Talk:Liberalism/Archive 8

This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

That heading catched your attention, didn't it? Now, the article is unclear about natural rights vs. utilitarianism. Did some major liberal contingency claim natural rights as a basis for liberal moral, or did the opponents of liberalism claim natural rights? The article should preferrably be clearer of who proponed what, especially in the section "Natural rights vs. utilitarianism". Said: Rursus ☻ 10:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

"A man said to the universe, 'Sir, I exist.'

'However,' replied the universe, 'That does not instill in me a sense of obligation.'"

-- Crane

There are no "natural rights". There are constitutional rights, there are traditional rights, but natural rights? -- that's just political rhetoric. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:46, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

One doesn't have the right to health care, because that implies that someone else must give it to you. One could say that your only rights are those you can protect and defend. However, one could also say that just because your government does not protect your rights or oblige you your rights does not mean that you don't have them. They would say that your rights are being violated. Unfortunately, people have been misinformed about what "Rights" mean. On top of that, others have added this loaded word "privilege" into the discussion. If the government IS the people, then the government does not bestow rights. It certainly does not bestow privileges. It protects rights, and rights come with responsibility.76.215.47.190 (talk) 00:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

"With great power comes great responsibility."

-- Stan Lee

Note that the duality is power/responsibility not rights/responsibility. A "right" is something given to me by someone else -- and that someone else has the power to give it. If I have power, then I can take what I want, I don't need someone else to give it to me.

As an American, I have certain constitutional rights: freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom of the press, right to assemble, right to petition, right to call for a referendum, right to bear arms. As a worker, I have contractual rights with my employer.

As a voter, I have the power, working collectively with other voters, to demand schools for our children, highways for us to drive on, health care for those who cannot afford it. I have the power to insist that taxes be collected to pay for these services. Thanks to the 16th ammendment, people do not have the right to refuse to pay these taxes.

But it simplifies the discussion if we don't confuse power with rights. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering if this article has room for a section on the word liberal so often being used as a catch all derogatory word by many media outlets and news analysts. Seems as if, even though it was a trend started by Fox News, it has become a taboo, as many democratic presidential candidates have tried to avoid the description. I came to the article looking for the basis of the word being used as a casual and accepted pejorative, but there isn't any direct information. Seems like a relevant subject. Navis999 (talk) 11:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

This subject is covered in Modern liberalism in the United States. This article is more historical in its focus. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

ah, thanks. Navis999 (talk) 09:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC) how do we do that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.118.10.241 (talk) 20:30, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

The 3rd paragraph originally referred to rejection of "state religion" as defined by Wikipedia, but was changed to say rejection of "established religion" while maintaining a link to "state religion". Rejecting established religion means something very different to most people than rejecting the concept of a state religion. "Established religion" is even ambiguous in scholarly language. It could mean a religion established by the state, in certain contexts, but it could also mean institutional religion in general. I ask the administrators if they would kindly edit it to say what it means and replace "established religion" with the linked term "State Religion". The inference that many people will make after reading the current wording, that liberals reject all institutional religion, is blatently unfair to liberals by creating a false and negative impression. MaskedWoman (talk) 14:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaskedWoman (talk • contribs) 11:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC) MaskedWoman (talk) 14:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Your objection would be more appropriate in the "simple english" Wikipedia. While it may be true that many readers do not know what "established religion" means, a click on the phrase will take them to the correct meaning, "state religion". Here is what "What You Should Know About Politics...But Don't", an excelent non-partisan reference, says. First, quoting the Constitution of the United States, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The author goes on to say, "The first part of that sentence is called the establishment clause." It's a usage everyone should understand, even if many people don't. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Recent major and rapid edits have destroyed not only the meaning but also the grammar. This is, and has always been, a problem with this article, as people on one side or the other try to change the article to reflect their own POV. I'm going to try to fix things back the way they were, without resorting to a blanket revert. Please keep in mind that this article is not about modern American liberalism, nor about the modern American conservative's view of liberalism, nor about the Libertarian view of liberalism. Discuss major changes here. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the most blatantly POV material, but kept almost all of the referenced material, and done a minor rewrite for grammar and style. Keep in mind that the lede should be short, and details should be added in the appropriate subsections below. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:19, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't like how it is now. It was better before, but still not good, for example it was as you note too long. I suggest this:

Liberalism is a broad array of related ideas and theories of

system of government.^[2] All liberals — as well as some adherents of other political ideologies — support some variant of the form of government known as liberal democracy, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law.^[3]

And we move the discussion of different types into the article. Howzat? --OpenFuture (talk) 08:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Your version sounds good to me, except for the last two sentences. The next to last sentence does not sound very "liberal" to me, and the last sentence seems to me to repeat what has already been said earlier. I agree that we need something at the end. How about:

While many earlier writers,

United States of America

was the first nation founded on Locke's liberal principles.

Or something to that effect. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. --OpenFuture (talk) 21:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

but don´t Liberals eat small children for breakfast? And don´t they smoke the flag and the constitution and make abortions every five minutes...? After all: they´re atheists and so they don´t have any values! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.175.12.147 (talk) 16:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Compare it to the liberalism articles in *any* other language on wikipedia. Usually these articles vary from 20-30kBytes of text and sum it all up! This page is about 200kBytes with 10 sub-articles expanding it into the megabytes. Of course, all contradicting each other! Do yourself a favour: Delete all that crap! And translate the french one (for example). Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.33.72.5 (talk) 21:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

No. Expand the French article. Liberalism is one of the most important political philosophies in the world. When Locke first proposed it, there were no liberal democracies in the world. Now, there are many. France is one. Liberty, equality, fraternity! Rick Norwood (talk) 19:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

You will face some massive "undos" when you try to add that redneck crap to the wikipedia in any other language. Thank god there is still education out there. 91.33.100.134 (talk) 10:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

So, anyone who thinks Locke is a major philosopher and liberalism an important philosophy is a redneck. This is a definition of "redneck" with which I am unfamiliar. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:42, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Anyone mixing liberalism up with things like abortion or military aspects is a redneck yes. He confuses liberalism with the party-programm of one of the major US parties.194.55.1.242 (talk) 07:25, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Valois bourbon has attempted a number of strongly POV edits in this article and others. As a particularly egregious example, consider the following attempt to edit a direct quote: Protecting the rights of minorities flows naturally from liberal policy, which seeks to ensure equal opportunities for everyone which is actually an impossibility because you can't take from one to give to another without trampling on some-body's rights The phrase beginning ...which is actually an impossibility... was inserted into the quote by Valois bourbon. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:16, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

You are talking about someone else's edit, please remove it wherever it is. But don't delete information about classical liberalism, which is both the foundational liberalism and what is generally understood as liberalism except in North America.Valois bourbon (talk) 21:22, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Classical liberalism began with Locke, and was first put into practical political form by Thomas Jefferson. The French revolution was based, initially, on classical liberal ideals. The right to property has been an important part of liberalism from the beginning, but it is not the whole story. When Jefferson changed Locke's "life, liberty, and property" to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", he took classical liberalism in a new direction. When you describe the Dutch liberal conservatives as wanting both lower taxes and legal cannabis, you are showing how the two strains of classical liberalism: individual freedom and small government, can work together (unlike in the US, where they fight like cats in a sack). As for me talking about "someone else's edit", when you reverted my edit, instead of changing the parts you didn't like, you made it your edit. A great deal of my edit, which you reverted, was fixing mistakes in grammar and usage. Let's see if we can't work together, instead of at cross purposes. Rick Norwood (talk) 23:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Removing information about history and relation to free trade, etc. does not seem like "fixing mistakes in grammar and usage". Liberalism is credited for being a foundational force in the birth of modern capitalism, leftists even use "liberal" as a synonym for "laissez-faire"/"right-wing". Valois bourbon (talk) 13:54, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The changes to the lead by Valois bourbon include substitution of an un-referenced paragraph for material that is referenced. I note that the current lead has been worked out following considerable discussion on this page. So let's agree on the changes here before getting into further edit warring. Rick Norwood has made a reasonable request, IMO. Valois, would you be willing to proceed as he has outlined? Sunray (talk) 14:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

You inserted a reference in the intro that suggest the reader to "compare" to a "Martin Luther's speech" (which is not even about liberalism). Sorry, suggesting the reader to do his own research is blatant

Wikipedia:Original research. Valois bourbon (talk

) 15:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

You also inserted a paragraph that says social liberals support things like "right to education" (any political movement probably does, but political movements have differences on methods) and "minimum wage" (European social liberals tend to not have such demands as there's often no minimum wage laws at all, instead they often want to expand corporatist policies to manipulate wages). Unsurprisingly, the only reference is about "American liberalism". Such detailed specific positions are best left to the main article.Valois bourbon (talk) 16:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the version here: [1] It says the same things, but shorter and doesn't start to blabber about different forms of liberalism in the intro. Good argument for not reverting it is needed. ;) --OpenFuture (talk) 19:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I prefer it too, as you see, that is the version I reverted to. The lead should NOT go on to details about specific positions in specific countries ("minimum wage", etc.).Valois bourbon (talk) 14:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Note to Valois bourbon: The reference is to Martin Luther King, not Martin Luther. Anyone interested in political science should be aware of this speech. The "I have a dream" speech was about the liberal ideal of equality. The ideal of a liberal education was opposed throughout history by some people, and is still opposed by many Libertarians today, on the grounds that they should not be taxed to pay for the education of someone elses kids. I don't understand your reference to the "main article". This is the main and introductory article on liberalism.

Note to OpenFuture: I assume you mean a good argument for not reverting *to* it. I'll take a look and see if I agree or not. Rick Norwood (talk) 17:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Note to Valois bourbon: your strong belief that economic freedom, not individual freedom, is the cornerstone of liberalism is certainly one belief held by liberals. But it is not the only belief held by liberals, and it is not a belief held by all liberals. Many liberals see the coercive power of wealth as a threat to individual freedom. Another serious problem is the many errors in grammar and usage. There have been so many edits in the past twenty-four hours, both by you and by others, that the article is full of mistakes. Please, slow down and write carefully. Everybody makes mistakes, but when we rush, we tend to make more mistakes. My inclination at this point is to throw out all recent changes, and revert to the version OpenFuture prefers. But, instead I'll take a close look at both versions before acting precipitously. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Having carefully read both, the current version and the version preferred by OpenFuture share the quality of seeming to have been written by a committee. They argue with themselve and repeat themselves. Sigh. I will try to keep the parts that Valois bourbon considers essential (that Liberalism owes at least as much to Adam Smith as to John Locke) but correct the grammar and eliminate the repetition. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I've moved the most contentious and repetitious discussions out of the lede and into their respective sections, where I often found the same ideas repeated. I've tried to improve grammar and reduce repetition. If someone wants to change the lede further, I ask that they please don't repeat what is already said below. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The lead its pretty good now, I think. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I've been trying to work with Valois bourbon, as have several other editors, but his latest edit is so full of errors that I suggest we simply take turns reverting his edits until he slows down and checks his facts. For example, this from his most recent edit to this article: "The English philosopher

Valois: You need to become less confrontative, less dogmatic and more constuctive in your edits. --OpenFuture (talk) 11:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The lead has a reference "Paul Starr, The New Republic, March 2007". This is not sufficient: it does tell which New Republic magazine or article title/page number. Neither is an American left-wing magazine such a scholarly source that would represent a reliable description of the global social liberalism, which is different from American notions.Valois bourbon (talk) 13:11, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The claim that the United States is the first liberal state is also a bit controversial; if the lead has space for it, then the far more important role of liberalism in the birth of modern capitalism definitely deserves to be mentioned.Valois bourbon (talk) 13:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

To find out "which" New Republic magazine, click on your own link. To find out which issue, as in your own post, March 2007. To find out which page number, look up the Paul Starr article in the table of contents. Your objections are frivolous. But your second sentence is telling...you won't believe what a left-wing magazine says it believes, rather what right wingers think left-wingers really believe. That is not what Wikipedia is all about. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:26, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

It is not a scholarly source and presumably talks about American "social liberalism" which has nothing do with global "social liberalism". I suggest the version favored by the user OpenFuture, which leaves the intro free of social liberalism for a good reason (there's no good short description and it even is unclear whether it's a part of liberalism at all).Valois bourbon (talk) 23:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Valois bourbon's edits are growing more extreme, rather than less. I've just reverted edits that claim liberalism is a synonym for left-wing and left-wing means socialist or communist. The clear implication is that all liberals are socialists or communists. If there are any other people here who are liberals but not socialists nor communists, I'd appreciate a little help in getting Valois's rapid edits under control. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:36, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

You have been told this many times before, but once again: American use of the word "liberal" is opposite to that in the rest of the world. In most parts of the world, the word "liberal" refers to right-wing politics. Actually, the left even uses the word "liberal" as a pejorative word for "right-wing". You keep inserting non-sense claims such as "economic liberals call themselves classical liberals": many liberal movements are both culturally and economically liberal, more information can be found one click away and other editors should not need to repeat these facts endlessly.Valois bourbon (talk) 23:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

As I've said before, if you want to comment about what "liberal" means in Europe, then restrict your claims to European usage, put them in a subsection or subarticle, and reference them. What "liberal" means in Europe is very different from what "liberal" means in, for example, Iran. As for your other claims, I am careful to support my edits with quotes from books that cover world politics, not just American politics.

On the specific point of where and when economic liberals call themselves classical liberals, I'll do some research and get back to you. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:29, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Ludwig von Mises is one example of an Austrian who, in 1923, used "classical liberalism" to mean "economic liberalism", with the implication that this was standard usage at the time. Modern reviews of his books are a delightful Alice-in-Wonderland mix of assertions that liberalism used to mean social liberalism but now means economic liberalism, assertions that liberalism used to mean economic liberalism but now means social liberalism, and all kinds of assumptions about what liberalism "really" means. Liberalism means what the dictionary says it means. Any other assertion leads to a failure to communicate. In any case, von Mises is an example that shows my assertion that (some) economic liberals outside the US call themselves classic liberals is not "non-sense". Rick Norwood (talk) 17:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I have removed some statements from the lead; the statements and my reasons for removing them are as follows: 1. "The first modern liberal state was the

Who makes this claim? The reference given was Paul E. Sigmund, editor, The Selected Political Writings of John Locke. Locke could not have made this claim because he died before the US was established. Does Paul E. Sigmund make the claim? Then it should not be included in the lead, since Sigmund is certainly not a prominent theoretician of liberalism.

2. "...founded on the principle 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; that to insure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.'"

What does this have to do with liberalism? Thomas Jefferson does not mention liberalism in the Declaration of Independence. If someone else claims that these are liberal principles, cite that other person, not Jefferson.

3. "Pioneers of liberalism such as Adam Smith conceptualized free markets, free trade, invisible hand, spontaneous order..."

Adam Smith never used the term "spontaneous order," and the "invisible hand" is not a concept supported by all liberals. -- Nikodemos (talk) 06:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The first two references were added to the article by me. Clearly the claim that the United States was the first liberal democracy was made by the editor, Sigmund, who is the person referenced in the citation. He is a noted scholar -- I don't know what you mean by "a theoretician of liberalism". The claim that the Declaration of Independence lays out the principles of liberalism is so well-known as to hardly require a reference, but many are easily found. For example, from the Encyclopedia Britannica article Declaration of Independence, Jefferson's political theory was that of Locke, whose words the Declaration echoes. This also from that article, quoting Leslie Stephen, "by the Declaration a State, for the first time in history, founded its life on democratic idealism".

Since I did not offer the reference to Adam Smith, I will leave that for others to defend.

Rick Norwood (talk) 14:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Valois bourbon, I am trying to understand your purpose in editing these articles. You challenge material that is totally unexceptionable. Either you do not know history, or you choose to try to rewrite history to agree with your worldview. I would really like to understand which. There is a body of knowledge, hard won over centuries of effort, which is now generally accepted everywhere in the world, except by special interest groups. In brief, we can say that standard English language sources for this knowledge include the Oxford English Dictionary, the Encyclopedia Britannica, The World Almanac, and most university level textbooks. If you like, I can give you an list of standard reference works in French. Now, you often reject this body of knowledge, by reverting Wikipedia entries that reflect it. If it is because you are unaware of this body of knowledge, then you need to do considerably more reading before you edit Wikipedia. If you are aware of this body of knowledge but reject it, then you need to state what standards of knowledge you do accept. You can't pick and choose, accepting the parts you like and rejecting the parts you don't like. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The intro said that all liberals believe in free markets. That's clearly not the case, as can be seen with what are called liberals in America. From the Encyclopedia Britannica article I sourced discussing "modern liberalism": "Liberals asserted that the rewards dispensed by the free market were too crude a measure of the contribution most people made to society and that the free market ignored the needs of those who lacked opportunity or who were economically exploited. They contended that the enormous social costs incurred in production were not reflected in market prices and that resources were often used wastefully. Not least, liberals perceived that the free market biased the allocation of human and physical resources toward the satisfaction of consumer appetites—e.g., for automobiles, home appliances, or fashionable clothing—while basic needs—e.g., for schools, housing, public transit, and sewage treatment—went unmet. Finally, although liberals believed that prices, wages, and profits should continue to be subject to negotiation among the interested parties and responsive to conventional market pressures, they insisted that price-wage-profit decisions affecting the economy as a whole must be reconciled with public policy...." This article has problems. It's trying to discuss modern liberalism and classical liberalism as the same thing, when they're pretty much opposites. It needs to be broken down to a section on classical, then a section on modern. Many Heads (talk) 07:07, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

The article does not claim that "all" liberals agree about anything. It outlines major liberal beliefs that have remained constant over time, and then outlines several of the main streams of liberal thought today. Most of the liberals I read favor "free markets" in the sense that they oppose government price fixing, trade barriers, and monopolies. On the other hand, they usually favor a minimum wage, trade unions, and pollution control. And individual politicians may call themselves "liberal" and still favor, say, farm subsidies because that gets them votes. I'm a fan of the Britannica, but as you yourself note, that particular article is confused. Our article should be better, and clearly set out the different positions within the liberal sphere. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:57, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

No, THIS article on Wikipedia is confused, not the Britannica article. The sentence in the intro of this article says "Within liberalism there are various streams of thought which compete over the use of the term "liberal" and may propose very different policies, but they are generally united by their support for a number of principles, including: freedom of thought and speech, limitations on the power of governments, the rule of law, an individual's right to private property,[2] free markets,[2] and..." That's just not true. American liberals are not fans of free markets and limited government. They want regulated markets and government control of business. Minimum wage for example are a regulated market. A free market in wages has no minimum wage laws. Many Heads (talk) 18:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

• Strongly agree. There appear to be some very confused editors trying to redefine Liberalism as conservatism and to WPO: the article so their errors can't be corrected.Rktect (talk) 05:00, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

If this article is going to represent all "liberalism," then it can't represent all liberalism as classical liberalism. There are very few things on the economic front that classical liberalism and modern American liberalism have in common. Many Heads (talk) 01:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

• If regulated markets, government controls and minimum wage laws are what define modern liberals versus classical liberals, than pretty much every single mainstream western political party today supports modern liberalism, including those that call themselves conservative. None of them support a totally laissez-faire capitalist market.Spylab (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. But classical liberals do support laissez-faire capitalism. Classical liberals for less government intervention than conservatives, and conservatives are for less than modern liberals. Many Heads (talk) 23:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

We need to make a distinction between what liberals say, and what conservatives, for political reasons, pretend liberals say. Mainstream modern liberals favor free markets, because we recognize that free markets lead to prosperity. We oppose big government, because we realize that big government leads to oppression. But our positions tend to be pragmatic rather than absolute. That is, we've got big government, whether we like it or not, and so we want a big government that does not favor the upper class.

As for "free markets", the old rule of fist and face applies. Your right to swing your fist ends where my face begins. Your freedom of enterprise ends when polution from your enterprise blows over your fence into my face.

If you believe that mainstream liberals oppose free markets, cite references. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:32, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you have source that modern American liberalism supports laissez-faire? That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. What defines New Deal liberalism is government intervention in the economy. Do not modern liberals support minimum wage laws? That's not free market. Do not modern liberals support transfer payments and forced social security? That's not free market. Classical liberals are for free markets. I cited Encylcopedia Britannica above. Do you understand what a free market economy is? It's an economy with little or no government control of people and their money and their businesses. Economic decisions are made by individuals, not the government. Yes, I understand that modern liberalism doesn't support regulation so extensive that it constitutes a planned economy, but they don't want government limited to where there would be a free-market economy either. Many Heads (talk) 18:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Modern conservatives (in mainstream Western political parties) also support minimum wage laws, transfer payments and forced social security, or at least they don't openly oppose them. No mainstream Western political party with any hopes for electoral success supports a totally laissez-faire economy.Spylab (talk) 23:07, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but that's conservatives. That's not what we're comparing new liberalism with. With comparing it with classical liberalism. You're right that laissez-faire capitalism is not mainstream, and therefore classical liberalism is not mainstream. Classical liberalism is pretty much the equivalent of libertarianism. Many Heads (talk) 23:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

As has been often pointed out, modern liberals and modern conservatives in the United States agree about most things. Note that it was George Bush, usually considered a conservative and supported by the classical liberals, who pushed for nationalizing banks. As early as 2000, right after he was elected, he sent every taxpayer $300 in "free" money. The big differences between liberals and conservatives these past eight years have all involved freedom vs. tradition: freedom of women to get an abortion, freedom of homosexuals to marry, freedom of scientists to report the facts, freedom of parents rather than schools or the courts to decide how their children should be taught religion, freedom of researchers to use stem cells, freedom of soldiers to return home after the tour of duty they signed up for is over. I think on all of these issues, the classical liberals agree with the social liberals.

Now, to the question of whether Libertarianism is mainstream: Libertarianism has never been put into practice in any country at any time. Libertarians have occasionally been elected to office, but rarely, and a Libertarian candidate for president has never gotten more than a small percentage of the vote. My guess is that Libertarians constitute at most a few percent of the population. I'm not sure what percent of the population it takes to be "mainstream" -- how would you answer that question?

Rick Norwood (talk) 13:49, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually it has been put to practice. The U.S. began as a generally libertarian state with minimal intervention in the economy. No forced welfare, no mandatory social security, no compulsory minimum wage, no Federal Reserve, a gold standard which restrained government spending, no income tax, etc. It was also very libertarian on the personal liberty side. For example drugs were legal until around 1914. And businesses had the freedom to decide who they wanted to hire on any basis they wanted. The U.S. is actually the first classical liberal state. Of course much of that freedom has eroded since then. Government control of society is very prevalent now. Many Heads (talk) 20:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

This is the kind of thing Libertarians like to say. That it is absolutely false doesn't stop libertarians from saying it. Can a nation with institutionalized chattal slavery be Libertarian? Did slaves have "personal liberty". And, of course, you are also wrong about minimal intervention in the economy. Here is Thomas Jefferson on the subject, "The more debt Hamilton could rake up, the more plunder for his mercenaries. This money, whether wisely or foolishly spent, was pretended to have been spent for general purposes and ought, therefore, to be paid from the general purse." Only, as I'm sure you know, Hamilton won this battle, and Jefferson lost, and the result was a national debt that has grown and grown and grown, as special interests (like Hamilton and his cronies) convinced the Federal Government to give them bushels of free money. Hardly a Libertarian ideal.

As for personal freedom, I am infinitely more free now than I would have been in 1776. Even if I were lucky enough to have been born a landed white male, I could still have been put in the stocks for failing to go to church on Sunday, or jailed for criticizing President Adams (under the alien and sedition acts), or lynched for advocating an end to slavery. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:34, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

The phrase "welfare state" is used by opponents of modern liberalism to characterize liberals as favoring people on the dole over working people. This is clearly not what liberals believe. So, let's try spelling out what forms of government regulation modern liberals do believe in that classical liberals oppose. I've put a list into the article. Feel free to add to the list or remove items from the list. But don't claim liberals support the "welfare state" unless you find a major liberal author who says, "Liberals support the welfare state." Schlesinger, who you reference, certainly doesn't say that. He uses the phrase when quoting opponents of liberalism. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:30, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

New liberals certainly are for a welfare state. That's a major part of what defines them. You say you need a major liberal author that says he supports the welfare state. Ok, here you go. The well-known liberal Paul Krugman who wrote Conscience of a Liberal: "It was, in a way, strange for me to be part of the Reagan Administration. I was then and still am an unabashed defender of the welfare state, which I regard as the most decent social arrangement yet devised." from Incidents From My Career, by Paul Krugman, Princeton University Press. And, no, Schlesinger is not quoting opponents of liberalism when he says modern liberals support a welfare state. The Encyclopedia Britannica article also says: "contemporary liberalism has come to represent different things to Americans and Europeans: In the United States it is associated with the welfare-state policies of the New Deal program of Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt, whereas in Europe liberals are more commonly conservative in their political and economic outlook." Many Heads (talk) 16:29, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Good quotes. Go with them. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

• There appears to be an editor removing corrections to this mistaken idea that Liberalism equates to what we call right wing conservatism in the united states.Rktect (talk) 05:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The Britannica source says "contemporary liberalism has come to represent different things to Americans and Europeans: In the United States it is associated with the welfare-state policies of the New Deal program of Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt, whereas in Europe liberals are more commonly conservative in their political and economic outlook." It's obviously using the term "conservative" in the American sense, not the European sense because that would be "liberalism" in the European sense..as the source indicates. Many Heads (talk) 23:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

That is so wrong on so many levels I almost don't know where to begin. I wouldn't expect Britannica to be that blatently POV. Fearmongering about welfare, from the perspective of buzzwords like "redistrubution of wealth", "communism, and socialism was identified with racist propaganda back in the Reagan era and isn't a phrase that would be used today anywhere in the civilized world. It kind of goes along with other Reagan favorites like gay cancer for AIDS. Discussing the New Deal programs of Roosevelt negatively after they saved the world from the Great Depression is not liberal or conservative its extreme right wing neocon thinktank poisoning of the well. Lets allow that most liberals would take offense at this kind of propaganda and get rid of it.Rktect (talk) 20:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? Rick Norwood (talk) 17:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Liberals generally favor laws against monopoly, pollution, and discrimination in hiring. Nobody I know of favors laws against private discrimination -- that is, if I choose not to have any friends who are different from myself, I'm free to make that choice. The only time discrimination becomes a legal issue is when the effect of the discrimination involves interstate commerce. Thus, motels in the South can no longer refuse to rent rooms to Blacks, and employees who conduct their business across state lines cannot refuse to hire Blacks. Note that there are still many "social clubs" and country clubs, where the important business of the state is conducted, which exclude Blacks, women, and Jews.

As for the question of whether conservatives also favor regulating pollution -- some do and some don't, but the big-business conservatives spend a lot of money repealing regulations against pollution. For example, mercury pollution which lowers the IQ of children is now common, thanks for lowered standards pushed through by conservatives. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:36, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Private discrimination just means discrimination in the private sector, as opposed to discrimination in the public sector, i.e. by government. Outlawing a business from from hiring on the basis of race is outlawing private discrimination. About pollution, why do you keep bringing up conservatives? Conservatives are not classical liberals. We're discussing the difference between modern American liberals and classical liberals, not conservatives. Classical liberals are very libertarian. They are for protecting private property rights. That is, they view pollution of an invasion of property like all libertarians. Why a classical liberal would allow you to dump your garbage on someone's property. That doesn't make sense. You need a source for the claim that classical liberals are for allowing pollution. You also need a source for the claim about monopoly. Many Heads (talk) 15:38, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I have created a new page called

WP:NPOV

policy states that a significant minority viewpoint must be introduced into a new article.

Singwaste (talk) 02:04, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

After reading the Encyclopedia Britannica Online article, and thinking about other books and articles I've read, I think the best approach is to state what social liberals believe and state what classical liberals believe, without going into the question of what these groups do not believe. I'm going to edit the lede accordingly.

Singwaste: I've seen other attempts to move discussion of the issues in an article off the talk page of that article, and in my experience, they don't work well. What often happens is that the disussion fragments, with one group on the new page and another group, arriving to the discussion late, making the same points on the article's talk page. It seems to me best to keep the discussion in one place. Many Heads and I are reasonable people, and are resolving our differences by rational discussion and by quotations from sources. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:45, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

In response to a claim that liberalism does not advocate equality.

The foundational documents of liberalism stress both freedom and equality. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal..."

We know those high ideals were expressed by a man who owned slaves, and that while we are much closer to true equality today, we still have a way to go. Still, one of the two principles that unite liberals is the idea of equality, in the sense of equal rights. The liberal movement has consistently been in that direction, with equality for Negros first, then for women, maybe someday for homosexuals.

By equality, I mean equality before the law -- obviously all men are not equal at birth, but the law should not favor those born with greater advantages. Sometimes equality and freedom conflict. My freedom to own slaves conflicts with the slave's equality under the law. But more often the two ideals are complementary. My equal rights give me the freedom to walk down the sidewalk without the law telling me I must step into the gutter to allow a better man to pass.

Rick Norwood (talk) 14:31, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

How does American modern liberalism square equality under the law with affirmative action? An exception? What are you on about? (talk) 16:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Affirmative action is a problem. By its nature, affirmative action favors white Christians over better qualified Asians and Jews, and Blacks over better qualified Whites. It ought to be done away with, on liberal principles. But people who are pragmatic accept that ending affirmative action would result in the distruction of a major American resource, our Ivy League universities. Without affirmative action, the next Freshman class at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton (not to mention M.I.T.) would be entirely Asian. Since the power elite in America are not going to admit that many Asians to the corridors of power, no matter how qualified they are, the result would be a loss of influence, and the sons of presidents and CEO's would simply move down the list until they found a university that was mostly white, with a resulting loss of prestige for the "Ivy League" -- now the "Asian and Jewish" -- schools. Meanwhile, the number of Black's in top schools would drop into the single digits, and instead of the rich and powerful in America being 99% White, they would be 100% White. You may or may not like that idea, but is it worth destroying Harvard and Yale to achieve? Rick Norwood (talk) 14:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Another one for you. How about welfare? If wealth is taken from some people and given to others, how is that equality under the law? Modern liberalism in America appears to be a perversion of the original liberal principles or straight out ignoring them. This is why in Europe they don't call it liberalism but socialism, where the "common good" of the collective outweighs the importance of individual liberty and equality under the law. What are you on about? (talk) 15:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not a chat room, so I hope the point of this discussion is to find common ground to work toward a better article.

The Constitution of the United States, in listing the reasons why the United States was founded, includes "to promote the general welfare". The idea is not that hard to understand -- a person who is out of work, or diseased, or ignorant, is a threat to the welfare of the nation. Everyone benefits from jobs, health care, and education. Just look around the world, at those nations who provide for their poorer citizens, and those nations who do not, and you tell me where the most freedom is -- not to mention the greatest prosperity. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

People differ over what policies promote general welfare. Original liberalism believes that equality under the law promotes the general welfare. American modern liberals disagree. And since you bring up economics, the original liberals believed that government not telling people what to do what their money and their business, how much they pay people, and so on, provides more prosperity to the nation, through the "invisible hand" than does government overriding free choice. Modern American liberals disagree, again. And again, this is why it's not referred to liberalism in Europe. Europeans retain the classic meaning of the term. What are you on about? (talk) 23:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

The difference is that Libertarians claim an ideal "Original liberalism" that never existed. Modern American and European and Japanese and Canadian and Australian liberals point to a system of free and open government that has been the most successful on the planet. Rick Norwood (talk) 23:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Libertarians? We're discussing classical liberals. They believe in equality under the law. Modern American liberals don't. This is clear. What are you on about? (talk) 00:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Some people use the phrase "classical liberal" to mean "libertarian". The proper usage would mean followers of John Locke, Adam Smith, and Thomas Jefferson. Your usage seems to mean "opposition to a graduated income tax". If I've misunderstood you, please let me know the sense in which you are using this often misused phrase.

If you do use the phrase to mean opposition to a graduated income tax, then I must point out that Adam Smith, who is usually considered a classical liberal, understood why a graduated income tax was good for the economy, and why our current income tax structure, in which the poor pay a greater percentage of their income in taxes than do the rich, is bad for the economy.

Equality, in this case, can mean two things. It could mean that everyone, rich and poor alike, should pay $3000 a year in taxes (budget divided by population). Or it could mean that everyone, rich and poor alike, pay 15% of their income in taxes (percent needed to balance the budget). The problem with the former model is that it leads to homelessness and starvation, which is bad for everybody. For reasons that a graduated income tax is better for the economy than either of these, I refer you to Wealth of Nations. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm not talking about a graduated income tax. I'm talking about welfare, that is, giving free money to people that don't work but not giving free money to people that do work. That's not equality under the law. This is why classical liberals opposed welfare. And because modern American liberals don't subscribe to the principle of equality under the law, they don't oppose welfare. What are you on about? (talk) 03:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Liberals are like marines, they leave no man or woman behind.Rktect (talk) 03:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, wellfare. Actually, welfare seldom gives free money to men who do no work these days, or to women unless they have children. They do give food stamps -- should people who are out of work be allowed to starve? And they do give money to help children. They also give limited unemployment benefits to people who loose their jobs.

I suspect that when you and I picture someone who gets financial help from the government, we have a very different picture. I picture an woman with a small child whose husband abandoned her, who works as a waitress, who has to pay taxes on her tips whether she gets any tips or not, and who needs food stamps to keep her child from starving. I imagine your picture is very different. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who it is. It's not equality under the law. As I said, modern American liberalism doesn't uphold equality under the law as a fundamental ideal. What are you on about? (talk) 23:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Your understanding of "equality" is different from mine. A bank robber might complain that he was not being treated equally with an honest citizen, but different circumstances demand different treatment. You and the welfare mother are treated equally if, in similar circumstances, you receive equal help. Rick Norwood (talk) 23:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

That's a perversion of the concept. If I'm wealthy and never am in the position of being poor, I would still be required to pay to sustain a poor person. That's not equality under the law. That's treating two people differently, in pursuit of the American welfare liberal goal of lessening inequality. As the classical liberal Hayek said "From the fact that people are very different it follows that, if we treat them equally, the result must be inequality in their actual position, and that the only way to place them in an equal position would be to treat them differently. Equality before the law and material equality are therefore not only different but are in conflict with each other; and we can achieve either one or the other, but not both at the same time." What are you on about? (talk) 06:32, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The right to be highly taxed. The right to a monopolized health care. The right to a monopolized education system. The right to nationalized, and thus monopolized, industries. The right to pay for someone else' abortion. The right to go on welfare. The right to be in gun-free country/state (well, at least if you're a law abiding citizen).

Please, give me a break. Liberals support having the society work for you. They support no individual rights. The editors who have kept it there are responsible for destroying Wikipedia's neutrality.

The funny thing is, though, if your stance truly makes sense, you don't have to lie about it. Since you're obviously lying about liberalism...71.204.61.136 (talk) 00:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

You need to distinguish between what liberals actually support, and what conservatives, for political gain, claim that liberals support. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh my bad. Obama will raise taxes, as he said. He might say it's on top 5% of the wealthiest but where do you think that money will come from? Your wallets. So because of him you will have less money. He also wants national health care. He wants to, instead of give school vouchers, give gov't school more money, something that has proven to be completely ineffective in improving students achievements. Many liberals have wanted nationalized industries (or ones highly controlled by gov't) and praise them all the time (New Deal, anything with Jimmy Carter." Obama supported an act where gov't would pay (you would pay) for someone who wanted an abortion. He also supported everything he could to make purchasing/carrying a loaded firearm impossible, so he is anti-gun. These aren't claims. This is solid fact. I could not make a list this bad with republicans that would be this anti-individual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.204.61.136 (talk) 00:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

No, because of Obama I will have more money. And so will you. Your "solid facts" are memes you've picked up from conservative propaganda. Their goal is to convince the poor to vote in favor of the rich, instead of in their own self-interest. If they were "solid facts", you would be able to document them, and they would properly form part of this article. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Everything I just said has been preached by Obama himself, and can also be proven by looking at his voting record. There is no need to document it. Do I need to document that he was the most liberal Senator as well? These facts have nothing to do with a propaganda machine. Republicans don't even ahve propaganda machines because you don't need propaganda to achieve individual rights whereas you do need it to set laws that take rights away from people (such as the ones mentioned in my earlier paragraph). There is nothing liberals support that gives more power to the individual. Actually, legalization of drugs, keeping abortion legal (but not make the gov't pay for it), and allowing anyone to be married are the only liberal rights I would support bc they give power to the individual but laws that take your money away and drive away incentives for entrepreneurship and even make it hard for you to arm yourself (wtf?) are anti individual. Therefore, this article should be changed so readers know that liberals, or at least liberal in America, are for bigger gov't and against individual (it's impossible to be for both).71.204.61.136 (talk) 00:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

If you want it in Wikipedia, you need to document it. And to document your idea that the Republicans don't have a propaganda machine is going to take some doing. When Kerry was running against a Republican, he was the "most liberal Senator". When Obama was running aginst a Republican, he was the "most liberal Senator". Actually, Teddy Kennedy is the most liberal Senator. And you may notice that you contradict your sixth sentence in your seventh sentence. You can add to your list the right of the terminally ill to end their lives without pain, the right of artists to create without censorship, and the right of soldiers who signed up for a two year hitch to make the government honor their contract. In fact, the only right liberals oppose is the right of the rich to a lower tax rate than the working class. Everything else you say can only be "documented" by listening to talk radio or reading conservative blogs. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

This page claims that the USA was the first liberal state, based on "all men are created equal(1); that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life(2), liberty(3), and the pursuit of happiness)4); that to insure these rights, governments are instituted among men(5), deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed(6)." 86.85.230.207 (talk) 17:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

But this is pretty much just a rewritten version of the opening words of the Dutch Act of Abjuration. 86.85.230.207 (talk) 17:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

"As it is apparent to all that a prince is constituted by God to be ruler of a people, to defend them from oppression(3) and violence(2) as the shepherd his sheep; and whereas God did not create the people slaves to their prince(1), to obey his commands(3), whether right or wrong, but rather the prince for the sake of the subjects(5) (without which he could be no prince)(6), to govern them according to equity(1), to love and support them as a father his children or a shepherd his flock(4), and even at the hazard of life to defend and preserve them(2)." [2] 86.85.230.207 (talk) 17:41, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

My understanding of the

L0b0t (talk

) 19:02, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I have trouble with the "first liberal state" claim for which no page number is cited in the source. Who was second or third? Were the thirteen colonies illiberal until 1776 or were they liberal from their settlement? In what years did the UK or Holland become liberal? I think it would be more accurate to state that they were the first country to have a written constitution based on liberal principles. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I've added a page number and a couple of quotes. Also, I've put in the adjective "modern". There were a few attempts at a liberal city state in Italy during the Renaissance. The second attempt at a liberal state was in France, but it ended badly.

Of course, America did not spring like Athena from the brow of Zeus. England and Holland were two places where liberal ideas had influence -- but they remained monarchies. As, over the years, the power of the monarch declined and the power of elected officials increased, both became more liberal, and are in that sense liberal today. Even Maggie Thatcher was more liberal than George the Third.

And of course America did not achieve liberal perfection overnight -- nor is it perfectly liberal today. But according to most historians, the American republic ushered in the current era of liberal democracy. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

There are no references for the definition given of "liberal conservatism". Every mention I have found of it is of conservatives who have have accepted the liberal state, e.g., English Tories who accepted the 1688 Revolution. The Liberals in Australia did not consider themselves, "liberal conservatives', which is why they called themselves liberals, not conservatives. See Ideologies (1996), Larry Johnston, p. 95, but the concept is described in many other books as well. The Four Deuces (talk) 11:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

This section cites no sources and is OR. Post-war Social Democratic governments did

Aside from Banks and Insurance companies that is .....

<irony> Nice to see the commanding heights of the economy coming under state control </irony>--Snowded (talk) 17:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I suggest we replace this section with Social_liberalism#Social liberalism versus social democracy.

The Four Deuces (talk) 06:57, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

As there were no comments, I have made the changes. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

At the end of the intro is the statement:

All Libs are idiots. they believe in murder, and they love muslims. they are what cause the people in 9/11 to suffer.

Obviously someone was acting out of immaturity and added it to be negative. I feel it should be removed but didn't know if it needed to be discussed first. —The preceding

Unfortunately Liberalism is a much vandalized page. It has been reverted (=vandalism has been removed) several times since your report. Please feel free to remove obvious vandalism! There is no need to discuss it first. You'd be helping Wikipedia. Bishonen | talk 00:55, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

I think that it's ironic that the person above wrote that the biased, ignorant statement was obviously American; it shows their own anti-American bias.

Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)

) 01:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

While the reference to 9/11 does suggest an American voice, this is not to be taken as a representative of the general American public. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was one of the most important liberal figures in American History, and his influence is still felt today. Not all of us are like this guy.

I agree with what it says. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.101.118.61 (talk) 00:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I did not know exactly what liberalism was and I was still left wondering what it meant after reading the first few sentences in this article. I had to look elsewhere for a better definition. I think the introduction needs to be re-written.

It would help if you explained more fully what you do not understand. Liberalism supports individual liberty: freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, and the right to vote in open and fair democratic elections. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:29, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Yettie. This top section, no matter how well cited, does not explain liberalism as compared to other political philosophies (at least in the U.S., like libertarianism or conservatism). Got it that Liberalism supports individual liberty, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, and the right to vote in open and fair democratic elections. So do all other democratic/representative forms of government. What would be helpful is a distinction for liberalism - what is different about it? For one thing, liberalism believes that more/bigger government, by and large, is the answer to most of societies ills.E2a2j (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I think you re confusing liberalism in the US with what the term signifies in the rest of the world. "This article discusses the ideology of

Liberalism worldwide. For other uses, see Liberal." Dendlai (talk

) 16:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

E2a2j: there is an article Liberalism in the United States, but I think the real problem is that for an American to understand liberalism is like a fish trying to understand water. American society is so liberal that liberalism permeates the way we think and everything we do. To see that, you would need to live for a year in an absolute monarchy, or under a dictator, or where religious law was the law of the land. When you returned to America, then you would know what liberalism is. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:14, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

All liberals, as well as some adherents of other political ideologies, support some variant of the form of government known as liberal democracy, with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law. Not all liberals, this is plain obvious. Not all liberals support any kind of democracy - some believe in enlightened monarchy or dictatorship..., just to name two examples. Those are not contraditory to liberalism, they might not be practical, but there are people who belive in them.

Second, almost no liberal believes that every citizien should have equal voting rights - immature, mentally ill etc. people, while being citiziens, have their laws restricted.

Third - the word equal, and earlier equality, is used in first paragraph. It is ambiguous - does it mean every voter has one vote? Because it might mean you get as many votes as you can pay for, or as intelligent you are.

Now, a bit of OR, but it's important. Liberalism is about believing that every human being has the law to be free, and that this freedom is definable. Now, nobody who is truly liberal, believe that any two people have law to force anything on one fellow men, just because of them being majority in this situation. That's why democracy is more of practical attempt to create liberal state, rather then the goal of liberalism itself. And i myself support democracy, but not practical examples, like European Union or United States of Americe - i believe this can be done better, more liberal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.61.58.183 (talk) 12:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

As you say, much of this is OR, and the rest is nit picking. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:00, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

All people want to live Is pointing out that some people don't a nitpicking or original research? Delicious propaganda, you must eat it. 15:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)62.61.58.183 (talk)

Liberals do not believe in socio-economic equality, or equality of condition. Socio-economic equality is NOT a political goal of liberalism. Liberalism believes in equality of opportunity and equality under the law; therefore we should define what type of "equality" the liberals support. "Equality" is a vague term that can describe many things and it could be confused as equality of condition and a form of socialism to a reader who doesn't know what liberalism is. This is why it should be written "equality under the law" and not just equality. Liberals think all men should be equal under the law. But all men cannot be equal in socio-economic life. Rick, answer this by next week or I'm going to modify that sentence. Ithaka84 (talk) 01:49, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

There is ample discussion in the literature about what "equal" means in the phrase "all men are created equal", and it is a familiar phrase which is usually quoted without anyone thinking it needs to be explained. The use of "equal" in that phrase, and in the liberal philosophy, is contrasted to the widespread belief, at a time when liberalism was just beginning to be influential, that there is a great chain of being, that Kings are obviously superior to minor nobility, that minor nobility are obviously superior to commonors, and that commonors are obviously superior to serfs. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:51, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

That equality is equality of rights, equality of dignity, equality under the law. Equality of condition is still not a political goal of liberalism. To say that liberty and equality is the greatest political goal of liberalism is not precise. Liberty and equality of opportunity and equality under the law is more precise.Ithaka84 (talk) 00:32, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Not that this discussion has too much relevance for the content of the article, but it's a common right-wing meme that liberty and equality are incompatible. The truth is that the entire dichotomy is atrocious, as genuine equality of opportunity will almost necessarily produce equal results. That's the realization we modern liberals have made all too clearly. The right is lagging behind a little bit.UberCryxic (talk) 05:26, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

No, because it limits to two areas a much broader concept. You could, I suppose, add a disclaimer that liberals do not claim that people are equally pretty or equally good ice skaters, but everybody understands that already, so it would clutter up the lede.Rick Norwood (talk) 12:48, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

There certainly is a difference between liberal and socialist conceptions of equality. But as Ithaka pointed out liberalism includes equality of opportunity as well as equality before the law. But these more limited concepts are also open to wide interpretation. For example, liberals have promoted both slavery and affirmative action.

However, liberals believe that humans are equal not just that they should have equality before the law and of opportunity. The American Declaration of Independence, which is representative of liberal thought, states "all men are created equal". It is because they are equal that they should be equal before the law and have equal opportunity. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:12, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

But the sentence here is "liberalism considers liberty and equality to be the greatest political goals". Classical liberals considered all men to be born equal, but then society "corrupted" them and as they grew up they became unequal. They do not think it is possible that everyone is equal. Equality is not their political goal. They only want to provide a legal frame for them to be equal under the law.Ithaka84 (talk) 22:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

While liberals have owned slaves, I don't know of any liberals who "promoted slavery". Jefferson, for example, as a liberal wrote against slavery, while as a spendthrift he couldn't afford to give up the slaves that allowed him to pay his debts. As with many of us, there was a big difference between what he promoted and what he actually did.

As for what "classical liberals" think, one problem with the article is that people with very different views claim descent from classical liberalism (much as both the Democrats and the Republicans claim to be the party of Lincoln).

However, this emphasis on "equality under the law" entirely misunderstands what "all men are created equal" means. The assertion here (which nobody ever understood to mean that all people are born equally smart or equally intelligent) is that all people have equal value, not just before the law, but in every other way. That it is not socially acceptable for a well born man walking down the sidewalk to push a low born man into the ditch. Never mind whether it is legal -- is it admirable? Rick Norwood (talk) 12:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Slavery in the British Empire was established by merchants from the City of London, Bristol and Liverpool, not by conservatives. John Locke defended slavery, and so did the Dred Scott decision, using liberal principals. Locke also opposed conservative arguments for slavery, which were based on inequality. The main opponent of slavery, Wilberforce, was a conservative who used conservative arguments against slavery. By Jefferson's time, most liberals accepted that slavery was wrong. Even today, most people accept that someone may forfeit his liberty, e.g., by committing a criminal offense, and enter involuntary servitude.

Ithaka: do you have a reliable neutral source for your assertion? The Four Deuces (talk) 11:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, The Four Deuces. I did not know that Locke defended slavery. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Ummm there are some people here who are vastly confused. Locke denounces slavery as wrong and unnatural in the Two Treatises, which I would urge everyone to read before drowning in your own bs. It's a common misconception, however, and you are excused for your mistake. "The main opponent of slavery"....oh excuse me, I did not realize that slavery had only ONE opponent in this whole period. We would do well to remember that France was the first nation to abolish slavery, five years into the Revolution. And the people who abolished slavery there were not conservatives, but a hodgepodge of radicals and liberals. Wilberforce was politically independent. Conservatives were the ones who rejected the abolition of slavery every step of the way. European-American Southerners kept using the Bible as an excuse for slavery throughout the nineteenth century....and later for segregation as well. Every single major and modern social change came about from liberals and socialists. Conservatives opposed anything and everything, and they continue their games to this day (witness same-sex marriage).UberCryxic (talk) 23:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no need to be sarcastic in your posting.

I accept that Locke denounced slavery while at the same time justifying it for people who were not English, i.e., only in the American colonies. (It's in the Two Treatises.)

I did not say Wilberforce was the only ONE opponent, I said he was the main opponent.

You are confusing modern American ideologies with historical ones. The "conservatives" of the South were in fact liberals - they supported the liberal American constitution, and believed in democracy, the bill of rights, capitalism and the separation of church and state - even if modern American liberals challenge their understanding of these concepts.

France was forced to abolish slavery in 1794, and only under the most radical liberal government of Robespierre.

You said: "Every single major and modern social change came about from liberals and socialists." What about unemployment insurance, workers compensation, workplace safety standards, working hours, ending child labor, health care, old age security?

The Four Deuces (talk) 14:49, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Wilberforce was the main opponent in Britain, but again, he was politically independent. Outside of Britain, the Society of the Friends of Blacks in France was the organization that stole the limelight on abolition. Largely because of the Tories and the conservatives, in fact, Wilberforce had to wait decades after starting his campaign to end slavery to actually see his dream realized. On Locke: he denounced slavery outright, and in any context. It's comical to claim that European-American Southerners in the 19th century were liberals. It's more than comical actually: it's inventing history on the spot. I've noticed this dangerous tendency on your part on several other articles relating to liberalism (or on your recent attempt to delete the article on left-wing nationalism). Liberals, of course, were generally anti-clerical and anti-authoritarian in the nineteenth century, and they remain so to this day, albeit under a different political context. Southerners were enamored with authority, hierarchy, and tradition. In other words, they celebrated and defended the central values of conservatism. They only paid lip service to the US Constitution so as to appear like a legitimate political force. It's a common conservative strategy: pretend like you care about the institutions of the modern world, which were created by liberals, and sabotage them whenever you can to advance your archaic agenda. The labor standards you mentioned largely came about from union pressure and leftist parties. We see the rise of social liberal policies in several European nations/regions in the late 19th century, but they especially take off with the election of the British Liberals in 1906. Obviously communism and socialism made the rights of workers an important issue in all Western democracies during the 19th century. They started the drive that ultimately culminated in the achievements you mentioned. Conservatism can be summed up as follows: patriarchy and plutocracy. It favors rule by wealthy men, and these are not the kinds of people who would grant workers their full rights in the workplace. Just FYI.UberCryxic (talk) 17:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

You also apparently decried, for no good reason, the radical liberals that abolished slavery in France. I don't want to state the historically obvious here, but liberalism in these times was often radical. The British Liberals formed in 1859 from a convergence of Radicals and Whigs. The Liberal Revolution of 1895 in Ecuador was carried out by the Radical Liberals, led by Alfaro. The ideological ferocity of liberalism varied from place to place, however. In some European nations, for example, liberalism was more conservative than it was in Latin America. Some liberals on the European mainland even supported monarchies, albeit limited by constitutions (Cavour in Italy was a good example). But regardless of the particular manifestation, liberalism was generally a progressive force throughout the 19th century. After all, much of what determined whether you were a liberal or not centered on your opinions about the French Revolution. If you were for the Revolution, you were a liberal. If you opposed it, you were conservative. By and large, conservatives opposed the developments of the modern world every step of the way, and that includes the abolition of the slavery.UberCryxic (talk) 18:11, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Lastly, it seems disingenuous to suggest that I am mixing modern American views with old views when there are significant numbers of American conservatives, including, apparently, the Governor of Texas, who are still confused on the issue of secession....a century and a half after the Supreme Court ruled that secession was unconstitutional in, humorously enough, Texas v. White.UberCryxic (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

If you have been reading my posts then you have seen that I rely on secondary sources. The concept of the aristocratic Old South has only been seriously defended by Russell Kirk and Peter Viereck. Mainstream historians do not share this view. Here is a link to The Debate over Slavery: Antislavery and Proslavery Liberalism in Antebellum America by David F. Ericson, (2000) which I only picked because it is a recent book explaining mainstream views of southern society: http://books.google.ca/books?id=A7gbE3tgsXkC&printsec=frontcover#PPA3,M1

This is not the place by the way to argue over interpretations of primary sources. I respect that we may disagree on interpreting those sources and that is why WP relies on secondary sources which represent the interpretations of scholars. It's impolite to accuse me of inventing history on the spot and much more helpful to demand my sources or to rebut them with better ones.

My reason for asking for the deletion of Left-wing nationalism was "This article is original research and does not provide any source that 'left-wing nationalism' is a known term with any specific definition." Your reply was, "This phenomenon is very much real, and very much notable". I do not see how I was changing history and found your response unhelpful. You are really saying "No, you're wrong" without providing any sources.

You may believe that there is an unbroken link between 18th century English Tory aristocrats and 21st century Republican conservatives with no intermediate influence from Locke and Adam Smith, but let's agree to disagree.

The Four Deuces (talk) 19:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I have been reading your posts actually, and I will continue to do so in the future. Despite doubts, I will also assume good faith. Now let's get to the business at hand. I will cleanly, clinically, and surgically destroy your misguided arguments, but before I do that, let me establish some ground rules and make some general observations.

Primary sources are almost always preferable to secondary sources, but even when secondary sources are used, they must represent a consensus viewpoint. You'll find plenty of secondary sources claiming that Area 51 has alien life forms, but that doesn't mean that those sources should be included in Wikipedia's article on Area 51. In other words, it's not enough to say: "I have secondary sources saying the government is hiding aliens, ergo the government is hiding aliens." Likewise, finding a few secondary sources that conflate liberalism with support for slavery does not mean that liberals supported slavery. Your historiographical claim about what modern and mainstream historians think regarding the structure of Southern society is plainly false. How would I know? Before I unveil my sources, consider the following. I attend the University of Virginia, and a few years ago I took a class on the Civil War with someone who is regarded as one of the greatest current historians of the period: Gary Gallagher. One of the main points that he always stressed in class was that the Civil War was fundamentally caused by an old order trying to preserve the institution of slavery, which it found very profitable. In their quest to preserve that institution, they made use of arguments about states rights, the Constitution, and so on and so forth. They tried anything and everything to keep their slaves. You hastily proclaim that we can disagree about primary sources while simultaneously pushing an incorrect view on what historians think about those sources. Most professional historians of the Civil War hold the views of Professor Gallagher. That's a sociological fact, regardless of your protestations. What you just did, in fact, is commit a logical fallacy: you used one source and implied that it represents general opinions on the subject.

I have no desire to commit a logical fallacy, so I will not claim that my personal experiences with Prof. Gallagher 'prove,' in effect, that I'm right. So getting to the secondary sources, as you prefer....yours is duly noted. Now it's my turn.

• (before war) Rebels and Renegades (2002) by Neil Hamilton:

The deepening sectional crisis, however, not only emboldened the abolitionists and encouraged reformers, it also produced a conservative reaction among southerners that caused South Carolina to secede from the Union in December 1860.

• (after war) Never Surrender: Confederate Memory and Conservatism in the South Carolina upcountry (2004) by W. Scott Poole

The defeat of the Confederacy, and the reimagination of the society that had been defeated, laid the foundation for the creation of a conservative culture. Southern conservatism flourished in South Carolina through the medium of the Lost Cause, an aesthetic representation of memory and yearning.

• The conservative tradition in America (2003) by Charles Dunn, J. David Woolard

Southern society was a stronghold of the conservative values of the importance of family and community, distrust of rapid change, and the importance of religious beliefs.....Some of the major conservative thinkers of this era were writers, rather than politicians or political philosophers. Orestes Brown personally symbolized the paradox of the Civil War. He supported the Union, but preferred southern society to the "gospel of material success" and "radical notions of human progress" prevalent in the North.

Well Deucues: it appears that the South was conservative all-right. If you want, please ask me for additional sources. I am actually itching to give you more, but such are the limitations of time. I know that you don't seem to be a big fan of primary sources, but I am, so here's one of the greatest quotations of the era from (apparently) flaming liberal Jefferson Davis, the "president" of the "Confederate States of America":

[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation..it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts.

These pesky liberals....using the Bible and religion to argue for slavery while....disestablishing the Church of Ireland (Liberals under Gladstone), crushing the Catholic Church in France (Girondins/Montagnards), curtailing the Catholic Church in Mexico (Liberals and Juarez), secularizing Turkey (under Ataturk). The Catholic Church remained staunchly anti-liberal throughout the 19th century because it loved liberalism so much. And we all know (*wink wink*) that if there are two things that go together in this world....it's religion and liberalism. I hear that's the new consensus among historians these days. I'll try to find a book that says it and get back to you later. Joking aside, I reiterate what I said earlier with full vigor: it is false, and absurd, to try and connect liberalism with the institution of slavery, especially when the exact opposite is true. Liberals fought vigorously to end slavery, and ultimately they succeeded. Conservatives fought just as vigorously to defend slavery, but they failed. Human history since the French Revolution has a basic model: the left tries to change the world, and the right tries (and fails) to stop it. The kernels of the drive to end slavery actually begin with John Locke, whose vituperative remarks against slavery inspired future liberals to banish that awful practice from the face of the planet. But I noticed that you ignored my comments about Locke, on top of all those other comments I made. I accept your concessions.

Not only are you (now) fiddling with historiographical interpretations, you are also misrepresenting my statements. In regards to left-wing nationalism, I actually wrote a short paragraph explaining why I voted to keep the article, but you don't mention this at all! Here it is:

As a systematic political force, nationalism began with the left in the French Revolution. The revolutionaries used nationalist themes to rally the French people to the cause of the Revolution. As with so many other things in the modern world, however, something that started with the left eventually found its way to the right. Today, nationalism is overwhelmingly identified with right-wing movements and ideologies, partly because the left often sees it as corrosive and disruptive. However, I would not go so far as to argue that nationalism is the bailiwick of the right. Leftists still make use of it sporadically.

I don't believe in the connection you highlight between Tories and Republicans, nor do I say this anywhere. Using strawmen arguments much? The traditions of Locke and Adam Smith belong, mainly, to the classical liberals of the 19th century: the Liberals in Britain, the Liberals in Canada, liberals throughout Latin America, and liberals throughout continental Europe and the United States. Smith might be dismayed by Republicans today, given his tacit support for heavy taxation on the wealthy. Suffice it to say, Smith considered himself a liberal, and he may have been one of the first people in the world to use the word 'liberal' in a sociopolitical sense when he championed the "liberal plan of equality, liberty, and justice."UberCryxic (talk) 22:34, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Adam Smith's support for heavy taxation of the wealthy was explicit, not tacit. On the other hand, I don't know what tax rate he considered "heavy", just that he understood that those who benefit most from a society should expect to bear most of the cost.

This section has gotten too long. Let's start a new section for future comments. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

You evidently think liberals are unable to clearly state their beliefs. You are wrong.

Liberals believe in freedom. We believe that freedom is only possible under good government, that a weak government leads to anarchy, and so we willing pay our taxes, as the price of freedom and prosperity. We believe that when citizens are healthy and educated, everyone benefits. We believe that extremes of poverty lead to crime and corruption, and that in the long run is is both more economical and more humane to relieve poverty than to keep a large percentage of the poor behind bars. We wish conservatives would stop lying about us, but we will defend to the death your freedom to do so. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

UberCryxic:

Anyone who opposes slavery favors freedom and is to that extent a liberal. But in religion Wilberforce was a conservative, and opposed slavery because it was against the teachings of Christ. It is especially important, in controversial articles such as this one, to be discriminating and informed in our judgments and moderate in our tone. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I understand all of that. Thank you for the historical lesson that I did not need. Deuces made some specific allegations, however, that were not true (ie. that Wilberforce was the "main" opponent of slavery without identifying any particular social or national context). We could generalize the point to claim that Wilberforce was a radical exception, not the standard rule. Where "Christ" and the Bible were used in discussions relating to slavery, they were conceptualized as being friendly to the institution in the vast majority of all cases. The same arguments appeared in France, the US, and in much of the world. Where religion was used as a liberal and progressive force, it came exclusively from the so-called Religious Left, which was born in the 19th century.UberCryxic (talk) 18:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Also refer to my comments above: Wilberforce was brilliant and dedicated, but ultimately he needed the support of the Whigs (ie. the left in early 19th century Britain) to get rid of slavery. And if I'm not mistaken, the recent movie shows him sitting with the Whigs in Parliament....which says a lot.UberCryxic (talk) 18:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

And I apologize for my tone. Sometimes I can get excited. I can also be as cool as liquid nitrogen though, don't worry.UberCryxic (talk) 18:24, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Didn't know there was a recent movie about Wilberforce. What's the title? Rick Norwood (talk) 15:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Its Amazing Grace, OK a bit pious and black hat/white hat --Snowded (talk) 16:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I've added it to my Netflix queue. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)