberalism, though it is not political liberalism. And while we recognize it as a form of liberalism today, it would not have fallen under the meaning of liberalism at the time, when the word meant something like "terrorist" and was usually applied to the French. Rick Norwood 13:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Wanting to end slavery and help the poor does not make one a liberal. That does NOT define liberalims. You guys have gotten so way off base with your misunderstanding of liberalism that you'll accept anything! (Gibby 16:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC))

I tend to agree with Gibby on this point. It is not enough to be against slavery to be a liberal. The onus is individual liberty Electionworld 22:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I really wasn't trying to argue. We were discussing Wesley earlier, I thought a little more information about him would be welcome. Rick Norwood 22:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Liberal Fundamentalism

It looks to me like "liberal fundamentalism" is a perjorative term, without a specific meaning. A google search indicates it is used to mean any kind of liberalism the writer doesn't like, i.e. any allegedly unreasonable or irrational form. The whole section should be deleted. Hogeye 18:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

No problem, but shouldn't we have some text on intransingent anti-clericalism inside the liberal family? Electionworld 22:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

It is a pejorative term. Stiglitz uses it to discredit his opponents and make their arguements into straw men...in his book "Globalization and its Disconents" They use the term in conjunction with liberal ideologue...as if ideologies are bad things...(Gibby 22:29, 7 December 2005 (UTC))

I am glad to see the "liberal fundamentalism" section gone. I don't know if the article should cover "liberals" who have come full circle, and gotten so "liberal" they are now anti-liberal. The Greens are a good example, as are the people who outlaw "hate speech", and define as "hate speech" anybody who disagrees with them. To call these people liberals is as bad as calling George Bush and his pack of thieves "conservative". If it is liberal, it favors freedom. If it opposes one freedom, it must argue that there is some greater freedom that it favors. The anti-business, anti-globalization parties generally favor dictatorship by their side, not liberalism. Liberal fundamentalism is really a contradiction in terms, since "fundamentalism" means knowing all the answers and "liberalism" means people are free to believe many different things. Rick Norwood 22:43, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

you don't get freedom from simply being. Freedom has been a result of economic freedoms. That is the free(er) market. At least at one time a better functioning free(Er) market helped build the wealth of our society and contributed to greater freedoms. Liberals don't support freedom for freedoms sake because they know that freedoms cannot exist for long without the economic freedoms that created them. Again, you are citing the results as unification for liberalism when in fact what gave us those results, economic freedom, is a source of contention between these modern "liberals" (Gibby 01:25, 8 December 2005 (UTC))

Economic freedom is not a guarantee for political freedom. One cannot blaime classical liberals for the Pinochet regime, but the Pinochet example shows that a free market can be combined with a dictatorship. The liberalizations in China are not combined with more political freedom. On the other hand: could somebody explain me why the Scandinavian countries, governed by non-liberals for long times, belong to the wealthiest countries in the world? Rick, see for my remark on the greens below. Electionworld 07:49, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Impact

I reversed the sentence "What is accepted as liberalism today (especially within the United States), adopts some of each of the goals of liberalism as the goals of policy in their nation, ", since I cannot understand the meaning of it. Do European liberals not accept these goals, do classical liberals not accept this goals or most of these goals ? I also made some other coorections and deleted the reference to the Republican Party of the US as an example of conservative parties (it is not an American encylopedia. Electionworld 22:23, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

and EW some...more informed.. Europeans, consider the Republican party to be the liberal party rather than the democratic party. American conservatism is and often can be associated with European liberalism...especially if you wish it to have such a broad meaning. I'm also removing greens, any assocation with them and liberal principles is laughable. (Gibby 22:31, 7 December 2005 (UTC))

I have been active in European liberal politics now for long time, and generally liberals in Europe do not consider the Republican Party more close to them than the Democratic Party. For example: the Christian right influence in the Republican Party, the support for the Death Penalty, the opposition against exuals ex marriage are contradictory to the ideas of many European liberals. There is quite a difference between European liberalism and American liberalism, but that doesn't make the Republican Party closer to the European liberals than the Democratic Party. I think that it is a misunderstanding about present-day European liberalism under American classical liberals. European liberalism is pluriform and many European liberals want - despite their (and my) wish for liberalization and deregulization - to keep a certain level of social legislation, want to have guarantees for a good education system and want to have guarantees for a good health system. E.g. in the Netherlands the liberal minister of Health Care introduced a system of healt insurances with a basic package that is obligatory for every health insurance company to offer and an obligation for every citizen to insure himself.

I could advise you to visit the websites of the diverse liberal parties in Europe or to discuss with them. E.g. The Liberal Democrats (UK) Preamble reads: The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity. We champion the freedom, dignity and well-being of individuals, we acknowledge and respect their right to freedom of conscience and their right to develop their talents to the full. We aim to disperse power, to foster diversity and to nurture creativity. We believe that the role of the state is to enable all citizens to attain these ideals, to contribute fully to their communities and to take part in the decisions which affect their lives and from their last election manifesto: FREEDOM: Because Liberal Democrats believe that individuals should govern their own lives, free from unnecessary interference by government or society. So we want to build a society which gives individual men and women opportunities to pursue their aims, develop their talents and shape their successes. A country where people are free to shape their future is stronger,wealthier, happier, and more fulfilled and FAIRNESS: Because ill-health, disability, poverty, environmental pollution and the fear of crime curtail freedom, just as much as discriminatory laws or arrest without trial. So we want government to provide the essential requirements that everyone needs to make real choices in their lives – a good education, a decent pension, a clean environment, effective policing and high quality healthcare. And we want to see fairness too in the way in which taxes are raised and minorities are treated. But: you might reply that the Liberal Democrats are not a liberal party.

Somewhat above you states that John Rawls was not a liberal. Even in some more traditional liberal parties as the VVD John Rawls was a source of inspiration. I know it is not your liberalism, but you do not have a monopoly on what is liberalism.

On Greens and liberalism. It was nowhere in the article that the Green Party was liberal. What was in the article that even among Greens liberal values are embraced. Not all liberal values and not all green parties ( I do not know the US Green Party). But the same goes for the social democratic, conservative and christian democratic parties. Are you going to delete that reference as well? I am not a supporter of the Greens in the Netherlands, but it is one of the parties strongly defending individual liberties and civil rights, defending the rule of law, embracing political and cultural liberalism (they label it "vrijzinnig") and even want to liberalize somewhat now in economics. Electionworld 07:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Introduction

I recommend exchanging paragraphs 1 and 2. That is, I think we should say something about what liberalism is before we discuss divisions within that topic. Rick Norwood 15:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

If you meanu with paragraph 1 the italic text (disclaimer) i agree. Electionworld 15:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I may change my mind. I was reading the first two paragraphs on the "history" page, and so the fact that the first paragraph was inset and in italics escaped me. I think the fact that it is set off from the article proper is probably enough. Rick Norwood 16:12, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Ironic?

I edited the page on communism several days ago placing in something that seems..quite odd. FREE MARKET COMMUNISTS. The addition has not been touched by the editors of the communist page. I find this...interesting. The editors of liberalism spend 2 months destroying any interpretation where liberals prefered the free market, instead imposing their viewpoint that liberalism is something that has evolved and matured.

UPDATE...I'm currently in an edit war with a 15 year old radical communist who doesnt like free markets. Uses about as bad a deleting logic as electionwood in eliminating intellectual competition. Other editors dont or did not seem to have a problem with it.

hmmmm (Gibby 22:41, 7 December 2005 (UTC))

"Free market communism" makes no sense. "Libertarian socialism", however, is fine.

Re. the liberalism page: what are you talking about? Lucidish 17:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

libertarian socialism...I have never heard of such a thing. However, free market communists do exist, and they are in China. Hong Kong is the most free market oriented region of the world according to the Hoover Institutes 2005 Index of Economic Freedom report (Gibby 08:50, 11 December 2005 (UTC))

2 comments on that:

the current Chinese regime is only nominally communist. Party names sometimes lie. They are no more communist than Vladimir Zhirinovsky is a "liberal democrat".
libertarian socialism is another name for what I have elsewhere on this page referred to as the mainstream of anarchism. "Libertarian" as against "authoritarian"; no particular relation to the contemporary American meaning of "libertarian". In some cultures (especially in the Spanish-speaking world) libertarias (basically the same word) are particularly radical anarchists, less inclined to compromise than the anarquistas.

Jmabel | Talk 07:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Fair Tax

Electionwood, stop POVing. The tax reform is titled the FAIRTAX. that is why it is capitalized as FairTax. We are not saying it is A fair tax... Do you understand? leave it alone!

Dear anon (or is ith Gibby), Stop fighting, don't see everwhere PV's: I wasn't aware of a specific tax proposal in one of the countries around the world named FairTax. I cannot be aware of everything happening around the world. I made a liitle change to make more clear that is is a proposal in the US. VTW: I removed cf wikipedia standard your comments to the bottom. Electionworld 09:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

That is a perfectly fine edit EW! (Gibby 08:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC))

A note to KDR Gibby

I'm sure you have been told that new posts go at the bottom of the page. There is a reason for this. People reading discussion pages look at the bottom of the page first. If you want to add to an existing discussion, click on the last "edit" box on the discussion page. If you want to crate a new topic, click on the plus sign next to the "edit this page" tab at the top of the page. Rick Norwood 21:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Too much US centric

I have the feeling that the article became in the last weeks too much US centric. It is much about the differences between American liberalism and (American) classical liberalism. European liberalism is generally somewhere in between. I thought Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia, not an American encyclopedia. Let's try not to make this article a battlefield between these two American forms of liberalism. Electionworld 22:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Having just read the article for the firt time I agree with Electionworld. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Liberalism and Democracy

Just to announce: I am planning a section on the relation between liberalism and democracy. The article tends to focus too much on economics, but politics is about more than economy alone. Electionworld 22:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I look forward to your section on liberalism and democracy. I also agree that the article has become too centered on the US and on economics. I've stayed away from the article, because I did not want to get caught up in the big fight going on for the past week. If things have calmed down, maybe a more balanced article can be achieved. Rick Norwood 22:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Things seem to have quieted down a bit.

I plan to go through the article a section at a time, working alongside Electionworld. My goal is to restore balance, so that the article is not just about US liberalism (which has its own article) and not just about libertarianism (which also has its own article). I'm going to start with the introduction. My goal is to make it a little more objective, a little more organized, and to eliminate repetition. Rick Norwood 01:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, let me know what you think. I believe if you check you will find everything that was in the introduction before my edit is still there -- but that some things that were there twice are now only there once. The structure I have followed is to move everything that comes under the heading of freedom goes toward the front, then democracy, and finally equality. Then a contrast with what went before. Finally, Locke's famous quote, that is really the foundation of liberalism. I was tempted to mention Locke by name, but remembered that some people felt strongly that we shouldn't start naming names until the history section.

No more changes today. Rick Norwood 01:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the three most recent changes (as I write this) are an improvement. Rick Norwood 14:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

RFC against KDRGibby

I've filed a requests for comment against User:KDRGibby at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/KDRGibby. Interested users involved in the Liberalism article may wish to make a statement or insert or discuss evidence pertaining to the requests for comment. -- Natalinasmpf 05:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you sure this won't just stir things up now that they have finally quieted down? Rick Norwood 14:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Forms of liberalism

I've made a few small changes to the "Forms of liberalism" section. It looks very good to me. All of us of good will have reached a consensus where all viewpoints are respectfully presented. Rick Norwood 15:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

It looks good. Well done! The only rather minor thing may be to add an example or two of social liberal "restrictions on economic competition." Like add, ..."such as anti-trust laws and price controls on labor (aka 'minimum wage laws.')" Hogeye 20:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

A good idea, but is it not also in the economic liberal policy to agree with anti-trust laws? Electionworld 18:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

No, most economic liberals oppose anti-trust laws. E.g. Here's what the (US) Libertarian Party platform says:

Monopolies

The Issue: We recognize that government is the source of monopoly, through its grants of legal privilege to special interests in the economy.

The Principle: Anti-trust laws do not prevent monopoly, but foster it by limiting competition. We defend the right of individuals to form corporations, cooperatives and other types of companies based on voluntary association.

Solutions: We condemn all coercive monopolies. In order to abolish them, we advocate a strict separation of business and State. Laws of incorporation should not include grants of monopoly privilege. In particular, we would eliminate special limits on the liability of corporations for damages caused in non-contractual transactions. We also oppose state or federal limits on the size of private companies and on the right of companies to merge. We further oppose efforts, in the name of social responsibility or any other reason, to expand federal chartering of corporations into a pretext for government control of business.

Transitional Solutions: We call for the repeal of all anti-trust laws, including the Robinson-Patman Act, which restricts price discounts, and the Sherman and Clayton Anti-Trust acts. We further call for the abolition of both the Federal Trade Commission and the anti-trust division of the Department of Justice. [2]

Hogeye 19:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

That might be too typical US. Do you know what e.g. Denmarks Venstre party thinks about it or Estonia's Reform Party ? Electionworld 20:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea. Nor do I know whether those parties consider themselves economically liberal. Getting back to the social liberalism description: Do you agree that social liberals generally approve of anti-trust laws and minimum productivity ("wage") laws? Hogeye 20:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Venstre, despite its name, is emphatically economically liberal. I don't know Estonian politics at all. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:21, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

My impression is that in the US, while social liberals are concerned about the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a relatively small number of mega-corporations, they are much more worried about the religious right than about trusts. AOL-Time-Warner is not apt to censor your movies, teach your child creation science, or force you to die in intollerable pain. Rick Norwood 21:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

You are apparently unaware of the current spate of Wal-Mart bashing[3][4][5] or the attempt to split up Microsoft a few years ago. Hogeye 22:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I would like to once again raise my ire about the names given for these forms of liberalism. Use of words like "social, cultural, political, economic" etc. is asking for confusion. These qualities are incredibly easy to conflate with aspects of ideologies.

What I mean by "aspects of ideologies" is that any ideology can have certain opinions confined to a certain (rough) spheres of society. The social aspect of an ideology is that which deals with a certain range of issues like race, class, community, and so on; the cultural aspect having to do with moral character; the political aspect with political social structures; and the economic aspect with monetary issues. Every ideology is made up of certain opinions on these matters.

But to give an ideology the prefix of "social" (say), is to be ambiguous with respect to whether one means a specific full-blooded political ideology that supports welfare etc., and merely one that has the characteristic of emphasizing liberty in the social sphere (and who knows what else in the other spheres). Lucidish 00:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The term "Social liberalism" is often used in the economic spectrum: accepting degrees of government involvment in economics. We used in the definition cultural liberalism. I think social liberals usually enact anti-trust laws and see that as a way to ensure that the market is free (a market dominated by a monopoly is in this view not free). I know my Dutch party was active in this sphere. The parties mentioned earlier from Denmark are generally considered economic liberal parties. Since they are economic liberal parties in power, their position is interesting and in my view even more interesting as the US Libertarian Party. Electionworld 08:38, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

The article notes that terms such as "social liberalism" and "economic liberalism" are not generally accepted, but are terms of convenience. We need words to express these divisions, and what one country calls economic liberals, another country calls economic conservatives, and a third country uses economic liberal to mean exactly the opposite of what the first country means. The only solution I can think of is to define our terms and stick to them. We have to call these branches of liberalism something. Rick Norwood 15:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough, and it is frustrating to read the political science literature on this (and anything). But I think my problem goes deeper than that. I don't think the so-called "political" and "cultural" liberalisms are forms of liberalism at all, but rather are aspects of liberalism. Whereas "economic" and "social" liberalisms are, indeed, forms, but parallel entries with the names of "economic" and "social" could (and perhaps should) be made. Lucidish 23:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand the distinction between a form and an aspect. Rick Norwood 15:01, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I understand it as the difference between schools of thought (factions if you will) and a related set of goals or ideas. For example, there are people (and parties) who call themselves classical liberals (or in our terminolgy economic liberal), and people who call themselves social (or reform) liberals. These are forms of liberalism. On the other hand, there are few if any people who call themselves political or cultural liberals, nor any parties so designated. These latter two terms refer to sets of ideas common to all forms of liberalism - aspects of liberalism so to speak. Another way to say this may be ideological divisions vs. related concepts. Hogeye 17:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Rick: by "aspect", what I mean is, for any ideology of the sort we're talking about will have to discuss their plans of at least four broad issues: basic social organizations (i.e., bureaucracies, communities, etc.); political organizations (i.e., parliaments); ideal moral conduct and character; and economic institutions and issues (banks, corporations, etc.). You can think of a robust ideology as dealing with all four of these aspects (and more), while a slimmer ideology may deal with only one of them -- or maybe even just a single issue within one of these categories. For example, liberalism in the robust sense will definitely have things to say about political organization (government must be democratic in some sense), and will have something to say about economics (support of free markets, however this is conceived), and to a limited extent has something to say about social organization (some support for reasoned tolerance, support for education, respect for legitimate law), and seemingly little about ideal character.

By a "form" of an ideology I just mean to say a sub-variety of the ideology; a species of the genus. For example, the support for welfare, social security, and so forth are part of the American liberalism which has been called a number of names (social liberalism, modern liberalism, welfare liberalism, progressive liberalism). This welfare liberalism is a form of the liberal ideology; it falls within the liberal tradition, but has its own ideosyncratic opinions that are in addition to those of the broader liberalism. Another example would be (some sorts of) libertarianism, who are also forms of liberalism.

These are distinctions that come admittedly out of my intuitions. But I believe they warrant some attention. The discussion of "aspects" is not entirely ad hoc; for instance, sociologist Talcott Parsons talked about his AGIL paradigm of social structures which resembled the above formulation of "aspects"; I believe Rousseau also had similar ideas in his works. And the notion of "forms" is already implicit in the discussions we've been having.

Hogeye: yeah, I believe we're mostly seeing eye-to-eye. An analogy might help clarify what I mean. The genus, "animal", has different species, such as cats and dogs. Cats and dogs are forms of animals. Cats and dogs have legs and tails; legs and tails are aspects of each species. Lucidish 23:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Luc: Forms vs. aspects change proposal

Forms and aspects of liberalism

As in many debates, opposite sides use different words for the same beliefs, and sometimes use identical words for different beliefs. For the purposes of this article, we will use "political liberalism" for the support of (liberal) democracy (either in a republic or a constitutional monarchy), over against absolute monarchy or dictatorship; "economic liberalism" for the support of private property, over against government regulation; "social liberalism" for the support of equality, over against inequalities of opportunity; "cultural liberalism" for the support of individual liberty. By "modern liberalism" we mean the mixture of these forms of liberalism found in most First World countries today, over against any one of the pure forms listed below.

Any broad social ideology may seek to provide principled guidance within matters of a number of different areas in social life. Those subjects that an ideology does attempt to address are aspects of the ideology. Some aspects include: guidance on correct political institutions and its laws; on organization (or lack thereof) of the economy; on proper moral character and conduct of citizens; and on organization of social institutions, such as schools and communities. Any opinion upon some subject that holds constant across all forms of liberalism may be considered an aspect of liberalism.
The political aspect of liberalism is the belief that individuals are the basis of law and society, and that society and its institutions exist to further the ends of individuals, without showing favor to those of higher social rank. The Magna Carta is an example of a political document that asserted the rights of individuals even above the prerogatives of monarchs. Political liberalism stresses the social contract, under which citizens make the laws and agree to abide by those laws. It is based on the belief that individuals know best what is best for them. Political liberalism includes the extension of the right to vote to women, non-whites, and those who do not own property. Political liberalism emphasizes the rule of law and supports liberal democracy.

The social aspect of liberalism focuses on the rights of individuals pertaining to conscience and lifestyle, including such issues as sexual freedom, religious freedom, cognitive freedom, and protection from government intrusion into private life. John Stuart Mill aptly expressed cultural liberalism in his essay "On Liberty," when he wrote, "The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant." The social aspect of liberalism generally opposes government regulation of gambling, sex, prostitution, the age of consent, abortion, birth control, terminal illness, alcohol, and marijuana and other controlled substances. Most liberals oppose some or all government intervention in these areas. The Netherlands, in this respect, may be the most liberal country in the world today.

The economic aspect of liberalism emphasizes the right of the economic actor to be autonomous, and argues that the dissapearance of economic freedom leads to a dissapearance in political freedom. In all of the forms of liberalism listed above there is a general belief that there should be a balance between government and private responsibilities, and so, that government should be limited to those tasks which cannot be carried out best by the private sector. All forms of liberalism claim to protect the fundamental dignity and autonomy of the individual under law, all claim that removing restrictions on individual action promotes the best society. All forms of liberalism support the right to private property.

Within the above framework, there are deep, often bitter, conflicts and controversies among liberals. Emerging from those controversies are a number of different forms of liberalism.

Economic liberalism, many of whose adherents term it "classical liberalism", is an ideology which supports the individual rights of property and freedom of contract. The watchword of this form of liberalism is "free enterprise". It rises out of the spirit of laissez-faire capitalism, meaning the removal of legal barriers to trade and cessation of government-bestowed privilege such as subsidy and unnatural monopoly. Economic liberals want little or no government regulation of the market. Some economic liberals would accept government restrictions of monopolies and cartels, others argue that monopolies and cartels are caused by state action. Economic liberalism holds that the value of goods and services should be set by the unfettered choices of individuals, that is, of market forces. Some would also allow market forces to act even in areas conventionally monopolized by governments, such as the provision of security and courts. Economic liberalism accepts the economic inequality that arises from unequal bargaining positions as being the natural result of competition, so long as no coercion is used. This form of liberalism is especially influenced by English liberalism of the mid 19th century. Libertarianism is the closest modern representative of this intellectual tradition. Minarchism and anarcho-capitalism are forms of economic liberalism. (See also Free trade, Neo-liberalism, liberalization)

Social liberalism, also known as "reform liberalism", arose in the late 19th century in many developed countries, influenced by the utilitarianism of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. Some liberals accepted, in part or in whole, Marxist and socialist exploitation theory and critiques of "the profit motive", and concluded that government should use its power to remedy these perceived problems. According to the tenets of this form of liberalism, as explained by writers such as John Dewey and Mortimer Adler, since individuals are the basis of society, all individuals should have access to basic necessities of fulfillment, such as education, economic opportunity, and protection from harmful macro-events beyond their control. To social liberals, these benefits are considered rights. These positive rights, which must be produced and supplied by other people, are qualitatively different from the classic negative rights, which require only that others refrain from aggression. To the social liberal, ensuring positive rights is a goal that is continuous with the general project of protecting liberties. Schools, libraries, museums, and art galleries were to be supported by taxes. Social liberalism advocates some restrictions on economic competition, such as anti-trust laws and price controls on wages ("minimum wage laws.") It also expects governments to provide a basic level of welfare, supported by taxation, intended to enable the best use of the talents of the population, to prevent revolution, or simply "for the public good."
There is a fundamental antagonism between economic and social liberalism. Economic liberals see positive rights as necessarily violating negative rights, and therefore illegitimate. They see a limited role for government. Some economic liberals see no proper function of government (anarchists), while others would limit government to courts, police, and defense against foreign invasion (minarchists.) Social liberals, in contrast, see a major role for government in promoting the general welfare - providing some or all of the following services: food and shelter for those who cannot provide for themselves, medical care, schools, retirement, care for children and for the disabled, including those disabled by old age, help for victims of natural disaster, protection of minorities, prevention of crime, and support for art and for science. This largely abandons the idea of limited government. Both forms of liberalism seek the same end - liberty - but they disagree strongly about the best or most moral means to attain it. Some liberal parties emphasize economic liberalism, while others focus on social liberalism. Socially conservative parties often favor economic liberalism while opposing cultural liberalism.

It is hard to compare the two versions without having them side by side. Flipping back and forth between them, I find things to like and things to dislike. I like the use of italics on the first paragraph. I dislike the omission of the last three paragraphs. I dislike the omission of a paragraph on cultural liberalism, and the repetition of the economic and social sections. Over all, I like the current version better. I'm going to see if I can start with the current version and incorporate the sections above that add to it. My effort will be posted at the bottome of this page. Rick Norwood 15:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Edit by Hogeye

I have the feeling the last edits by Hogeye are based on the experiences in the US. In the European Union many economic liberals actively supported the development of the EU and also support globalization and organizations like the WTO. A form of green policies is included in almost all programs of liberal parties. If we would follow the edits of Hogeye, it would lead to the conclusion that all or most European liberal parties are not economic liberal. I do not think that it is a reality. They might not share the libertarian agenda, but in Europe part of these parties are considered economic liberal. Electionworld 07:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I'll buy that. Nevertheless, the earlier formulation implied that all liberals favored neocolonialism, when that is clearly not the case. Perhaps we can come up with a better qualifier than "social" to convey this. Hogeye 17:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Whether an economic liberal approves or disapproves of the WTO depends on how they evaluate that cartel of states. If the person thinks that the WTO promotes free trade, then he approves. If he sees the WTO as using political means to enforce certain practices and standards on unwilling nations, then he disapproves. E.g. Enforcing copyright rules or 1st world labor standards on developing nations is contrary to laissez-faire. Hogeye 18:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

"Part of the liberals"

What is "Part of the liberals" supposed to mean? "Some liberals"? "Every liberal to some extent"? "Liberals only partly believe their own rhetoric"? (Just kidding on that last one.) Something else entirely? -- Jmabel | Talk 02:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I think they meant the little toe on the liberals right foot. Lucidish 05:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

It might be a problem of not being a native speaker. Originally it was Some liberals, which I understood as a few. Part of the would be more neutral. Many could be even better. Electionworld 20:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I was actually guessing it meant "some liberals"; that has no implication of many or few, although it does tend to suggest less than a majority. "Many liberals" would be almost equivalent (although I guess it would eliminate any possible suggestion that it might be only a tiny sliver). "Part of the liberals" could not mean "some liberals"; it could have either of the latter two (presumably unlikely) meanings I gave above, though. I'm sure you are right that non-native English is the culprit. I'll restore "some liberals" if no one has beaten me to it. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

BTW, the usage point in question: "the liberals" is a plural phrase. "Part of" (unlike "some of") can only properly modify a singular noun, so it would have to refer to part of each individual liberal, rather than part of the collectivity. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

attempt at a compromise between the two versions, with footnotes

=== Forms of liberalism === [1]

As in many debates, opposite sides use different words for the same beliefs, and sometimes use identical words for different beliefs. For the purposes of this article, we will use "political liberalism" for the support of (liberal) democracy (either in a republic or a constitutional monarchy), over against absolute monarchy or dictatorship; "cultural liberalism" for the support of individual liberty over against laws prohibiting activities on patriotic or religious grounds, "economic liberalism" for the support of private property, over against government regulation; "social liberalism" for the support of equality, over against inequalities of opportunity. By "modern liberalism" we mean the mixture of these forms of liberalism found in most First World countries today, over against any one of the pure forms listed above. [2]

[3]

Political liberalism is the belief that individuals are the basis of law and society, and that society and its institutions exist to further the ends of individuals, without showing favor to those of higher social rank. The Magna Carta is an example of a political document that asserted the rights of individuals even above the prerogatives of monarchs. Political liberalism stresses the social contract, under which citizens make the laws and agree to abide by those laws. It is based on the belief that individuals know best what is best for them. Political liberalism includes the extension of the right to vote to women, non-whites, and those who do not own property. Political liberalism emphasizes the rule of law and supports liberal democracy. [4]

Cultural liberalism focuses on the rights of individuals pertaining to conscience and lifestyle, including such issues as sexual freedom, religious freedom, cognitive freedom, and protection from government intrusion into private life. John Stuart Mill aptly expressed cultural liberalism in his essay "On Liberty," when he wrote, "The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant." Cultural liberalism generally opposes government regulation of gambling, sex, flag burning, prostitution, the age of consent, abortion, birth control, terminal illness, alcohol, and marijuana and other controlled substances. Most liberals oppose some or all government intervention in these areas. The Netherlands, in this respect, may be the most liberal country in the world today. [5]

Economic liberalism, many of whose adherents term it classical liberalism, is an ideology which supports the individual rights of property and freedom of contract. The watchword of this form of liberalism is "free enterprise". It advocates laissez-faire capitalism, meaning the removal of legal barriers to trade and cessation of government-bestowed privilege such as subsidy and monopoly. Economic liberals want little or no government regulation of the market. Some economic liberals would accept government restrictions of monopolies and cartels, others argue that monopolies and cartels are caused by state action. Economic liberalism holds that the value of goods and services should be set by the unfettered choices of individuals, that is, of market forces, and that government should be limited to those tasks which cannot be carried out best by the private sector. Some would also allow market forces to act even in areas conventionally monopolized by governments, such as the provision of security and courts. Economic liberalism accepts the economic inequality that arises from unequal bargaining positions as being the natural result of competition, so long as no coercion is used. They argue that the dissapearance of economic freedom leads to a dissapearance of political freedom. This form of liberalism is especially influenced by English liberalism of the mid 19th century. Libertarianism is the closest modern representative of this intellectual tradition. Minarchism and anarcho-capitalism are forms of economic liberalism. (See also Free trade, Neo-liberalism, liberalization ) [6]

Social liberalism, also known as reform liberalism, arose in the late 19th century in many developed countries, influenced by the utilitarianism of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. Some liberals accepted, in part or in whole, Marxist and socialist exploitation theory and critiques of "the profit motive", and concluded that government should use its power to remedy these perceived problems. According to the tenets of this form of liberalism, as explained by writers such as John Dewey and Mortimer Adler, since individuals are the basis of society, all individuals should have access to basic necessities of fulfillment, such as education, economic opportunity, and protection from harmful macro-events beyond their control. To social liberals, these benefits are considered rights. These positive rights, which must be produced and supplied by other people, are qualitatively different from the classic negative rights, which require only that others refrain from aggression. To the social liberal, ensuring positive rights is a goal that is continuous with the general project of protecting liberties. Schools, libraries, museums, and art galleries were to be supported by taxes. Social liberalism advocates some restrictions on economic competition, such as anti-trust laws and price controls on wages ("minimum wage laws.") It also expects governments to provide a basic level of welfare, supported by taxation, intended to enable the best use of the talents of the population, to prevent revolution, or simply "for the public good." [7]

There is a fundamental antagonism between economic and social liberalism. Economic liberals see positive rights as necessarily violating negative rights, and therefore illegitimate. They see a limited role for government. Some economic liberals see no proper function of government (anarchists), while others would limit government to courts, police, and defense against foreign invasion (minarchists.) Social liberals, in contrast, see a major role for government in promoting the general welfare - providing some or all of the following services: food and shelter for those who cannot provide for themselves, medical care, schools, retirement, care for children and for the disabled, including those disabled by old age, help for victims of natural disaster, protection of minorities, prevention of crime, and support for art and for science. This largely abandons the idea of limited government. Both forms of liberalism seek the same end - liberty - but they disagree strongly about the best or most moral means to attain it. Some liberal parties emphasize economic liberalism, while others focus on social liberalism. Socially conservative parties often favor economic liberalism while opposing cultural liberalism. [8]

All forms of liberalism claim to protect the fundamental dignity and autonomy of the individual under law, and assert that freedom from unnecessary restrictions on individual initiative promotes the best society.

Liberalism is so widespread in the modern world that most western nations at least pay lip service to individual liberty as the basis for society. [9]

[1] Adding the word "aspects" makes the title longer without making it any clearer. [2] I have adopted Lucidish's version of paragraph one, with the addition of the phrase (under social liberalism) "over against laws prohibiting activities on patriotic or religious grounds." I've also changed the order of the clauses to political-cultural-economic-social so as to bring the two areas most often in conflict closer together. [3] I omit the distinction between "form" and "aspect". I understand the distinction you are making, but I think it is unnecessarily confusing and overly fussy -- more appropriate for an essay than for an encyclopedia article. I think the statement that modern liberalism is a mix of these various kinds of liberalism takes care of the problem. [4] This section is essentially the same in the two versions. [5] I've left in the section on cultural liberalism, and moved it up to bring economic and social liberalism next to each other. I've added "flag burning" to the list of things cultural liberals don't want laws against. On rereading, I think Lucidish's omission of cultural liberalism may have been a typo, since he puts most of the paragraph on cultural liberalism into the section on social liberalism. If it is not a typo, we can discuss the difference. [6] I've combined the two sections on economic liberalism. I think all of the basic ideas of both sections are there, but without what I see as an unnecessary distinction between forms and aspects. [7] Once the cultural liberalism is put in its own paragraph, the social liberalism section is essentially the same in both versions. [8] The only change in the "antagonism" paragraph is the word "Socially" added at the beginning of the last sentence. I've used Lucidish's version of this paragraph. [9] I think the concluding paragraphs are important. Since the first sentence of the penultimate paragraph is now in the "economic liberalism" section, I've removed it here. In the next sentence, I've changed the formulation from negative to positive. Rick Norwood 16:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

What I dislike about your proposed version is that it doesn't carry the forms / aspects distinction which was the point of my proposal. I think it's extremely important to have this distinction in mind. a) If we're going to keep "political liberalism" in there, we need to call it an "aspect", because no liberal objects to what's been called "political liberalism" here, so it doesn't exactly make sense to call it a "form" of liberalism which people argue over. b) The reason I insist on this is that modern political ideologies borrow certain aspects of liberal thought, and then abandon others. The "aspects" division gives people the power to understand the influence of the liberal tradition by comparing it to other ideologies with these categories in mind. The perfect example is that of "social conservatives" who (can be) economically liberal without being socially liberal.

In any case, if the forms/aspects division is tossed, then I'd rather that those sections called "cultural" and "political" liberalism also be removed, or placed in a different section, since they already describe essential / noncontroversial issues within liberalism.

IIRC The only paragraph I ommitted was the last one about modern-day liberalism/lip service, since it was already discussed earlier in the section (and seemed out of place given the topic of this section). The other sections were shuffled around to one place or another. Lucidish 17:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Generally, I think that the proposed changes scan well, though I do agree with Lucidish's comments about the distinction between form and aspect (and also made that addition to the title in the article). The other thing I have done (and this is not one of Rick's changes) is remove the word "anarchist" from the phrase "Some economic liberals see no proper function of government (anarchists)," in the article. Most anarchists would object to being called "liberal" and most political scientists would avoid doing so. Generally, maintaining a distinction between the various forms/aspects of liberalism is somewhat problematic, IMO. However, its merit is to elucidate the current trends and discussion within liberalism. Thus these are useful distinctions for the general reader. Sunray 21:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, nearest I can tell, anarchists leave the option open for there being solutions within a non-state framework, while liberals essentially don't. The distinction between the two camps are, I think, mutually held: even the most adamantly "right wing" liberals who move in laissez-faire circles (i.e., Randians) are insulted at being called "anarchists". Anarchism is a separate ideology, so its inclusion was (I think) in error. Lucidish 01:28, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the suggestions of Sunray. Made allready some small changes. I like the use of the word trends within liberalism, whereby economic liberalism and social liberalism can be seen as forms. Electionworld 09:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I tweaked your edit. I would be happy with what's current. Lucidish 18:00, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I think you've solved the problem, by separating out what is generally agreed from the major point of dispute. This is a lot clearer than the difference between a form and an aspect. I also am happy with the current version -- except for a few tweaks, primarily having the four subheads listed in the same order in the introductory paragraph as in the rest of the section. I'll do that now, and see if there are any objections. Rick Norwood 18:22, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Wholesale Bias

Who's the worm that's lording over this biased article? Stop removing my edit(s) without protest, ok? The first paragraph of this article reads like the path to political perfection. Edit the first paragragh to reflect a true political stance, not a political perfection. And don't remove my protest. I'll remove it when the bias is corrected. 68.52.59.234 10:06, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Your edits assert that what is here called "social liberalism" is the only form of liberalism. Remind me to introduce you to some of the people who have tried to edit this article to assert that what is here called "economic liberalism" is the only form of liberalism. What you call bias consists in presenting both points of view instead of only one point of view -- the very opposite of bias, I should think. Rick Norwood 15:31, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The first paragraph is meant to outline the overall liberal programme. "Goals" are not "perfections". Not clear what the problem is. Lucidish 17:37, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Compare this article to the Conservatism article, specific to the opening paragraphs. Tell me you don't see bias. In fact, open two browsers and compare the two articles. A link to American Liberalism/Conservatism in the first sentence of both articles might solve the majority of complaints against both articles. It's a solution worth considering. The links in tables are fine but an additional link in the opening sentence is needed, something to that effect. I've got to run. Peace.68.52.59.234 22:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Reviewed the two in the manner that you asked. I see nothing wrong with intro to either. Links to American conservatism and American liberalism can be found on the first page of each article, directly to the right of the intro. Further mention may be possible, and I suppose there's no harm in disambiguating from the start, but to me it seems redundant, since that's been done from the getgo. Anything else? Lucidish 23:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Following the suggestion from 68.52.59.234 I reviewed the two articles. I don't see what the problem is. Of the two, this one is better, in my view. In fact, I think it is a very good overview of liberalism and the various current trends. Could you please be more specific as to what your concerns are? Sunray 23:54, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

A link from the start would be terrific. Thanks.68.52.59.234 03:01, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Why? The headnote already links prominently to Liberalism worldwide. The link to American liberalism is on the same line as the first sentence of the introduction. Adding an explicit link somewhere in the first ocuple of sentences is telling our readers that we think either:

a) Liberalism in the US is vastly more important than liberalism elsewhere, and you need pointed to it as soon as possible, because it's obviously what they want to read about; or

b) Our audience is just too thick to understand the rather clear pointers already there.

The first is a bit odd, and certainly smacks of bias - why not, say, Canada, instead? Liberalism is, after all, a much more dominant political philosophy there than in the US - the Liberals are almost the natural party of government. The second, much as I confess it seems apt some days, is just silly. Shimgray | talk | 04:00, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

That is a biased attitude against the rest of the world. And the Wiki readership is presumably worldwide (the whole thing centered in Sweden iirc). But I guess America is the dominant world power, so whatever moves they make as a citizenry tend to be felt elsewhere. Even still, I wouldn't say that the form of liberalism advocated by American liberals today is vastly more important than the older versions of it. Historically, at bare minimum, classical liberalism is the essence of American thought: its constitution, in many respects, is a core classical liberal document. So to say that liberalism is, in its most important versions, only of the social sort advocated by Americans today, is to deny that classical liberalism has an important place in the American tradition. That would not be good. Lucidish 07:10, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

With regards to the first paragraph, it's absurd to apply these flowery elements of your liberalism to the "world" without any "historical" reference. The way it reads is a utopia that's never existed..."liberty"..."small government???"..."property"..."rights". It's an ideal and you want to submit this "factual information" to the world? Who in world experienced this utopia?

Personally, I'd remove the header. The first paragraph as it stands is biased. I'm talking about two articles, not just liberalism but also conservatism.68.52.59.234 09:06, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I do not see the problem. The header is clear. It is not an article about american liberalism and Wikipedia is not an American encyclopedia. The article discusses modern liberalism around the world. There are more liberals outside than inside the US. Electionworld 09:43, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

In current American parlance, any media that states up front "Liberalism BAD, Conservatism GOOD, is fair and balanced." Any media that does not state this up front suffers from "liberal bias". Rick Norwood 15:20, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Again: an ideology is a matter of goals. Hence: "seeks to", "current of political thought". More references would admittedly be an improvement, though. Lucidish 16:50, 29 December 2005 (UTC)