Talk:Liberty/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

"When in peril, it is most often defended by Agoura High School Junior Ethan Kuperberg." End of first paragraph after contents...Who the fuck is Ethan Kuperberg? Is this somebody's idea of a joke?

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. What is the reasoning behind turning this page into a dictionary definition of the word Liberty? I see no reason why such definitions cannot be included as part of a disambiguation page. Mintguy (T) 01:01, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Much of the material about ancient Jewish history here seems wrong: imperial powers in ancient times had to deal with hundreds of revolts, and were the Jews any more devoted to liberty than the Paphlagonians or the Iceni or the Samnites? Mark O'Sullivan 10:10, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Or the rebellious gladiators? "I am Spartacus!" But Spartacus didn't leave any books behind that are now regarded as sacred by believers in three world-religions, so whether he thought he was fighting for liberty is less interesting that whether Moses did. --Christofurio 14:13, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Middle Eastern civilization

The Jewish religious tradition features several individuals who stood up to statist power at crucial moments, including of course Moses, who demanded that the Pharaoh of Egypt "let my people go." Also, Korah, who stood up to Moses's authority while the Israelites fish were in the desert. The Maccabees rebelled against mandatory assimilation to Greek culture and the Zealots (less successfully) rose against the Roman Empire.

Moslem jurists have long held that the legal tradition initiated by the Qur'an includes a principle of permissibility, or Ibahah, especially as applied to commercial transaction. "Nothing in them [voluntary transactions] is forbidden," said Ibn Taymiyyah, "unless God and His Messenger have decreed them to be forbidden." The idea is founded upon two verses in the Qur'an, 4:29 and 5:1. --Fibulator 13:12, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I would like to do a complete re-write

The article is poorly laid out. It's sort of silly to divide "liberty" into sections according to various centuries of philosophy. First of all, there has been relatively little difference between Classical and Enlightenment conceptions of liberty. Kant was an Enlightenment philosopher, not a Classical philosopher, so he shouldn't even be mentioned in the section on Classical philosophy.

The article tends to diverge from the subject of liberty, on into Spinoza's views on free will (one could devote an entire article to discussions of free will), and then goes onto discuss Economics. The entire paragraph about Hayek is unnecessary. A proper article on liberty would be the entry on it in Stanford's philosophy encyclopedia [[1]]. I'm doing a complete re-write now, based off of their article.

I mean, really. This sentence is laughable:

The Jewish religious tradition features several individuals who stood up to statist power at crucial moments, including Moses, who demanded that the Pharaoh of Egypt "let my people go."

Robocracy 02:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Speaking As The Author of that Laughable Sentence

Let me just say that I am, as a good wikipedian, always happy to have my work improved upon. But the article has some glaring problems. First, there is the idea that the "dictatorship of the proletariat" didn't become a justification for authoritarianism until the cold war. Bosh. And POV bosh at that. Even more pressing,m there is the claim of priority for J.S. Mill on the distinction between two conceptions of liberty. What about Benjamin Constant? I'll see if I can improve on these points soon. --Christofurio 14:12, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Wait a you-know-what kind of minute!!!

There is so seriously overt problematic bias going on in this article! The statement, "In this, [Socialists] are confusing liberty with Egalitarianism. In practice, socialism and Libertarianism are diametrically opposed to one another; as a socialist government forcibly takes from one in order to provide to another." First, the idea that any one political philosophy, organization, or body is confusing one thing with another is outlandishly and self-righteously biased in that person making the argument is committing a fallacy in thinking that those he/she disagrees with are "confused." This is piffle! Secondly, Socialism can not really be said to be or to have ever been "in practice." This is simply a "Red Herring" and a Misnomer. Finally, it may be true semantically that "Libertarians" are "diametrically opposed" to Socialists by "libertarianism" is verifiably open to variations of categorization. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlon (talk • contribs) 20:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Mormonism the Only Religion to deal with Liberty?

This section must be either expanded or the reference to Mormonism removed. It looks like special pleading without additional reference to ancient, Jewish, Christian and Islamic ideas (to name a few). —Preceding unsigned comment added by SABRE12 (talk • contribs) 10:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Ill remove it.

Why was negative liberty removed?

I edited this article a long time ago and it was in pretty good shape. And I have to ask: Why was the section on negative liberty removed? Zenwhat (talk) 17:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

positive vs negative liberty

am i the only one who is extremely confused by this positive/negative liberty? I have read these over and over, and they still appear to be the exact same thing.

positive = opportunity and ability to act to fulfill one's desire negative = freedom from restraint

if you are restrained, then you aren't able to fulfill your disire. if you are not able to fulfill your desire, then you're restrained. they appear to be dependent and equal. at the very least, their prominence on this article is WAY over done. this section should be consolidated, shortened, moved to the end, or perhaps removed. if one is trying to educate themselves on liberty, the 'liberty and political thought' is MUCH more relevant and topical.

also, i think citing specific examples of positive/negative liberty would be helpful to illustrate the differences between the two —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yourmanstan (talk • contribs) 10:52, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Definition of liberty on Wiki should include origins

There has been, over the last 30 years or so, a growing body of evidence that modern European ideas of liberty stem from contact with the Americas. That the British colonies in North America lived side-by-side with nations of people who influenced not only their system of government, but concepts of liberty. People writing on the European side of the Atlantic were influenced to a significant degree by reports coming out of North America concerning the nature of societies in the North American Nations...Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Diderot, Bougainville, Montaigne, Lahontan, Charlevoix....many influential thinkers and politically motivated writers contributing later to the French and American revolutions used the comparison of European lack of liberty and Indian America's presence of liberty to spark political changes for themselves.

This article, depressingly, has not too much of this. It would be wonderful to add the conception of European notions of Liberty as part of this entry. I would start with historian William Brandon, and then lay your hands on anything concerning North America's Indian Nations' structures of government/notions of liberty. Jared Diamond, I believe, also laid point to concepts of liberty being stressed, as William Brandon does, with the lack of pastoralism in the Americas.

Check it out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neoteotihuacan (talk • contribs) 00:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Remove "Positive Liberty"

I'd like to see (the so called) "positive liberty" removed from this article. (And only have what this article is currently calling "negative liberty") Or at the very least, not give "positive liberty" such prominence.

"Positive liberty" is not liberty at all, but a political agenda.

Much like that of Positive Christianity.

With both Positive Liberty and Positive Christianity, the strategy is to label the old (and real) form of the concept negative to detract from it and to confuse the meaning of it. And label whatever concept is wanted to replace the old concept as positive.

(Or in layman's language... call the old and real concept negative, because nobody wants something that is negative. And call the new false concept positive because people want positive things.)

When you look at classical works, the word liberty is defined as what this article is currently calling: negative liberty.

--Charles Iliya Krempeaux 17:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Unless there is any further argument, I suggest we go ahead and remove positive liberty and leave it for the philosophy article--Yourmanstan (talk) 21:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree that giving such prominence to a very modern articulation when the notion of liberty has such a long and important history is like saying in the opening description that there are two forms of religion, those that believe in an afterlife and those that believe its followers are taken away on spaceships after death. "positive" liberty is a 30 year old philosophical detail espoused by several dozen academics when liberty itself is a 4000 year old concept with universal underpinnings across every culture in history. Nothing wrong with a subsection on "positive liberty" however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.117.143.122 (talk) 11:44, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Remarks about collectivism

This doesn't seem to be right:

Individualist and liberal conceptions of liberty relate to the freedom of the individual from outside compulsion or coercion; A collectivist perspective, on the other hand, associates liberty with equality across a broader array of societal interests. As such, a collectivist redefines liberty as being connected to the reasonably equitable distribution of wealth, arguing that the unrestrained concentration of wealth (the means of production) into only a few hands negates liberty. In other words, without relatively equal ownership, the subsequent concentration of power and influence into a small portion of the population inevitably results in the domination of the wealthy and the subjugation of the poor.

Proponents of "Positive" liberty (or similar ideas) do not necessarily agree with or organize their thoughts according to a individualist\collectivist dichotomy, nor are they necessarily affiliated with socialists. This paragraph puts Rousseau, Hobbes, Mill, modern American Liberals like Rawls, Dewey, and Hobhouse, in the same category as communists. None of the people listed in the previous sentence regarded themselves "collectivists", to my knowledge. The very idea of "positive" liberty was developed by individualist liberals, like Mill. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 19:36, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Modern Quotes on Liberty

Freedom for the individual to believe in and do whatever they want, without impeding the liberty of others, is liberty. Regardless of the ideals a majority believes in, they do not have the right to force them on others. Liberty is the right to do it wrong. Liberty is the freedom to make mistakes. The breath of Liberty inhales tolerance and exhales forgiveness. Brad G. Skidmore (1971 to 2012) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Batfly.geo (talk • contribs) 10:56, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Liberty and freedom

I looked at the article, as I wanted to know wether there was a difference between Liberty and Freedom. Being french-german, I have no clue at all because "Freiheit" seems to be nearer to freedom and "liberté" nearer to liberty... Does anyone know anything about that? -- pagin 12:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

The two words are basically synonymous... Liberty may also refer to the philosophy of freedom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Batfly.geo (talk • contribs) 11:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Involuntary commitment and Jail

Involuntary commitment needs to be added. How can someone lose their freedom? In two ways. Being accused of a crime, and being judged by a psychiatrist(s). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark v1.0 (talk • contribs) 13:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Focus on Fringe ideals

I feel this current revision is focused on the fringe ideals of Isaiah Berlin's 1958 lecture "Two Concepts of Liberty" in which Isaiah in a very biased manner defined traditional liberty as "negative" and what he thought liberty should be as "positive". Redefining a word is a common practice of reformists, and I feel this article is dangerously close to pushing a reformist agenda. Could we work to fix this? Savaship (talk) 18:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

List of liberty works

There is currently a list of books and other writings at the bottom of the article entitled "liberty canon", "liberty classics" or "historical writings on liberty" (the latter was my idea for the name). I believe this list should be drastically reduced, or completely removed, or reworked so as to focus only on books that are universally recognized as important landmarks in the philosophical debate about liberty (for example Mill's "On Liberty"). As it stood before my edits, the list was largely composed of libertarian writings selected seemingly without any particular criteria in mind. Thus, it reflected a particular ideology's view of liberty, rather than the philosophical debate around the notion of liberty. There are probably thousands of books in the world that touch upon the subject of "liberty" in some way. Should we list them all? If not, then we need some criteria for selecting the few that will be included - or, if no objective criteria can be found, maybe we would do better to remove the list altogether. I am concerned that without clear-cut criteria for inclusion of books, the list will simply end up reflecting the POV of whoever happens to edit the page. TxTr (talk) 13:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Good point. However, there is no such thing, nor will there ever be, a list of works "universally recognized as important landmarks" on liberty. --Abel (talk) 17:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you're basically right about that... There are maybe two or three works that are nearly always referenced in discussions about notions of liberty (Locke, Mill, Berlin), but they are not universally recognized as landmarks on liberty. The problem is that "liberty" is a bitterly disputed concept with several definitions that are mutually exclusive. Supporters of one definition generally deny the validity of the books written by supporters of the other definitions. For example, there is the famous conflict between classical-liberal definitions of liberty and socialist ones. To maintain NPOV, we can't take sides, so we cannot say that any particular definition of liberty is the correct one. We can only report what each ideology says - and practically all political ideologies claim to support "liberty" in some way. So, for any book we include in the list, there will be some people (a lot of people!) who will say that that book uses the "wrong" notion of liberty. So right now I think the only way to maintain NPOV is to remove the list of books entirely. What do you think? TxTr (talk) 18:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

To me, the best answer is to include all the books on liberty and let the article reader decide for themselves what version of liberty that they think is correct. My experience with Wikipedia suggests that this will not be possible. A lot of editors seem to think deleting things rather than adding is the best solution. Due to that, I have to agree with you, no matter what list we come up with some people are going to want to delete books that support one or another version of liberty; making deleting the entire list the only viable option. Sad, so sad. --Abel (talk) 14:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Here is the Wikipediesque solution to this problem: take the union of the lists of leading works on liberty from several neutral, but respected, surveys of the topic, such as political-science textbooks. Our criterion for inclusion should not be, "Because these are the most excellent, insightful essays on liberty." It should be, "Scholars who've looked over centuries of debate about liberty have found that these works are cited most often and have had the widest influence." Hopefully by seeking the latter criterion we will keep tendentious editing to a tolerable minimum, while indirectly fulfilling the former criterion. —Ben Kovitz (talk) 17:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Liberty as lack of coercion

Some advocates of liberty (e.g., Ludwig von Mises) have argued that liberty is a sociological concept or that it makes no sense to speak about it outside of society. From this standpoint, it makes more sense to see liberty as lack of coercion. I think that this article's definition of liberty is closer to the definition of opportunity, a related but different concept. Everything Is Numbers (talk) 19:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Write the difference between freedom and liberty

Obrigado —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.232.226.210 (talk) 20:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Aug 13, 2012: The difference between Liberty and Freedom is that Freedom is unrestrained by external conditions, e.g. legislated regulation. Liberty is the state of being self-regulated. If you are by your own nature lawful, the law will not interfere with your liberty and you are free. If your expression of freedom is irresponsible then regulation must be imposed by society. A common example is the man who shouts 'Fire!' in a crowded theater. He has expressed his freedom of speech, but must be regulated to not so exercise his freedom such that it causes harm to others. Thus it is not illiberal to regulate an entity that has demonstrated irresponsible behavior that caused harm to others, but it would be illiberal to incarcerate a citizen who has not violated the law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OriginalTibs (talk • contribs) 12:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

removed a heavily biased opinion

The main body of the text originally contained the following: "A liberal and progressive defines liberty as being connected to the reasonably equitable distribution of wealth, arguing that the unrestrained concentration of wealth (the means of production) into only a few hands negates liberty. In other words, without relatively equal ownership, the subsequent concentration of power and influence into a small portion of the population inevitably results in the domination of the wealthy and the subjugation of the poor . Thus, freedom and material equality are seen as intrinsically connected. On the other hand, the classical liberal argues that wealth cannot be evenly distributed without force being used against individuals which reduces individual liberty."

Liberals do not define liberty as communism, nor would any that I know of conflate the two. I recommend this edit because it removes a heavily biased opinion that would assert a 'straw man' position onto a school of political thought.

---

You are making a positively absurd conflation of "resonably euitable distribution of wealth" with Communism! Achiving "reasonably equitable distribution of wealth" and Communism have nothing to do with each other! Wealth redistribution is common practice through tax policies and social programs in almost every capitalist, I repeat, capitalist democracy - particulary the ones with the highest ranking for quality of life, such as the UNHDR rankings. It is an uncontroversial practice nearly everywhere outside the rather fringe-level of discourse found in the Unites States. Please revert the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.115.12.254 (talk) 19:47, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Etymology

Would it be conducive to the content of this article to include a section on the etymology of the word liberty itself? Usually articles of this nature do include such a section, but I know very little about the subject (etymology, that is) so we'd need it handled by an expert. I noticed there is a similar suggestion already on this page; however, it's from 2008 and has obviously been ignored. I'm going to tag the article with an expert notice to try and catalyze the process. ∆ nbmatt 12:48, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Freedom

Considering the importance of the word "freedom" is almost all political, social, and economic discourse, it seems absurd that Wikipedia has only a disambiguation page. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:05, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Rename proposal that may affect this page

Please chime in at Talk:Freedom#Requested move - while the discussion started as a proposal to redirect Freedom to Liberty, an editor has suggested renaming this page to Freedom, so it would be helpful if viewers of this page commented on that idea. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:50, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

RTG's edit.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, liberty means "The condition of being able to act or function without hindrance or restraint; faculty or power to do as one likes." This article said "Liberty is the power to do as one likes." RTG changed that to an unreferenced definition. His definition is "Liberty can mean the absence of restraint, or the ability to act without consideration." I reverted. RTG reverted my revert. I have no wish to get into a revert war. But, in the first place, this article should not begin with what "liberty can mean" -- implying one meaning among many. And our principle definition of liberty should not be such a negative one; we should not define liberty as unrestrained or unconsidered action. No doubt that is one way the word liberty is used, as in the liberty to punch someone in the nose, or the liberty to act without thinking. But it is not the principle meaning. I hope someone else will weigh in on this topic. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:25, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Rjensen, for your edit. I have one suggestion. Before the three particular applications of liberty (to philosophy, politics, and religion) it seems to me a good idea to open with a general statement such as the one in the OED: "Liberty is the power to do as one likes." Your thoughts? Rick Norwood (talk) 19:36, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

@Rick Norwood:No. It says without restraint or hindrance. YOU CANNOT CHERRYPICK. Answer me how that is not cherry picking, and add to your answer why this particular cherry pick. And remember, if you contributions do not make sense in the english language, you should not be editing this article. I assure you, clever as you think you are, objectivity is as malleable as cold steel. You are like a beacon. I say, the source says two things. You say, ZOMG don't let anyone see that while I am doing something. What I wrote is that liberty is freedom from restraint, and that is the primary definition given all round, including the reference quoted above. @Rick Norwood: is trying to play games with that. ~ R.T.G 16:00, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Shortening a definition is not the same as cherry-picking. Of the two phrases, I chose the shorter. I would be just as happy with the other. Rudeness does not improve your argument. If you read what you wrote, which I quoted above, you will see that what you wrote and what you say you wrote are two different things. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:32, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I see primary information in the source. I see that primary information is guarded against by User:Rick Norwood. Explain that as a bemuddlement. ~ R.T.G 17:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

RTG left a comment on my talk page. I'm not going to respond, because I don't see any point in continuing this discussion in two separate threads. If you post that comment here, RTG, I'll be glad to respond.

How, by quoting the source, do I guard against it? Rick Norwood (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I am noting your questionable edits on your talk page, the same as I do with any editor that seems to be doing something unacceptable to an article. I have taken down some quotes on the nature of the meaning of liberty and collapsed them as they are long. ~ R.T.G 19:30, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

What Norwood is reading

Ethical Liberalism in Contemporary Societies Three-Quarter Liberalism. How we can deal with freedom in a globalised world ~Krzysztof Wojciechowski The quality of liberty, also qua moral principle, creates wide open spaces for the individual to undertake practically every activity. Society as a whole profits from the Principle of Liberty in every respect, since not just prosperity but also security, knowledge and happiness (self-worth) experience maximum development under the conditions of liberty. ~ Krzysztof Wojciechowski Three-Quarter Liberalism

What RTG is reading

Dictionary of the Social Sciences ~Craig Calhoun Liberty: See Freedom Freedom: Liberty; the abscence of constraint; self-determination. freedom is, with [sic]JUSTICE and DEMOCRACY, one of the most venerated and least agreed-upon ideals in modern politics. In Western politial discourse, freedom refers, often simultaniously, to at least two traditions in political thought. ~ Craig Calhoun Dictionary of the Social Sciences

etcetera

Foundations of Public Law 3. Liberty Martin Loughlin "[there are two meanings to liberty]...This ambivalent relationship betwenen liberty and law is revealed by comparing the formulations of Hobbes and Spinoza... ...This manoeuvre enables him also to set in place a novel idea of liberty. For Hobbes, liberty is a space for action that lies circumstantially beyond the limit of what the sovereign has prohibited... ...By liberty, then, Hobbes means "that part of natural right which is allowed and left to t he citizens by the civil laws". Liberty is the abscence of external restraint... ...Hobbes account should be contrasted with that of Spinoza" ~ Martlin Loughlin, Foundations of Public Law

etcetera

The Liberty of Intelligent Beings in Harmony with the Doctrines of the Christian Religion ~ Leonard Euler "Liberty is a quality so essential to every spiritual being, that God himself cannot divest them of it, just as He cannot divest a body of its extension, or of its inertia, without entirely destroying or annihilating it : to divest a spirit of liberty, therefore, would be the same thing as to annihilate it. This must be understood of the spirit or soul itself, and not of the actions of the body which the soul directs in conformity to its will. If you would prevent me from writing, you have but to bind my hands-- to write is undoubtably an exercise of liberty ; but then, though you may say that you have deprived me of the liberty of writing, you have only deprived my body of the faculty of obeying the dictates of my soul. Bind me every so hard, you cannot extinguish in my spirit an inclination to write ; all you can do is to prevent the execution of it. We must always carefully distinguish between inclination, or the act of willing, and execution, which is performed by the ministration of the body. The act of willing cannot be restrained by an exterior power, not even by that of God; for liberty is independant of all exterior force. But there are means of acting on spirits, by motives which have a tendancy, not to constrain, but to persuade. Let a man be firmly determined to engage in any enterprise, and let us suppose the execution of it prevented; without making any change in his intention, or will, it might be possible to suggest motives which should engage him to abondon his purpose, without employing any manner of constraint: however powerful these motives may be, he is always master of his own will; it can never be said that he was forced or constrained to it, at least the expression would be improper; for the proper term is persuade, which is so suitable to the nature and the liberty of intelligent beings, that it cannot be applied to any other. It would be very ridiculous, for example, in playing at billiards, to say that I persuaded the ball into the hazard." ~ Leonard Euler Letters from Euler on Different Subjects in Natural Philosophy

I enjoyed reading your quotes. Any or all of them could be used in the article, though not in the lead, which should, and does, concentrate on the basic meaning of "liberty" rather than on its origins and philosophical implications. However, the book you say I am reading is not one I remember ever having read. Currently I'm reading Political Economy by Barry Clark, Working by Studs Terkel, and Sandman Overtures by Neil Gaiman. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:55, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Well I've read a couple of good Gaiman books myself but... The first and foremost part of definition you are quoting your self says quite clearly that liberty is related to the absence of restraint. When I saw in the article "do as you like," I genuinely thought it had been vandalised. The reason I have made a reaction is the reasons I have noted on your talk page about liberty, and how we don't see it the same as they saw it, and yet we attribute the way we see it as crafted by their ideals. And all that accomplishes is that we fail to see what they were showing us. If you are at liberty, you are at your own volition. That gives you the freedom to do as you like, but it also gives you the freedom to do as you don't like, or as others like, or as something which doesn't even fit the word like. Liberty really is, first and foremost, the absence of restraint. If liberty meant alone, contribution to our own satisfaction, well you'd be a slave to your own desires wouldn't you. Sure, the best short description of liberty does not use words like restraint, but see that last quote above from Leonard Euler? They've been debating the difficulty of defining the word for centuries, and Euler is actually trying to say that liberty is as far from restraint as possible. Yet his text is littered with reference to restraint.

• I can tell you why that is, but it is not any use to this article. Liberty exists before restraint, in the sense that in a situation where no restraint has ever been, liberty reigns. But to you and I, that state is not apparent until the state of restraint is understood. You can't see what you've got till it's gone basically. Before the situation of restraint, liberty is universal, and therefore it has another definition... existence... There is no way to tell the difference before example of the opposite. It's not true of all words, but of this one, and the other (freedom ofc) that means the same thing. Without boundaries, we can know that we travel for miles and miles, but we cannot understand that we have travelled farther...

So, I don't know if any of that is making sense to you, but the basic point is, those dictionary references all, are putting one thing first, and it is the same thing across the board, and the reason is the philosophical determination of that word which is long and ancient, and unsettled too. So, if you are doing some great work here and I have put you off your stride for a minute I am sorry, but the primary definition of this particular word is clear as the first definition in most or all dictionaries. The change you want may seem subtle, but it is greatly debated. And that's probably the lot of what I can say about it. ~ R.T.G 21:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm more familiar with Euler as a mathematician than as a philosopher, but, as I said, there is certainly a place in this article for philosophy.

There has never been a human society without restraint. The further back you go, the more restraint. In tribal societies, failures to obey tribal taboos were usually punished by banishment or death. As for desires, I desire the well-being of others, especially loved ones, but more generally all people, and even animals in so far as that is practical. (God may note the fall of every sparrow, but for purely practical reasons, I can't.) But don't confuse desire with hedonism. Have you read Epicurus?

To me, it seems clear that without restraint you do as you like, and if you are free to do as you like you are without restraint -- except self-restraint, which is one reason I prefer "do as you like" to "without restraint". If we used "without restraint", I would like to see "without external restraint", but that would be OR.

Rick Norwood (talk) 22:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

I can't say I've directly read much on Epicurus. I should have read most of them at my age because I do understand how key their studies have been for modern society. People don't even recognise philosophy any more. Unis seem to have it down as spiritual. Totally ridiculous. Philosophy is practical. If I had it back to do as I thought was best, I would probably stay with school to a degree in philosophy (or geology).

I am not afloat with alternate suggestions for the lead. "Opposite of restricted" could be a good phrase. The ideal is not to use words about restriction, seeing as that is the last thing it is, but that description seems to be an age old dilemma. And maybe it is that it should say in the lead. The exact nature of liberty has been contended and philosophised for ages..

Yeah, records of letters by scientists are often interesting revealing their philosophical debates. Einstein is often quoted from his letters about his philosophies, for instance that he wished he was a vegetarian, sticks with someone committed to that principle. ~ R.T.G 10:59, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Liberty is a non-constrained state. It is defined by or as a state without restriction. It is referred to in the manner of a place such as: to be in the state of liberty, is to be at liberty. The concepts of liberty are so old as the concepts of bondage, but important in the modern day for/as/with/to.../ As a word, the word can be specific to a single function: At liberty to perform an action, relates that liberty in a way which is specific only to the performance of that action. The closest synonym to liberty is freedom and it is commonly used to compliment themes such as justice and fairness. Liberty is a common part of modern culture as there are significant monuments and philosophies dedicated to it, and its related principles are generally a part of the constitution of citizen controlled states.

This might not be the words, but is the sort of thing that is an encyclopaediac summary of the topic of liberty... ~ R.T.G 22:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC) (edited) ~ R.T.G 17:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Berlin

Buenos-Ding-Dong-Didily-Dias:

Someone might want to include a section on Isaiah Berlin's paper "Two Concepts of Liberty." It distorts Marx a bit in its description, and he fails to talk about Aristotle as positive liberty, but the concept of negative and positive liberty is quite useful in framing historical philosophical writings on liberty. You can look at everything from Nietzsche to Rawls as either positive or negative freedom, or a combination.

Happy Saturnalia,

70.72.45.131 (talk) 23:45, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

RFC re "Modern Perspectives" on Liberty

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The article on Liberty has a section called "Modern Perspectives," that describes democracy and social liberalism, including a short discussion of social justice and "freedom from the power of the upper class." Is social liberalism the "modern perspective" on liberty? Or is this usage of the term "liberalism" a distinct philosophy from that which is implied by the word "liberty"? Is democracy a "modern perspective" on liberty, or is it merely a tool of political change that has been used for liberty or against it at various points in history? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TBSchemer (talk • contribs) 20:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Survey

• Remove The sources don't seem to support the inclusion of this data that is only very loosely within this articles scope. SPACKlick (talk) 11:21, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
• Remove: It's an exercise in original research (particularly, novel synthesis) to take these essentially unrelated (and mostly unsourced) statements and combine them into a mini-essay on modernism and liberty. It also advances only one view of the definition of "liberalism", which has several very, very distinct meanings (some of them at direct odds with one another), in a way that will be confusing to many readers.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  11:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

• Remove Unless better sourced, the statements can be removed. Article 3 however, could maybe be developed? Dan Koehl (talk) 23:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)
• Remove per WP:OR. Just cause there is use of a source, doesn't mean that the source actually verifies the content.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I agree that the section as it stand is not on topic. I am currently reading in several books to see what would be on topic. I do not agree with the comments that began this discussion, to the effect that democracy and liberalism have no relationship to liberty, but I want to make a reasoned response based on authoritative sources. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:56, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No Description of Liberty Here.

This article entirely fails to define liberty, or provide any description of the philosophy of liberty. The "modern perspectives" section discusses liberalism, which, for the last century, has been an entirely distinct political philosophy that rejects liberty in most economic contexts, as well as social justice, which is antithetical to liberty. This section also includes a short non-sequitur discussion of democracy, which is not a component of liberty, but a tool that some historical figures have used to try to promote liberty (and many others have used to suppress it). I'm removing this section, because it has no place in this article.

However, this still doesn't fix the problem that there is no actual discussion of the practical meaning of the word "liberty" in this article. Of note, this article relegates the discussion of libertarianism, the philosophy that holds the achievement of liberty as its utmost objective, to a single sentence that doesn't make any sense. If you want a good discussion of liberty, go to the people who actually believe in it for sources. This article needs to be expanded with discussions about the contributions to the idea of liberty made by prominent libertarian philosophers, such as Friedrich von Hayek and the scholars at the Cato Institute. There should be a discussion of the Nolan Chart, and how liberty does not conveniently fit on the traditional Left-Right axis. There should be examples of the sorts of policies that align with liberty vs those that align with authority.

This article is in a pretty sad state right now, but I think we can improve it. TBSchemer (talk) 06:23, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

• I have taken some steps to improve the article's focus, though the section on the modern philosophy of liberty needs expansion. I will continue working on this over time. TBSchemer (talk) 06:38, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia has to take the standard, dictionary definitions of common words such as liberty. What you are proposing is that we use instead the Libertarian definitions. That's now how Wikipedia works. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:31, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Here is the dictionary.com first definition of Liberty:

1. freedom from arbitrary or despotic government or control.

Here is the dictionary.com definition of political liberty:

1. the right to express oneself freely and effectually regarding the conduct, makeup, and principles of the government under which one lives.

And Here is the start of the Britannica entry on libertarianism:

libertarianism, political philosophy that takes individual liberty to be the primary political value. It may be understood as a form of liberalism, the political philosophy associated with the English philosophers John Locke and John Stuart Mill, the Scottish economist Adam Smith, and the American statesman Thomas Jefferson. Liberalism seeks to define and justify the legitimate powers of government in terms of certain natural or God-given individual rights. These rights include the rights to life, liberty, private property, freedom of speech and association, freedom of worship, government by consent, equality under the law, and moral autonomy (the pursuit of one’s own conception ...

The "libertarian definition" as you call it IS the standard, dictionary definition of "liberty." Liberty is antithetical to social justice, and any other form of governmental authoritarianism, and never has. You can't just take a word that has had a specific meaning, worldwide, for hundreds of years and co-opt it for an entirely unrelated concept (i.e. modern American liberalism). Liberty means the same thing now that it meant to John Locke, to Thomas Jefferson, to John Stuart Mill, and to Friedrich von Hayek. It is entirely absurd and unencyclopedic for this article to try to redefine it as modern American liberalism. TBSchemer (talk) 14:06, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The material you deleted is all referenced. Your claim that "Modern proponents of liberty are known as libertarians" has only one reference, a libertarian reference. Essentially, you are claiming that if libertarians say libertarians are right, that proves libertarians are right, and you choose to ignore what all non-libertarians say. That is not how Wikipedia works.

Let's take your statements one at a time. "The article entirely fails to define liberty." The very first sentence gives three referenced definitions of liberty.

You claim that liberalism rejects liberty in most economic contexts. This article is not about liberalism but in any case you do not provided any source for your claim.

You claim social justice is antithetical to liberty. This is an extreme statement with no references.

You claim that democracy has nothing to do with liberty. Most thinkers disagree. Certainly Thomas Jefferson would strongly disagree. The alternatives to democracy are aristocracy and monarchy. By definition, both remove liberty from a majority of the people.

The dictionary definition of Liberalism you give is fine. Please feel free to put it in the article. Notice it assumes a government, it is not the ideal of an anarchist.

The article from the Britannica is fine. But you seem to ignore the following phrase "...a form of liberalism, the political philosophy which..." In other words, the rest of the sentence is about liberalism, not libertarianism. The libertarian definition, which preferences individual liberty over any of the other ideals of liberty, is not the definition which mentions government by consent and equality under the law (the social justice which you say is antithetical to "true" liberalism).

Rick Norwood (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

The material in the "modern perspectives" section does not define liberty in any sort of different way, but rather, talks about combining liberty with social justice in modern American liberalism. This is not supposed to be an article on modern American liberalism. Modern American liberalism is not just a "modern perspective" on liberty- it is a wholly distinct philosophy. The sources referenced there describe exactly what I'm saying, and at no point do they imply that "liberty" and "modern American liberalism" are the same.

The sources referenced in that section do not discuss democracy as a component of liberty, so that claim is entirely unsourced as of yet. "Democracy" and "liberty" are not interchangeable words. [2][3] One is a tool of political change, and one is a philosophical doctrine. Democracy can be used to create a nation of liberty. It can also be used to impose totalitarianism on a country (See: The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich Hayek).

I gave dictionary definitions of liberty, political liberty, and libertarianism, but not liberalism. Liberalism is an entirely distinct concept in the modern era. Libertarians are defined as people who hold liberty as the chief political objective. American "liberalism" holds that liberty should be replaced in some cases with efforts to pursue social justice. For example, a government mandate requiring all citizens of a country to purchase a specific private-sector product is indisputably incongruous with liberty, yet is supported by modern American liberalism when that product is health insurance.[4] This article must be changed to stop confusing the two philosophies, and that's what I'm trying to do. TBSchemer (talk) 21:28, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

The short response is that your views are non-standard, and Wikipedia is not the place to publish them. But I'll assume good-faith and respond to what you say. According to the Oxford American Dictionary, "liberalism" means "favoring democratic reform and individual liberty". According to the Constitution of the United States, the purpose of our democratic government was to "establish the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity". That establishes a relationship between liberty, liberalism, and democracy strong enough for this article to describe. You're unhappy with health insurance. This is not the place to air your views on that subject. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:59, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

You are engaging in WP:SYNTHESIS and confusing terms all over the place.

• According to your sources, liberalism favors democratic reform- that doesn't mean liberty necessarily depends on democracy.
• According to your sources, liberalism favors individual liberty- that doesn't mean liberalism and liberty are the same, or even that individual liberty is the primary political value of liberalism (as it is in libertarianism - already sourced above).
• According to your sources, the purpose of democratic government was to establish liberty- that doesn't mean liberty is itself democracy. As I've already explained (and sourced) above, democracy is a tool that has been used to achieve many different political systems, including liberty, but also including systems that are entirely opposed to liberty.
• "You're unhappy with health insurance" - Don't make this WP:PERSONAL. I brought up this example to clearly illustrate the distinction between liberty and modern American liberalism.

I hope I've clarified things for you. Since I have now made clear that your sources do not support the idea that modern American liberalism is the modern perspective on liberty (without jumping to a lot of conclusions and engaging in a lot of WP:SYNTHESIS), I'm going to restore the section title changes that I made. If you still disagree, then we can start a Request for Comment, and have plenty of other editors explain to you that modern American liberalism is not just the modern perspective on liberty, but a distinct philosophy. TBSchemer (talk) 22:22, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

• I took a less aggressive approach to reverting the section title, instead just labeling it "Liberalism." So now the politics section is structured as a list of various political philosophies that make references to liberty. I hope this compromise is more agreeable to you. TBSchemer (talk) 22:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I never said any of those things, so you are engaged in a straw man argument.

You say a section on the US is not important in an article on liberty. The US is not the only country founded on the ideal of liberty, but it is certainly a major country founded on that ideal and should not be deleted. Instead, other countries should be added. So, no, deleting the section on the US is not an acceptable compromise. Modern American liberalism does not limit itself to issues involving freedom, it also supports equality under the law, but major liberal issues that do involve freedom include the freedom of minorities to vote which is guaranteed in the constitution, the freedom of women to practice birth control and abortion as guaranteed by the US Supreme Court, and the freedom of people to marry someone of the same gender, which is an on-going struggle.

I have no objection to a short, referenced section on Libertarianism. Rick Norwood (talk) 01:46, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

TBSchemer, we need to follow mainstream sources and none of them say that only the Libertarian Party of the U.S. supports liberty. The social liberal justification for universal health care is that people who are sick, ignorant or destitute cannot be free. While one could argue whether or not that is true or whether government should do anything about it can be, it is a valid position. If they are right, then U.S. libertarians could be seen as opponents of freedom. Certainly forcing people to buy insurance is an abridgement of freedom, but so is having police, courts and prisons. Without some restrictions to freedom, there would be no freedom. TFD (talk) 15:28, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Rick Norwood: "I never said any of those things, so you are engaged in a straw man argument."

• What you said: According to the Oxford American Dictionary, "liberalism" means "favoring democratic reform and individual liberty". >>But I did not say "liberty necessarily depends on democracy".
• What I said: According to your sources, liberalism favors democratic reform- that doesn't mean liberty necessarily depends on democracy.
• What I said: According to your sources, liberalism favors individual liberty- that doesn't mean liberalism and liberty are the same, or even that individual liberty is the primary political value of liberalism (as it is in libertarianism - already sourced above).
• And so on. I'm not going to keep rehashing a discussion that's already recorded for all of us to see above.

Since you still insist on title the section on Liberalism in the modern American sense the "Modern Perspective" on liberty, I will open an RFC so that you can hear from other editors.

TFD, I have not said and do not believe that only the Libertarian Party of the U.S. supports liberty. A libertarian (someone who holds liberty as their primary political principle) is not necessarily a member of the Libertarian Party. Liberalism does make some reference to liberty, but holds that it should be tempered by a pursuit of equality. Liberty (in its political usage) is specifically defined (in reliable, mainstream sources) as freedom from arbitrary control by governments or similar authorities.[5][6][7][8][9][10] The idea that liberty is somehow "freedom from want" or "freedom from ignorance" or "freedom from" any other abstract affliction of humanity is nothing more than a fringe theory and a common confusion of terms. A source as mainstream as The New York Times has recognized this important distinction between "freedom" (a more general term) and "liberty," (refers to a very specific set of political principles).[11] In other words, "freedom" can refer to either negative freedom or positive freedom, but "liberty" is used to specifically refer to a system of negative freedom, and this is maintained in etymology, historical documents, and contemporary ordinary usage of the terms.[12] TBSchemer (talk) 19:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

TBSchemer asks:

1) "What you said: According to the Oxford American Dictionary, "liberalism" means "favoring democratic reform and individual liberty". "

Response. Yes, that is the dictionary definition.

2) "What I said: According to your sources, liberalism favors democratic reform- that doesn't mean liberty necessarily depends on democracy.

Response. No. Liberalism is a political philosophy. Liberty is a state of being. Favoring democracy is a political position. Democracy favors liberalism, but liberty has existed in non-democratic societies, such as the example, mentioned in the article, of the Roman empire under Marcus Aurelius.

3} "What I said: According to your sources, liberalism favors individual liberty- that doesn't mean liberalism and liberty are the same, or even that individual liberty is the primary political value of liberalism (as it is in libertarianism - already sourced above)."

Response. No. Liberalism favors individual liberty means that individual liberty is one thing favored by liberalism. Liberalism and liberty are not the same because one is a belief system and the other is a reality, and again because liberty is one of the two fundamental beliefs of liberals, and equality under the law is the other. Some liberals would cite freedom as primary, others would cite equal rights as primary. The article discusses the conflict between these ideas.

4) "And so on. I'm not going to keep rehashing a discussion that's already recorded for all of us to see above."

Response. Good.

5) "Since you still insist on title the section on Liberalism in the modern American sense the "Modern Perspective" on liberty, I will open an RFC so that you can hear from other editors."

Response. Good.

Once again, assuming good faith, I will explain. Unless a person is living far away from any other human being, their liberty is not absolute. Humans living in groups always give up some of their liberty. One example is the famous

your freedom to swing your fist ends at my nose. There is a difference between freedom from arbitrary control by governments, which we both favor, and freedom from any sort of control at all. As for the tension between freedom and equality, the article discuss that in several places. It also discusses the idea of negative liberty, and gives various views on that subject, with citations. Where you go into non-standard and uncited territory is where you claim that "liberty" is used to specifically refer to a system of negative freedom. Your claims to that effect needs evidence, which you do not provide. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

That evidence is provided in the final link I cited in my last reply. [13]

Here's a short excerpt from the etymological argument (the author goes on for pages and pages about how all of the etymological roots of the word "liberty" refer to negative, rather than positive freedom or capability) (pg 534):

But libertas never meant political participation, an extension of equality from legal to political or social rights, let alone equal access to office, voting, or debate. For both classes, Raaflaub summarizes, libertas was "passive," "defensive," "predominantly negative."

After a long discussion of differences between the contemporary, common usages of "freedom," "liberal," and "liberty," the author concludes that liberty is most related to exemptions from an external system of control (pg 543):

Liberty seems to connote something more formal, rational, and limited than freedom; it concerns rules and exceptions within a system of rules. It concerns neither objects, incapable of rule-governed conduct, nor the depths of the psyche from which spontaneity springs. At most, in liberality, it implies firm, rational control of those mysterious depths and of the dangerous passions found there, not their expression in action. In other words, although liberty means the absence of (some particular) constraint, at the same time it implies the continuation of the surrounding network of restraint and order. It concerns exemptions within a system of rules: permissions. That is why - in perhaps the only instance where "freedom" flatly cannot be substituted for "liberty" - military leave, and particularly naval shore leave, are called "liberty." A sailor goes on liberty, not on freedom; the release is temporary and limited.

He goes on to analyze how a prominent political theorist, Sir Isaiah Berlin, inadvertently uses "liberty" and "freedom" interchangeably to describe negative freedom, but exclusively uses "freedom" to describe positive freedom, even as he tries to argue a broader definition for the word "liberty" (pg 544):

Explicating the "negative sense," Berlin invokes the authority of ordinary usage, appealing to what might "normally or "naturally" be said, as distinct from what would be "eccentric." Yet the specific claims he makes here are not in accord with ordinary usage. He employs words from both families in making these claims, though the "free-" family predominates; but the claims are false with respect to the "free-" family, though they are, or would be, true with respect to the "liber-" family. In this section, Berlin really does use the two families interchangeably, but thereby undermines some of his own claims. When he turns to the "positive sense," and particularly to psychic self-mastery, he employs the "free-" family almost exclusively. This is in accord with ordinary usage; indeed, many expressions in this section would sound distinctly odd if the "liber-" family were used instead (consider "freedom as self-master," "freedom as resistance to [or escape from] unrealizable desire," "freedom as self-direction"). Berlin is in a bind: For the "positive sense" to include psychic self-mastery, it has to be a sense of "freedom." For the "negative sense" to be as Berlin characterizes it, it has to be a sense of "liberty." But for Berlin's essay to work at all, they have to be two fundamental senses of a single word (or of an interchangeable pair of words).

TBSchemer (talk) 19:45, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

TBSchemer, it is odd to call social liberalism a fringe theory, when the social liberal paradigm dominated the Western World in the post-war period and the modern welfare state though cut back remains in place. Your statement that they hold liberty should be tempered by a pursuit of equality is no more true of them than of libertarians. They both believe that all individuals should enjoy equal freedom. You are confusing it with socialism. TFD (talk) 01:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

I did not say that social liberalism is a fringe theory. I said that the claim that social liberalism IS liberty (or is the modern take on it) is a fringe theory. I am not here to argue the merits of social liberalism, or to try to justify or oppose the level of liberty prescribed by social liberals. I am merely arguing that an honest, factual description of social liberalism does not attempt to co-opt the term "liberty," destroying the definition it has had for hundreds, if not thousands of years. An honest description of social liberalism acknowledges that social liberals believe maximal liberty is morally wrong, because it leaves people to struggle as lone individuals, potentially with a great deal of economic inequality that inhibits their personal empowerment. The distinction between social liberalism and liberty is as important as the distinction between social liberalism and socialism. Social liberalism borrows components from both liberty and socialism, but is equal to neither.

On the other hand, libertarianism is literally (and is commonly defined as) the political philosophy of maximizing liberty. Libertarian scholars do not make efforts to redefine liberty, but to discover what it has meant through the centuries, and to figure out what sort of political system would allow the highest degree of liberty that is logically possible. Not just the highest degree of liberty that is advisable, but the highest degree that is logically possible (as in, not self-contradictory). Libertarian scholars are the experts on the concept of liberty, just as socialist scholars (e.g. Marx, Engels) are considered the experts on the concept of socialism. TBSchemer (talk) 20:17, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

It does not matter whether or not a majority of the public accepts the political prescriptions suggested by libertarian scholars- their descriptions of liberty are still the most consistent, well-thought-out, historically-founded conceptions of the term, even if very few people actually believe maximal liberty is a good idea. You can disagree that total liberty is a good idea without fighting with the experts to try to redefine it as something that you do think would be a good idea. TBSchemer (talk) 20:39, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

What you say above is much more clear than what you said earlier. I appreciate that. However, you still make a straw man argument. You write, in quotes, about a claim that "social liberalism IS liberty". Nobody made that claim. You claimed that "social liberalism rejects liberty in most economic contexts", a view for which you have offered no evidence. As I and TFD have pointed out to you, social liberalism supports both liberty and equality under the law, and the brief discussion in this article acknowledges that in some cases those two values come into conflict. Rick Norwood (talk) 01:58, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Social liberals also seek the highest degree of liberty that is logically possible. That is why they revised the classical liberal paradigm. But there has always been conflict between liberals on how this could be achieved. Early debates on both democracy and slavery for example divided liberals, but were always argued from the principle of liberty by both sides. The issue, as Hobhouse noted, is that the liberty of one person may infringe the liberty of another. That was Rick Norwood's point, that your liberty to hit him infringes on his liberty not to be hit. Now I am not arguing that social liberalism actually advanced liberty or that the people who carried out those policies wanted to advance liberty. But that was the stated goal, not the desire for equality. Ironically, the Conservative advocates of social liberal policies, such as Ian Gilmore, were philosophically opposed to equality, but were strong advocates of liberty. TFD (talk) 05:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Rick Norwood, the problem with the content as it currently stands is that by having social liberalism described in a section of the "Liberty" article titled "Modern Perspectives," it really does imply to the reader that social liberalism IS liberty, even if that's not your intention. Certainly, there is a place to discuss the conflict between liberty and equality at the heart of social liberalism, but the article on liberty is not that place. Social liberalism is, at best, tangential to the encyclopedic description of liberty.

TFD, libertarian scholars have discussed this concept in depth. Liberty is only liberty if it does not infringe on someone else's liberty. Your freedom or power to hit someone else infringes on that person's liberty. Hence, a state of liberty logically cannot include the right to hit someone else (unprovoked). A system where people are free to hit whoever they want offers no protection from anyone else's power. But social liberals go take a different approach, and assert that we should all have rights to education, health care, etc (See: Social Liberalism). The right to a service like education is not a form of liberty (freedom from interference by others), but is an exercise of power over others (to either force educators to provide you a service, or to force others to pay the educators to provide you a service). An exercise of power over another person who has done you no harm is antithetical to the concept of universal liberty. Hence, social liberals do not believe in maximizing liberty. They believe in sacrificing a little liberty to gain equality of opportunity. TBSchemer (talk) 22:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could provide a source where these libertarian scholars say that the objective of social liberalism is equality, rather than liberty. Also, where do they say that liberty is only liberty if it does not harm? Libertarians btw also believe in equality of opportunity, the dispute is equality of outcome which, despite how it is often misconstrued, merely means that on average disadvantaged people will have equal outcomes for equal efforts. The objective of that policy is maximization of liberty for all. TFD (talk) 22:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

TBSchemer: you continue to state your opinion without references, as TFD has pointed out more than once. I do not think this article should have a section on libertarianism but not a section on social liberalism. Both have freedom as a core value. Social liberals have made gains in voter rights in the south, women's rights, and in many other areas where freedom is the clear goal. However, I will attempt to rewrite the section "modern perspectives" using modern books on the subject, such as Menneth Minogue's Politics, a Very Short Introduction and John Gray's Two Faces of Liberalism.

Health, education, and welfare have more to do with the progressive philosophy than with the liberal philosophy, but civil rights and voter rights have everything to do with liberty, and they are liberal causes.

Rick Norwood (talk) 12:06, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

• @Rick Norwood: Thanks for all the work you've done on the article over the last week! At this point, I'm pretty happy with the article as it stands. I do still think the focus of the "Liberalism" subsection might be a little off-topic (I might be able to fix this by expanding the "History" section to discuss the centuries of debates over the relationship between "freedom" and "liberty"), but this is a huge improvement over how the article was previously organized, and I think all the wording is a lot clearer. I think the current version of the article is a strong framework to build off of. TBSchemer (talk) 16:42, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Tea Party

I agree that this article is not the place to argue the merits of the Tea Party. But the Tea Party is too recent to have a stand-alone paragraph in an otherwise very brief summary of more than two hundred years of history. I'm going to try for a balanced approach to various claims about how best to promote liberty in the United States. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:31, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Crap???

Is this article just crap or what??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlon (talk • contribs) 20:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is awful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.32.59.247 (talk) 13:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the article's actual value, is this the level of argument / discussion or at least lexicon Wikipedia deserves? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.237.64.44 (talk) 07:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge.

I strongly oppose merging Draft:Freedom into this article. "Freedom" and "Liberty" are related concepts, but do not map to each other; there is no purely physical or mathematical concept of "liberty", which is included in the sense of "freedom" that this article will cover. Objects do not have degrees of liberty. bd2412 T 02:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

I removed the merge tag because there is no actual merge proposal here or explanation for why the tag was added. The article Freedom mistakenly had a redirect to this article (which I just fixed). Maybe that's what it was? Freedom is different than liberty, of course. Sparkie82 (t•c) 07:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Liberty

In the United States Declaration of Independence to the King of England King George III, of the year 1776, the United States declared life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness (it was originally property, but former President Thomas Jefferson decided that might lead to something undesirable) as their liberty requirements. In the United States Constitution in the 14th Amendment after the bloody United States Civil War and because of the bloody United States Civil War the words life, liberty, and property were added. The United States has legal requirements and legal definitions of life, liberty, and property where all three are considered requirements for liberty, so a very large nation and fifty States practices the principle liberty in law.

Could people sign after editing, please? —Twilight Princess

Liberty is evidenced by movement and speech; but the essential blessings of liberty are the foundation of republican government. Justice, tranquillity, heart, and equality are the responsibility of 'we the people' to establish, ensure, provide, and promote, and secure to posterity.

In my view undefined use of the word 'equality' causes misunderstanding. 'Equal rights' and 'equality' are two quite different things. We are not born nor do we develop as equals due to biological and environmental differences and ordinary chance events. If institutions are held responsible to try to make us equal they'll have to engage in some manner of normalization conduct which would involve redistribution of opportunity, property, or other tangible matters of life. Such conduct erodes liberty.

The word 'equality' is multifaceted (and loaded) and often used thoughtlessly with no reasonable contextual meaning. When we mean equal rights, I hope we'll say equal rights, and when we mean equality, we'll explain clearly what specific kind of equality we're referencing. --H Bruce Campbell (talk) 07:38, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"

RightCowLeftCoast wrote, explaining a recent edit, "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness", yah, equality is not in that quote.

Look at the complete sentence: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Rick Norwood (talk) 13:08, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Undue weight to Libertarian pov

This is again completely hijacked by some libertarians (the American type). It's hard to take Wikipedia seriously and even harder to use it for university/college purposes. American Libertarianism has almost no relevance in the real world; therefore, it shouldn't get as much weight here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.117.249.20 (talk) 13:30, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree, can you be more specific? Dougweller (talk) 14:40, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

It should be clearly pointed out that the section about Libertarianism concerns Right-libertarianism. --31.223.138.103 (talk) 00:40, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

• Hey now, no attacks on Wikipedia! bd2412 T 17:20, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Equivalence or divergence of "liberty" and "freedom"

"Freedom" and "liberty" are essentially equivalent in how they are used. In the article split between this article and freedom, a false dichotomy was set up, and then the language below was added:

Generally, liberty is distinctly differentiated from freedom in that freedom is primarily, if not exclusively, the ability to do as one wills and what one has the power to do; whereas liberty concerns the absence of arbitrary restraints and takes into account the rights of all involved. As such, the exercise of liberty is subject to capability and limited by the rights of others. Referece: Mill, J.S. (1869)., "Chapter I: Introductory", On Liberty. http://www.bartleby.com/130/1.html

And a single reference to John Stuart Mill is given, except that if you read the Mill document and just search for the word "freedom" inside the document, you'll find the cited author doesn't use the term until halfway through, doesn't set up any kind of distinction with the term "liberty," and in fact the way he uses the term "freedom" is simply substitutional for "liberty" and its meaning is equivalent. The premise that "freedom" and "liberty" are meaningfully different was false, the idea that they should have different articles was false, and the citation delivered claiming to support this difference was false. -Inowen (talk) 00:52, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Liberty's Political Definition

The beginning of the article bases "liberty"'s political definition ("In modern politics, liberty consists of the social, political, and economic freedoms to which all community members are entitled.") around the Oxford English Dictionary and changes the wording of the definition to suit the writer's interpretation of that definition. Furthermore, Oxford University Press states that Oxford Dictionaries is more relevant for this topic ("MODERN politics" as stated above by the writer) than the Oxford English Dictionary, as seen below-

"The dictionary content in Oxford Dictionaries focuses on current English and includes modern meanings and uses of words. Where words have more than one meaning, the most important and common meanings in modern English are given first, and less common and more specialist or technical uses are listed below. The OED, on the other hand, is a historical dictionary and it forms a record of all the core words and meanings in English over more than 1,000 years, from Old English to the present day, and including many obsolete and historical terms. Meanings are ordered chronologically in the OED, according to when they were first recorded in English ..." The link is the source for this quote. https://web.archive.org/web/20180228084422/http://public.oed.com/about/the-oed-and-oxford-dictionaries/

So I'm going to be replacing the political definition of liberty in this article based around the Oxford English Dictionary definition with the UNALTERED Oxford Dictionaries definition, without altering its wording to suit my interpretation. I will also not delete the Oxford English Dictionary source, but I WILL add the Oxford Dictionaries source. This is all a response to Johnbod claiming in the revision history that my earlier edit was unjustified without a "proper reference", which I DID provide. The website I provide for the source is powered by OXFORD.--Ντόναλντ (talk) 23:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

This should be changed back. The meaning has not changed at all since the more concise OED definition was written. Anyway, where does "Oxford University Press states that Oxford Dictionaries is more relevant for this topic"? If you mention another editor, it is polite to link the name. Johnbod (talk) 00:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)

Oxford clearly shows that the meaning has changed by changing the meaning provided in Oxford Dictionaries from the one provided in Oxford English dictionaries. "Anyway, where does 'Oxford University Press states that Oxford Dictionaries is more relevant for this topic'?" Thank you for CONVENIENTLY leaving out the thing in this parentheses. The "topic" is "modern politics", as stated by the original editor whose sentence I replaced. As for my claim that Oxford University Press states it, I was mistaken. The Oxford English Dictionary website ITSELF states that Oxford Dictionaries is more relevant for MODERN topics, and you'd see this if you had actually READ the giant quote in the middle of my entry in the talk page.--Ντόναλντ (talk) 00:44, 23 July 2019 (UTC)