Misplaced Pages

Liberalism: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 16:06, 12 September 2008 view source198.237.103.105 (talk)No edit summary← Previous edit Latest revision as of 23:05, 8 December 2024 view source Skakkle (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users8,092 edits topTags: Mobile edit Mobile app edit Android app edit App full source 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|Political ideology based on individual rights and liberty}}
{{dablink|This article discusses the ] of liberalism. Local differences in its meaning are listed in ]. For other uses, see ].}}
{{other uses|Liberal (disambiguation)}}
{{Liberalism_expanded}}
{{distinguish|Libertarianism}}
'''Liberalism''' is a broad array of related ideas and theories of ] that consider ] ] to be the most important political goal.<ref>A: "'Liberalism' is defined as a social ethic that advocates liberty, and equality in general." – ] ''Distributive Justice'', A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy, editors Goodin, Robert E. and Pettit, Philip. Blackwell Publishing, 1995, p.440. B: "Liberty is not a means to a higher political end. It is itself the highest political end." – ]</ref> Modern liberalism has its roots in the ].
{{pp-semi-indef|small=yes}}
{{use dmy dates|date=July 2015}}
{{use British English|date=January 2014}}
{{liberalism sidebar}}
{{party politics}}


'''Liberalism''' is a ] and ] based on the ], ], ], ], the ] and ].<ref>"liberalism In general, the belief that it is the aim of politics to preserve individual rights and to maximize freedom of choice." ''Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics'', Iain McLean and Alistair McMillan, Third edition 2009, {{ISBN|978-0-19-920516-5}}.</ref><ref name="wpt">{{cite book |quote=political rationalism, hostility to autocracy, cultural distaste for conservatism and for tradition in general, tolerance, and ... individualism. |first=John |last=Dunn |title=Western Political Theory in the Face of the Future |date=1993 |publisher=] |isbn=978-0-521-43755-4}}</ref> Liberals espouse various and often mutually warring views depending on their understanding of these principles but generally support ], ], individual rights (including ] and ]), ], ], ], ] and ], ], ], ], and ].<ref name="Generally support">Generally support:
Liberalism emphasizes ] and equality of opportunity. Different forms of liberalism may propose very different policies, but they are generally united by their support for a number of principles, including extensive ] and ], limitations on the power of governments, the ], the free exchange of ideas, a ] or ], and a ] ].<ref> Compare for the latter aspect the of 1947 of the ] (''Respect for the language, faith, laws and customs of national minorities''), of 1997 (''We believe that close cooperation among democratic societies through global and regional organizations, within the framework of international law, of respect for human rights, the rights of national and ethnic minorities, and of a shared commitment to economic development worldwide, is the necessary foundation for world peace and for economic and environmental sustainability''), the (''Protecting the rights of minorities flows naturally from liberal policy, which seeks to ensure equal opportunities for everyone'') and, e.g., of ]</ref> All liberals &mdash; as well as some adherents of other political ideologies &mdash; support some variant of the form of government known as ], with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law.<ref>Compare the of the ] (''These rights and conditions can be secured only by true democracy. True democracy is inseparable from political liberty and is based on the conscious, free and enlightened consent of the ], expressed through a free and secret ballot, with due respect for the liberties and opinions of minorities'')</ref>
*{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=UkVIYjezrF0C&q=liberalism+secularism |first=Nader |last=Hashemi |title=Islam, Secularism, and Liberal Democracy: Toward a Democratic Theory for Muslim Societies |publisher=] |quote=Liberal democracy requires a form of secularism to sustain itself |year=2009 |isbn=978-0-19-971751-4 |via=]}}
*{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=htuTnexZAo8C&q=liberalism+freedom+of+religion&pg=PA1 |first=Kathleen G. |last=Donohue |title=Freedom from Want: American Liberalism and the Idea of the Consumer |series=New Studies in American Intellectual and Cultural History |publisher=] |quote=Three of them – freedom from fear, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion – have long been fundamental to liberalism. |isbn=978-0-8018-7426-0 |date=19 December 2003 |access-date=31 December 2007 |via=]}}
*{{cite news |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=KBzHAAAAIAAJ&q=liberalism+freedom+of+religion |title=The Economist, Volume 341, Issues 7995–7997 |newspaper=] |quote=For all three share a belief in the liberal society as defined above: a society that provides constitutional government (rule by law, not by men) and freedom of religion, thought, expression and economic interaction; a society in which ... . |year=1996 |access-date=31 December 2007 |via=]}}
*{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ndAdGl8ScfcC&q=liberalism+freedom+of+religion&pg=PA525 |first=Sheldon S. |last=Wolin |title=Politics and Vision: Continuity and Innovation in Western Political Thought |publisher=] |quote=The most frequently cited rights included freedom of speech, press, assembly, religion, property, and procedural rights |isbn=978-0-691-11977-9 |year=2004 |access-date=31 December 2007 |via=]}}
*{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=mQJgnEITPRIC&q=liberalism+freedom+of+religion&pg=PA366 |first1=Edwin Brown |last1=Firmage |first2=Bernard G. |last2=Weiss |first3=John Woodland |last3=Welch |title=Religion and Law: Biblical-Judaic and Islamic Perspectives |publisher=] |quote=There is no need to expound the foundations and principles of modern liberalism, which emphasises the values of freedom of conscience and freedom of religion |isbn=978-0-931464-39-3 |year=1990 |access-date=31 December 2007 |via=]}}
*{{cite book |url=https://archive.org/details/cyclopaediapoli00lalogoog |page= |first=John Joseph |last=Lalor |author-link=John Joseph Lalor |title=Cyclopædia of Political Science, Political Economy, and of the Political History of the United States |publisher=Nabu Press |quote=Democracy attaches itself to a form of government: liberalism, to liberty and guarantees of liberty. The two may agree; they are not contradictory, but they are neither identical, nor necessarily connected. In the moral order, liberalism is the liberty to think, recognised and practiced. This is primordial liberalism, as the liberty to think is itself the first and noblest of liberties. Man would not be free in any degree or in any sphere of action, if he were not a thinking being endowed with consciousness. The freedom of worship, the freedom of education, and the freedom of the press are derived the most directly from the freedom to think. |year=1883 |access-date=31 December 2007}}
*{{Cite web |title=Liberalism |url=https://www.britannica.com/topic/liberalism |access-date=2021-06-16 |website=Encyclopedia Britannica |language=en}}] and ]
*{{Cite book |title=The Desk Encyclopedia of World History |publisher=] |year=2006 |isbn=978-0-7394-7809-7 |editor-last=Wright |editor-first=Edmund |location=New York |pages=374}}
</ref> Liberalism is frequently cited as the dominant ] of ].<ref name=":1">Wolfe, p. 23.</ref><ref name="Adams 2011">{{cite book|last=Adams|first=Ian|title=Political Ideology Today|url=https://archive.org/details/politicalideolog0000adam/mode/2up?view=theater|url-access = registration|chapter-url=https://archive.org/details/politicalideolog0000adam/page/10/mode/2up?view=theater|chapter-url-access = registration|edition=Second|series=Politics Today|year=2001|publisher=Manchester University Press|location=Manchester and New York|isbn=0-7190-6019-2|chapter=2: Liberalism and democracy}}</ref>{{rp|11}}


Liberalism became a distinct ] in the ], gaining popularity among ] philosophers and ]s. Liberalism sought to replace the ] of ], ], ], the ] and ] with ], rule of law, and equality under the law. Liberals also ended ] policies, ], and other ]s, instead promoting ] and marketization.<ref name="Gould, p. 3"/> Philosopher ] is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct tradition based on the '']'', arguing that each man has a ] to ], and governments must not violate these ].<ref>{{cite book |quote=All mankind ... being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions |first=John |last=Locke |author-link=John Locke |title=Second Treatise of Government}}</ref> While the ] has emphasized expanding democracy, ] has emphasized rejecting ] and is linked to ].<ref name="Kirchner, p. 3">Kirchner, p. 3.</ref>
Liberalism rejected many ] assumptions that dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the ], hereditary status, and ]. ], the belief that traditions do not carry any inherent value and social practices ought to be continuously adjusted for the greater benefit of humanity, is a common component of liberal ideology. Liberalism is also strongly associated with the belief that human society should be organized in accordance with certain unchangeable and inviolable ]s. Different schools of liberalism are based on different conceptions of human rights, but there are some rights that all liberals support to some extent, including rights to life, liberty, and property.


Leaders in the British ] of 1688,<ref>{{cite book |url=https://archive.org/details/1688firstmodernr00stev |url-access=registration |title=1688: The First Modern Revolution |first=Steven |last=Pincus |year=2009 |publisher=] |isbn=978-0-300-15605-8 |access-date=7 February 2013}}</ref> the ] of 1776, and the ] of 1789 used liberal philosophy to justify the armed overthrow of royal ]. The 19th century saw liberal governments established in ] and ], and it was well-established alongside ].<ref>{{cite book |first=Milan |last=Zafirovski |title=Liberal Modernity and Its Adversaries: Freedom, Liberalism and Anti-Liberalism in the 21st Century |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=GNlT9Qho0tAC&pg=PA237 |year=2007 |publisher=] |page=237 |isbn=978-90-04-16052-1 |via=]}}</ref> In ], it was used to critique the political establishment, appealing to science and reason on behalf of the people.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Eddy |first1=Matthew Daniel |title=The Politics of Cognition: Liberalism and the Evolutionary Origins of Victorian Education |journal=British Journal for the History of Science |date=2017 |volume=50 |issue=4 |pages=677–699 |doi=10.1017/S0007087417000863 |pmid=29019300 |doi-access=free |issn=0007-0874 }}</ref> During the 19th and early 20th centuries, ] and the ] influenced periods of reform, such as the ] and ], and the rise of ], ], and ]. These changes, along with other factors, helped to create a sense of crisis within ], which continues to this day, leading to ]. Before 1920, the main ideological opponents of liberalism were ], ], and ];<ref>{{cite book |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Lta_DwAAQBAJ |title=Liberalism and Its Critics |last=Koerner |first=Kirk F. |publisher=] |year=1985 |isbn=978-0-429-27957-7 |location=London |via=]}}</ref> liberalism then faced major ideological challenges from ] and ] as new opponents. During the 20th century, liberal ideas spread even further, especially in Western Europe, as liberal democracies found themselves as the winners in both ]<ref>{{cite book |last=Conway |first=Martin |editor-last=Gosewinkel |editor-first=Dieter |title=Anti-liberal Europe: A Neglected Story of Europeanization |chapter=The Limits of an Anti-liberal Europe |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ECIfAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA184 |year=2014 |publisher=] |page=184 |isbn=978-1-78238-426-7 |quote=Liberalism, liberal values and liberal institutions formed an integral part of that process of European consolidation. Fifteen years after the end of the Second World War, the liberal and democratic identity of Western Europe had been reinforced on almost all sides by the definition of the West as a place of freedom. Set against the oppression in the Communist East, by the slow development of a greater understanding of the moral horror of Nazism, and by the engagement of intellectuals and others with the new states (and social and political systems) emerging in the non-European world to the South. |via=]}}</ref> and the ].<ref>Stern, Sol (Winter, 2010) '']''</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Fukuyama |first=Francis |date=1989 |title=The End of History? |url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/24027184 |journal=The National Interest |issue=16 |pages=3–18 |jstor=24027184 |issn=0884-9382}}</ref>
Within liberalism there are two major streams of thought which compete over the use of the term "liberal" and have been known to clash on many issues as they differ on their understanding of what constitutes freedom. ] believe that the only real freedom is freedom from ].<ref name="McGowan">McGowan, J. (2007). ''American Liberalism: An Interpretation for Our Time''. Chapel Hill, NC: North Carolina University Press.</ref> As a result, they see state intervention in the economy as a coercive power that restricts the economic freedom of individuals and favor a ] economic policy. They oppose the ].<ref>Chandran Kukathas, ''The Many and the One: Pluralism in the Modern World'', Richard Madsen and Tracy B. Strong, editors, 2003, p. 61</ref> ] argue that governments must take an active role in promoting the freedom of citizens. They believe that real freedom can exist only when citizens are healthy, educated, and free from dire poverty. They generally favor the right to an education, the right to health care, and the right to a ]. Some also favor laws against discrimination in housing and employment, laws against pollution of the environment, and the provision of ], including ] and ], all supported by ].<ref name="McGowan"/>


Liberals sought and established a constitutional order that prized important ], such as ] and ]; an ] and public ]; and the abolition of ] privileges.<ref name="Gould, p. 3" /> Later waves of modern liberal thought and struggle were strongly influenced by the need to expand civil rights.<ref name="Worell470">Worell, Judith. ''Encyclopedia of women and gender, Volume I''. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2001. {{ISBN|0-12-227246-3}}</ref> Liberals have advocated gender and racial equality in their drive to promote civil rights, and global ] in the 20th century achieved several objectives towards both goals. Other goals often accepted by liberals include ] and ]. In Europe and North America, the establishment of ] (often called simply ] in the United States) became a key component in expanding the ].<ref> {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180212050753/http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/schleslib.html |date=12 February 2018 }} by ] (1956) from: ''The Politics of Hope'' (Boston: Riverside Press, 1962). "Liberalism in the U.S. usage has little in common with the word as used in the politics of any other country, save possibly Britain."</ref> Today, ] continue to wield power and influence ]. The fundamental elements of ] have liberal roots. The early waves of liberalism popularised economic individualism while expanding constitutional government and ]ary authority.<ref name="Gould, p. 3">Gould, p. 3.</ref>
==Etymology and historical usage==
The word "liberal" derives from the ] ''liber'' ("free, not slave"), and is associated with the word "liberty" and the concept of freedom. ]'s ''History of Rome from Its Foundation'' describes the struggles for freedom between the ] and ] classes. ] in his ''Meditations'' writes about ". . . the idea of a polity administered with regard to equal rights and equal freedom of speech, and the idea of a kingly government which respects most of all the freedom of the governed." Largely dormant during the ]s, the struggle for freedom began again in the ], in the conflict between the supporters of free city-states and supporters of the ] or the Holy Roman Emperor. ], in his ''Discourses on Livy'', laid down the principles of ]an government. ] in ] and the thinkers of the ] ] articulated the struggle for freedom in terms of the ].


==Definitions==
The '']'' (''OED'') indicates that the word ''liberal'' has long been in the ] with the meanings of "befitting free men, noble, generous" as in '']''; also with the meaning "free from restraint in speech or action", as in ''liberal with the purse'', or ''liberal tongue'', usually as a term of reproach but, beginning 1776&ndash;88 imbued with a more favorable sense by ] and others to mean "free from prejudice, tolerant."
===Origins===
{{libertarianism sidebar|origins}}
'']'', '']'', '']'', and '']'' all trace their ] to '']'', a ] from ] that means "]".<ref name="Gross, p. 5">Gross, p. 5.</ref> One of the first recorded instances of ''liberal'' occurred in 1375 when it was used to describe the ] in the context of an education desirable for a free-born man.<ref name="Gross, p. 5"/> The word's early connection with the classical education of a medieval university soon gave way to a proliferation of different denotations and connotations. ''Liberal'' could refer to "free in bestowing" as early as 1387, "made without stint" in 1433, "freely permitted" in 1530, and "free from restraint"—often as a pejorative remark—in the 16th and the 17th centuries.<ref name="Gross, p. 5"/>


In the 16th-century ], ''liberal'' could have positive or negative attributes in referring to someone's generosity or indiscretion.<ref name="Gross, p. 5"/> In '']'', ] wrote of "a liberal villaine" who "hath ... confest his vile encounters".<ref name="Gross, p. 5"/> With the rise of ], the word acquired decisively more positive undertones, defined as "free from narrow prejudice" in 1781 and "free from bigotry" in 1823.<ref name="Gross, p. 5"/> In 1815, the first use of ''liberalism'' appeared in English.<ref>Kirchner, pp. 2–3.</ref> In Spain, the '']'', the first group to use the liberal label in a political context,<ref>Palmer and Colton, p. 479.</ref> fought for decades to implement the ]. From 1820 to 1823, during the '']'', ] was compelled by the ''liberales'' to swear to uphold the 1812 Constitution. By the middle of the 19th century, ''liberal'' was used as a politicised term for parties and movements worldwide.<ref>Kirchner, Emil J. (1988). ''Liberal Parties in Western Europe''. Cambridge University Press. {{ISBN|978-0-521-32394-9}}. "Liberal parties were among the first political parties to form, and their long-serving and influential records, as participants in parliaments and governments, raise important questions ... ."</ref>
The first English language use to mean "tending in favor of freedom and ]," according to the ''OED,'' dates from about 1801 and comes from the ] ''libéral,'' "originally applied in English by its opponents (often in Fr. form and with suggestions of foreign lawlessness)." An early English language citation: "The extinction of every vestige of freedom, and of every liberal idea with which they are associated."<ref>Hel. M. WILLIAMS, Sk. Fr. Rep. I. xi. 113," (presumably ]) ''Sketches of the State of Manners and Opinions in the French Republic.'' 1801. Cited in the ''].''</ref>


] is the ] most commonly associated with liberalism.<ref>{{Cite book |last1=Adams |first1=Sean |url=https://archive.org/details/colordesignworkb0000ston/page/86 |title=Color Design Workbook: A Real World Guide to Using Color in Graphic Design |last2=Morioka |first2=Noreen |last3=Stone |first3=Terry Lee |date=2006 |publisher=Rockport Publishers |isbn=1-59253-192-X |location=Gloucester, Mass. |pages= |oclc=60393965}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Kumar |first1=Rohit Vishal |last2=Joshi |first2=Radhika |date=October–December 2006 |title=Colour, Colour Everywhere: In Marketing Too |journal=SCMS Journal of Indian Management |volume=3 |issue=4 |pages=40–46 |issn=0973-3167 |ssrn=969272}}</ref><ref>Cassel-Picot, Muriel "The Liberal Democrats and the Green Cause: From Yellow to Green" in Leydier, Gilles and Martin, Alexia (2013) ''Environmental Issues in Political Discourse in Britain and Ireland''. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221206080446/https://books.google.ca/books?id=fFgxBwAAQBAJ&lpg=PP1&pg=PA105 |date=6 December 2022 }}. {{isbn|9781443852838}}</ref> The ] differs from other countries in that conservatism is associated with red and ] with blue.<ref>{{Cite book |title=Color Design Workbook: A Real World Guide to Using Color in Graphic Design |last1=Adams |first1=Sean |last2=Morioka |first2=Noreen |last3=Stone |first3=Terry Lee |date=2006 |publisher=] |isbn=159253192X |location=Gloucester, Mass. |pages= |oclc=60393965 |url=https://archive.org/details/colordesignworkb0000ston/page/86}}</ref>
The ] established the first nation to craft a constitution based on the concept of liberal government, especially the idea that governments rule by the consent of the governed. The more moderate '']'' elements of the ] tried to establish a government based on liberal principles. ]s such as ], in '']'' (1776), enunciated the liberal principles of free trade. The editors of the ], drafted in ], may have been the first to use the word ''liberal'' in a political sense as a noun. They named themselves the ''Liberales,'' to express their opposition to the ] power of the Spanish ].


===Modern usage and definitions===
Beginning in the late 18th century, liberalism became a major ideology in virtually all developed countries.
In Europe and Latin America, ''liberalism'' means a moderate form of ] and includes both ] (] liberalism) and ] (] liberalism).<ref name="Nordsieck contents">{{cite web |url=http://www.parties-and-elections.eu/content.html |title=Content |date=2020 |website=Parties and Elections in Europe}}</ref>


In North America, ''liberalism'' almost exclusively refers to social liberalism. The dominant Canadian party is the ], and the ] is usually considered liberal in the United States.<ref>Puddington, p. 142. "After a dozen years of centre-left Liberal Party rule, the Conservative Party emerged from the 2006 parliamentary elections with a plurality and established a fragile minority government."</ref><ref>Grigsby, pp. 106–07. "Its liberalism is, for the most part, the later version of liberalism – modern liberalism."</ref><ref>Arnold, p. 3. "Modern liberalism occupies the left-of-center in the traditional political spectrum and is represented by the Democratic Party in the United States."</ref> In the United States, conservative liberals are usually called ''conservatives'' in a broad sense.<ref name="Friedman">{{cite book |editor-last=Cayla |editor-first=David |title=Populism and Neoliberalism |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=pDAXEAAAQBAJ&dq=Neoliberalism+%22conservative+liberalism%22&pg=PA62 |date=2021 |page=62 |publisher=] |isbn=9781000366709 |via=]}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |editor-last=Slomp |editor-first=Hans |title=Europe, A Political Profile: An American Companion to European Politics, Volume 1 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=LmfAPmwE6YYC&q=EU+left-wing+liberal+parties |date=2011 |pages=106–108 |publisher=] |isbn=9780313391811 |via=]}}</ref>
=== Trends ===
Within the above framework, there are deep, often bitter, conflicts and controversies among liberals. Emerging from those controversies, out of ], are a number of different trends within liberalism. As in many debates, opposite sides use different words for the same beliefs, and sometimes use identical words for different beliefs. For the purposes of this article, we will use "]" for the support of (liberal) democracy (either in a republic or a ]), over ] or dictatorship; "]" for the support of individual liberty over laws limiting liberty for patriotic or religious reasons; "]" for the support of private property, over government regulation; and "]" for the support of equality under the law, and relief provided by the government from suffering caused by poverty or natural disaster. By "modern liberalism" we mean the mixture of these forms of liberalism found in most ] countries today, rather than any one of the pure forms listed above.


====Social liberalism====
{{cquote|Liberalism wagers that a state . . . can be strong but constrained – strong because constrained . . . Rights to education and other requirements for human development and security aim to advance equal opportunity and personal dignity and to promote a creative and productive society. To guarantee those rights, liberals have supported a wider social and economic role for the state, counterbalanced by more robust guarantees of civil liberties and a wider social system of checks and balances anchored in an independent press and pluralistic society. – ], sociologist at ], '']'', March 2007}}
{{see also|Social liberalism|Welfare state|Liberalism in the United States}}
Over time, the meaning of ''liberalism'' began to diverge in different parts of the world. Since the 1930s, ''liberalism'' is usually used without a qualifier in the United States, to refer to ], a variety of liberalism that endorses a ] economy and the expansion of ], with the common good considered as compatible with or superior to the freedom of the individual.<ref>De Ruggiero, Guido (1959). ''The History of European Liberalism''. pp. 155–157.</ref>


According to the '']'': "In the United States, liberalism is associated with the welfare-state policies of the New Deal programme of the Democratic administration of Pres. ], whereas in Europe it is more commonly associated with a commitment to ] and '']'' economic policies."<ref>"Liberalism". ''Encyclopædia Britannica''.</ref> This variety of liberalism is also known as '']'' to distinguish it from ''classical liberalism'', which evolved into ]. In the United States, the two forms of liberalism comprise the two main poles of American politics, in the forms of '']'' and '']''.<ref>Pease, Donald E.; Wiegman, Robyn (eds.) (2002). ''The Futures of American Studies''. Duke University Press. p. 518.</ref>
Some principles liberals generally agree upon:


Some liberals, who call themselves ''classical liberals'', '']'', or '']'', endorse fundamental liberal ideals but diverge from modern liberal thought on the grounds that ] is more important than ].<ref>Pena, David S. (2001). ''Economic Barbarism and Managerialism''. p. 35.</ref> Consequently, the ideas of ] and ''laissez-faire'' economics previously associated with ] are key components of modern ] and ], and became the basis for the emerging school of modern ] thought.<ref>Rothbard, Murray (2006) . . '']''. ]. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150618045238/http://archive.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard121.html |date=18 June 2015 }}. Retrieved 18 June 2015 – via LewRockewell.com</ref>{{better source needed|date=December 2020}} In this American context, ''liberal'' is often used as a pejorative.<ref>{{cite news |date=6 January 2012 |title=The failure of American political speech |newspaper=] |url=https://www.economist.com/johnson/2012/01/06/the-failure-of-american-political-speech |access-date=1 September 2022 |issn=0013-0613}}</ref>
:* ''']''' is the belief that individuals are the basis of law and society, and that society and its institutions exist to further the ends of individuals, without showing favor to those of higher social rank. '']'' is an example of a political document that asserted the rights of individuals even above the prerogatives of monarchs. Political liberalism stresses the ], under which citizens make the laws and agree to abide by those laws. It is based on the belief that individuals know best what is best for them. Political liberalism enfranchises all adult citizens regardless of sex, race, or economic status. Political liberalism emphasizes the ] and supports ].


This political philosophy is exemplified by enactment of major social legislation and welfare programs. Two major examples in the United States are ]'s ] policies and later ]'s ], as well as other accomplishments such as the ] and the ] in 1935, as well as the ] and the ].
:* ''']''' focuses on the rights of individuals pertaining to conscience and lifestyle, including such issues as sexual freedom, religious freedom, cognitive freedom, and protection from government intrusion into private life. ] aptly expressed cultural liberalism in his essay "On Liberty," when he wrote,
:{{cquote|The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.}}
::Cultural liberalism generally opposes government regulation of ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], and ] and other ]. Most liberals oppose some or all government intervention in these areas. The ], in this respect, may be the most liberal country in the world today.


Modern liberalism, in the United States and other major Western countries, now includes issues such as ], ], the abolition of ], ] and other ], ] for all adult citizens, civil rights, ], and government protection of the ].<ref>{{cite journal|author=Jeffries, John W.|title=The "New" New Deal: FDR and American Liberalism, 1937–1945|journal=Political Science Quarterly|volume=105|number=3|date=1990|pages=397–418|doi=10.2307/2150824|jstor=2150824}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |date=2013-01-31 |title=Coretta's Big Dream: Coretta Scott King on Gay Rights |url=https://www.huffpost.com/entry/coretta-scott-king_b_2592049 |access-date=2023-06-21 |website=HuffPost |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url=https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2022/02/11/deep-partisan-divide-on-whether-greater-acceptance-of-transgender-people-is-good-for-society/ | title=Deep partisan divide on whether greater acceptance of transgender people is good for society }}</ref> National ], such as equal educational opportunities, access to health care, and transportation infrastructure are intended to meet the responsibility to promote the ] of all citizens as established by the ].
However, some trends within liberalism reveal stark differences of opinion:


====Classical liberalism====
:* ''']''', also called '']'' or '']'', is an ideology which supports the individual rights of property and freedom of contract, without which, it argues, the exercise of other liberties is impossible. It advocates '']'' ], meaning the removal of legal barriers to trade and cessation of government-bestowed privilege such as subsidy and monopoly. Economic liberals want little or no government regulation of the ]. Some economic liberals would accept government restrictions of ] and ]s, others argue that ] and ]s are caused by state action. Economic liberalism holds that the value of goods and services should be set by the unfettered choices of individuals, that is, of market forces. Some would also allow market forces to act even in areas conventionally monopolized by governments, such as the provision of security and courts. Economic liberalism accepts the economic inequality that arises from unequal bargaining positions as being the natural result of competition, so long as no coercion is used. This form of liberalism is especially influenced by English liberalism of the mid 19th century. ] and ] are forms of economic liberalism. (See also ], ], ])
{{see also|Classical liberalism|Conservative liberalism}}
Classical liberalism is a ] and a ] of liberalism that advocates ] and ] economics and ] under the ], with special emphasis on individual autonomy, ], ], ] and ].<ref>{{cite web |title=Classical liberalism |url=https://www.britannica.com/topic/classical-liberalism |website=www.britannica.com |publisher=] |access-date=17 October 2023 |date=6 September 2023}}</ref> Classical liberalism, contrary to liberal branches like ], looks more negatively on ], ]ation and the state involvement in the lives of individuals, and it advocates ].<ref>{{cite book| first1 = M. O. | last1 = Dickerson | last2 = Flanagan | first2 = Thomas | last3 = O'Neill| first3 = Brenda | title = An Introduction to Government and Politics: A Conceptual Approach | date = 2009| p=129}}</ref>


Until the ] and the rise of social liberalism, classical liberalism was called ]. Later, the term was applied as a ], to distinguish earlier 19th-century liberalism from social liberalism.{{sfn|Richardson|2001|p=52}} By modern standards, in ], the bare term ''liberalism'' often means social liberalism, but in ] and ], the bare term ''liberalism'' often means classical liberalism.<ref>{{cite news |last=Goldfarb |first=Michael |date=20 July 2010 |title=Liberal? Are we talking about the same thing? |language=en-GB |publisher=] |url=https://www.bbc.com/news/world-10658070 |access-date=6 August 2020}}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last=Greenberg |first=David |date=12 September 2019 |title=The danger of confusing liberals and leftists |newspaper=] |url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/09/12/stop-calling-bernie-sanders-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-liberals/ |access-date=6 August 2020}}</ref>
:* ''']''', also known as '''new liberalism''' (not to be confused with 'neoliberalism') and '''reform liberalism''', arose in the late 19th century in many developed countries, influenced by the utilitarianism of ] and ]. Generally speaking, social liberals support free trade and a market-based economy in which the basic needs of all individuals are met. Furthermore, ] ideas are commonly advocated by social liberals, based on the idea that social practices ought to be continuously adapted in such a manner as to benefit the substantive freedom of all members of society. According to the tenets of this form of liberalism, as explained by writers such as ] and ], since individuals are the basis of society, all individuals should have access to basic necessities of fulfillment, such as education, economic opportunity, and protection from harmful macro-events beyond their control. To social liberals, these benefits are considered rights. ; this concept of ] is qualitatively different from the emphasis that economic liberals place on ]. Social liberals believe that in order for all people to have ] liberty, the provision of basic necessities to all citizens ought to be ensured by the political community through means such as taxation, towards ends such as ], ], ], and ].


Classical liberalism gained full flowering in the early 18th century, building on ideas dating at least as far back as the 16th century, within the Iberian, British, and Central European contexts, and it was foundational to the ] and "American Project" more broadly.<ref>{{cite book |last=Douma |first=Michael |title=What is Classical Liberal History? |date=2018 |publisher=Lexington Books |isbn=978-1-4985-3610-3}}</ref>{{sfn|Dickerson|Flanagan|O'Neill|2009|p=129}}<ref>{{cite web |last=Renshaw |first=Catherine |date=2014-03-18 |title=What is a 'classical liberal' approach to human rights? |url=http://theconversation.com/what-is-a-classical-liberal-approach-to-human-rights-24452 |access-date=2022-08-12 |website=The Conversation}}</ref> Notable liberal individuals whose ideas contributed to classical liberalism include ],<ref name="Steven M. Dworetz 1994">Steven M. Dworetz (1994). ''The Unvarnished Doctrine: Locke, Liberalism, and the American Revolution''.</ref> ], ], and ]. It drew on ], especially the economic ideas espoused by ] in Book One of '']'', and on a belief in ].<ref>{{cite book |last=Appleby |first=Joyce |author-link=Joyce Appleby |title=Liberalism and Republicanism in the Historical Imagination |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=83HlqTJjLcgC&pg=PA58 |publisher=] |date=1992 |page=58 |isbn=978-0674530133}}</ref> In contemporary times, ], ], ], ], ], ], ] and ] are seen as the most prominent advocates of classical liberalism.<ref>{{cite book |last=Dilley |first=Stephen C. |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=XAIQOVWz2hEC |title=Darwinian Evolution and Classical Liberalism: Theories in Tension |date=2013-05-02 |publisher=Lexington Books |isbn=978-0-7391-8107-2 |pages=13–14}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last=Peters |first=Michael A. |date=2022-04-16 |title=Hayek as classical liberal public intellectual: Neoliberalism, the privatization of public discourse and the future of democracy |journal=Educational Philosophy and Theory |volume=54 |issue=5 |pages=443–449 |doi=10.1080/00131857.2019.1696303 |s2cid=213420239 |issn=0013-1857|doi-access=free}}</ref> However, other scholars have made reference to these contemporary thoughts as '']'', distinguishing them from 18th-century classical liberalism.<ref name="Mayne 1999 p. 124">Mayne, Alan James (1999). ''From Politics Past to Politics Future: An Integrated Analysis of Current and Emergent Paradigmss''. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 124–125. {{ISBN|0275961516}}.</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Ishiyama |first1=John T. |title=21st Century Political Science A Reference Handbook |last2=Breuning |first2=Marijke |collaboration=Ellen Grigsby |publisher=SAGE Publications, Inc. |year=2011 |isbn=978-1-4129 6901-7 |pages=596–603 |chapter=Neoclassical liberals}}</ref>
Social liberalism advocates some restrictions on matters that economic liberals view as fundamental rights. For example, social liberals may favor ], which classical liberals view as violating of the ]. Social liberals argue that power disparities cause contracts to favor the rich. To which economic liberals reply, "Then don't sign." Of course, if a group did indeed refuse to "sign", as in a ], the voluntary, mutual withholding of labor from an employer, economic liberals have employed--at least on a historical basis--totalitarian means, such as armed government soldiers to use force and coercion upon workers to "urge" them to "sign"; what is good for the goose is not good for the gander, apparently. (See, for example, the ], the ], etc.)


In the context of American politics, "classical liberalism" may be described as "fiscally conservative" and "socially liberal".<ref>{{Cite book |title=The Desk Encyclopedia of World History |publisher=] |year=2006 |isbn=978-0-7394-7809-7 |editor-last=Wright |editor-first=Edmund |location=New York |pages=370}}</ref> Despite this, classical liberals tend to reject ]'s higher tolerance for ] and ] inclination for collective ] due to classical liberalism's central principle of ].<ref>{{cite web |last1=Goodman |first1=John C. |title=Classical Liberalism vs. Modern Liberalism and Modern Conservatism |url=https://www.goodmaninstitute.org/about/how-we-think/classical-liberalism-vs-modern-liberalism-and-modern-conservatism/ |website=Goodman Institute |access-date=2 January 2022}}</ref> Additionally, in the United States, classical liberalism is considered closely tied to, or synonymous with, ].<ref>{{Cite web |date=2023-04-06 |title=Libertarianism vs. Classical Liberalism: Is there a Difference? |url=https://reason.com/volokh/2023/04/06/libertarianism-vs-classical-liberalism-is-there-a-difference/ |access-date=2023-09-22 |website=Reason.com |language=en-US}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |last=Klein |first=Daniel B. |date=2017-05-03 |title=Libertarianism and Classical Liberalism: A Short Introduction {{!}} Daniel B. Klein |url=https://fee.org/articles/libertarianism-and-classical-liberalism-a-short-introduction/ |access-date=2022-03-08 |website=fee.org |language=en}}</ref>
The struggle between ] and ] is almost as old as the idea of freedom itself. ], writing about ] (c. 639 – c. 559 BCE), the lawgiver of ancient Athens, wrote:
{{cquote|The remission of debts was peculiar to Solon; it was his great means for confirming the citizens' liberty; for a mere law to give all men equal rights is but useless, if the poor must sacrifice those rights to their debts, and, in the very seats and sanctuaries of equality, the courts of justice, the offices of state, and the public discussions, be more than anywhere at the beck and bidding of the rich.}}


== Philosophy ==
All forms of liberalism claim to protect freedom. They disagree only about the true meaning of freedom. Liberalism is so widespread in the modern world that most Western nations at least pay lip service to individual liberty as the basis for society.
Liberalism—both as a political current and an intellectual tradition—is mostly a modern phenomenon that started in the 17th century, although some liberal philosophical ideas had precursors in ] and ].<ref name="BevirSAGE"/><ref name="FungCambridge"/> The ] ] praised "the idea of a polity administered with regard to equal rights and equal freedom of speech, and the idea of a kingly government which respects most of all the freedom of the governed".<ref>Antoninus, p. 3.</ref> Scholars have also recognised many principles familiar to contemporary liberals in the works of several ] and the ''Funeral Oration'' by ].<ref name="Young, pp. 25–6">{{Harvnb|Young|2002|pp=25–26}}.</ref> Liberal philosophy is the culmination of an extensive intellectual tradition that has examined and popularized some of the modern world's most important and controversial principles. Its immense scholarly output has been characterized as containing "richness and diversity", but that diversity often has meant that liberalism comes in different formulations and presents a challenge to anyone looking for a clear definition.<ref name="Young, p. 24">{{Harvnb|Young|2002|p=24}}.</ref>


=== Comparative influences === === Major themes ===
{{individualism sidebar|philosophies}}
Early ] thinkers contrasted liberalism with the authoritarianism of the ], ], ] and the ]. Later, as more radical philosophers articulated their thoughts in the course of the ] and throughout the nineteenth century, liberalism defined itself in contrast to ] and ], although modern European liberal parties have often formed coalitions with ] parties. In the 20th century liberalism defined itself in opposition to ] and ]. Some modern liberals have rejected the classical ], which emphasizes neutrality and free trade, in favor of multilateral ] and ].
Although all liberal doctrines possess a common heritage, scholars frequently assume that those doctrines contain "separate and often contradictory streams of thought".<ref name="Young, p. 24"/> The objectives of ] have differed across various times, cultures and continents. The diversity of liberalism can be gleaned from the numerous qualifiers that liberal thinkers and movements have attached to the term "liberalism", including ], ], ], ], the ], ], ], ], ], ], and ]al, to name a few.<ref>{{Harvnb|Young|2002|p=25}}.</ref> Despite these variations, liberal thought does exhibit a few definite and fundamental conceptions.


Political philosopher ] identified the common strands in liberal thought as ], egalitarian, ] and ]. The individualist element avers the ethical primacy of the human being against the pressures of social ]; the egalitarian element assigns the same ] worth and status to all individuals; the meliorist element asserts that successive generations can improve their sociopolitical arrangements, and the universalist element affirms the moral unity of the human species and marginalises local ] differences.<ref name="Gray, p. xii">Gray, p. xii.</ref> The meliorist element has been the subject of much controversy, defended by thinkers such as ], who believed in human progress, while suffering criticism by thinkers such as ], who instead believed that human attempts to improve themselves through social ] would fail.<ref>Wolfe, pp. 33–36.</ref>
Liberalism favors the limitation of government power. Extreme ] liberalism, as advocated by ], ], ], and ], is a radical form of liberalism called ] (no state at all) or ] (a minimal state, or sometimes called "the ].")<ref>The website of the labels this form as "Market Anarchism".</ref> Most liberals claim that a ] is necessary to protect rights, yet the meaning of "government" can range from simply a rights protection organization to a ] ]. Recently, liberalism has again come into conflict with those who seek a society ordered by religious values: radical ] often rejects liberal thought in its entirety, and radical Christian sects in Western liberal-democratic states &mdash; especially the US &mdash; often find their moral opinions coming into conflict with liberal laws and ideals.


The liberal philosophical tradition has searched for validation and justification through several intellectual projects. The moral and political suppositions of liberalism have been based on traditions such as natural rights and ], although sometimes liberals even request support from scientific and religious circles.<ref name="Gray, p. xii"/> Through all these strands and traditions, scholars have identified the following major common facets of liberal thought:
==Development of thought==
===Origins of thought===
]
The focus on liberty as an essential right of people within the polity has been repeatedly asserted throughout history. These include are the conflicts between the ] and ] in ] and the struggles of ] city states against the ]. The ] of ] and ] had forms of elections, the rule of law, and pursuit of free enterprise through much of the 1400s until domination by outside powers in the 16th century. The Dutch resistance against (Spanish) Catholic oppression during the ] is often &mdash; despite its refusal to give freedom to Catholics &mdash; considered a predecessor of liberal values. Other precursors to liberalism include certain aspects of the '']'' and medieval ].<ref>{{citation|first=Antony T.|last=Sullivan|title=Istanbul Conference Traces Islamic Roots of Western Law, Society|journal=]|date=January-February 1997|page=36|url=http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0197/9701036.htm|accessdate=2008-02-29}}</ref><ref> {{citation|last=Weeramantry|first=Judge Christopher G.|title=Justice Without Frontiers: Furthering Human Rights|year=1997|publisher=]|isbn=9041102418|page=134}}</ref>


* believing in equality and ]
The modern ideology of liberalism can be traced back to the ] which challenged the authority of the ] during the ], and the Whigs of the ] in Great Britain, whose assertion of their right to choose their king can be seen as a precursor to claims of ]. However, movements generally labeled as truly "liberal" date from ], particularly the ] party in ], the '']'' in ], and the movement towards ] in ]. These movements opposed ], ], and various kinds of religious ] and ]. They were also the first to formulate the concepts of individual rights under the rule of law, as well as the importance of self-government through elected representatives.
* supporting private property and individual rights
* supporting the idea of limited constitutional government
* recognising the importance of related values such as ], ], autonomy, ], and ]<ref>{{Harvnb|Young|2002|p=45}}.</ref>


=== Classical and modern ===
The definitive break with the past was the conception that free individuals could form the foundation for a stable society. This idea is generally dated from the work of ] (1632-1704), whose '']'' established two fundamental liberal ideas: economic liberty, meaning the right to have and use property, and intellectual liberty, including freedom of conscience, which he expounded in '']'' (1689). However, he did not extend his views on religious freedom to ]s . Locke developed further the earlier idea of ], which he saw as "life, liberty and property". His "natural rights theory" was the distant forerunner of the modern conception of ]. However, to Locke, property was more important than the right to participate in government and public decision-making: he did not endorse ], because he feared that giving power to the people would erode the sanctity of private property. Nevertheless, the idea of natural rights played a key role in providing the ideological justification for the ] and the ].
{{see also|Age of Enlightenment}}


==== John Locke and Thomas Hobbes ====
]
{{See also|John Locke|Thomas Hobbes}}
On the European continent, the doctrine of laws restraining even monarchs was expounded by ], whose '']'' argues that "Better is it to say, that the government most conformable to nature is that which best agrees with the humour and disposition of the people in whose favour it is established," rather than accept as natural the mere rule of force. Following in his footsteps, political economist ] and ] were ardent exponents of the "harmonies" of the market, and in all probability it was they who coined the term '']''. This evolved into the ], and to the ] of ].
] philosophers are given credit for shaping liberal ideas. These ideas were first drawn together and systematized as a distinct ] by the English philosopher ], generally regarded as the father of modern liberalism.<ref name="Taverne, p. 18">Taverne, p. 18.</ref><ref name="Godwin et al., p. 12">Godwin et al., p. 12.</ref> ] attempted to determine the purpose and the justification of governing authority in post-civil war England. Employing the idea of a '']'' — a hypothetical war-like scenario prior to the state — he constructed the idea of a '']'' that individuals enter into to guarantee their security and, in so doing, form the State, concluding that only an ] would be fully able to sustain such security. Hobbes had developed the concept of the social contract, according to which individuals in the anarchic and brutal state of nature came together and voluntarily ceded some of their rights to an established state authority, which would create laws to regulate social interactions to mitigate or mediate conflicts and enforce justice. Whereas Hobbes advocated a strong monarchical commonwealth (the ]), Locke developed the then-radical notion that government acquires ], which has to be constantly present for the government to remain ].<ref>Copleston, Frederick. ''A History of Philosophy: Volume V''. New York: Doubleday, 1959. {{ISBN|0-385-47042-8}} pp. 39–41.</ref> While adopting Hobbes's idea of a state of nature and social contract, Locke nevertheless argued that when the monarch becomes a ], it violates the social contract, which protects life, liberty and property as a natural right. He concluded that the people have a right to overthrow a tyrant. By placing the security of life, liberty and property as the supreme value of law and authority, Locke formulated the basis of liberalism based on social contract theory. To these early enlightenment thinkers, securing the essential amenities of life—] and ]—required forming a "sovereign" authority with universal jurisdiction.<ref>{{Harvnb|Young|2002|pp=30–31}}</ref>


His influential '']'' (1690), the foundational text of liberal ideology, outlined his major ideas. Once humans moved out of their ] and formed ], Locke argued, "that which begins and actually constitutes any ] is nothing but the consent of any number of freemen capable of a majority to unite and incorporate into such a society. And this is that, and that only, which did or could give beginning to any lawful government in the world".<ref name="Locke Two Treatises 1947">{{cite book|last=Locke|first=John|author-link=John Locke|title=Two Treatises of Government|url=https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.503178/page/n5/mode/2up|year=1947|publisher=Hafner Publishing Company|location=New York}}</ref>{{rp|170}} The stringent insistence that lawful government did not have a ] basis was a sharp break with the dominant theories of governance, which advocated the divine right of kings<ref>Forster, p. 219.</ref> and echoed the earlier thought of ]. Dr John Zvesper described this new thinking: "In the liberal understanding, there are no citizens within the regime who can claim to rule by natural or supernatural right, without the consent of the governed".<ref>{{Cite book |last=Zvesper |first=Dr John |title=Nature and Liberty |date=4 March 1993 |publisher=] |isbn=9780415089234 |pages=93 |language=en}}</ref>
The late French enlightenment saw two figures who would have tremendous influence on later liberal thought: ] who argued that the French should adopt ], and disestablish the ''Second Estate'', and Rousseau who argued for a natural freedom for mankind. Both argued, in different forms, for changes in political and social arrangements based around the idea that society can restrain a natural human liberty, but not obliterate its nature. For Voltaire the concept was more intellectual, for Rousseau, it was related to intrinsic natural rights, perhaps related to the ideas of ].


Locke had other intellectual opponents besides Hobbes. In the ''First Treatise'', Locke aimed his arguments first and foremost at one of the doyens of 17th-century English conservative philosophy: ]. Filmer's ''Patriarcha'' (1680) argued for the ] by appealing to ] teaching, claiming that the authority granted to ] by ] gave successors of Adam in the male line of descent a right of dominion over all other humans and creatures in the world.<ref>Copleston, Frederick. ''A History of Philosophy: Volume V''. New York: Doubleday, 1959. {{ISBN|0-385-47042-8}}, p. 33.</ref> However, Locke disagreed so thoroughly and obsessively with Filmer that the ''First Treatise'' is almost a sentence-by-sentence refutation of ''Patriarcha''. Reinforcing his respect for consensus, Locke argued that "conjugal society is made up by a voluntary compact between men and women".<ref name="Kerber 1976">{{cite journal|last=Kerber|first=Linda|author-link = Linda Kerber|year=1976|title=The Republican Mother: Women and the Enlightenment-An American Perspective|journal=American Quarterly|volume=28|issue=2|doi=10.2307/2712349|jstor=2712349|pages=187–205}}</ref> Locke maintained that the grant of dominion in ] was not to ], as Filmer believed, but to humans over animals.<ref name="Kerber 1976"/> Locke was not a ] by modern standards, but the first major liberal thinker in history accomplished an equally major task on the road to making the world more pluralistic: integrating women into ].<ref name="Kerber 1976"/>
]]]
Rousseau also argued the importance of a concept that appears repeatedly in the history of liberal thought, namely, the social contract. He rooted this in the nature of the individual and asserted that each person knows their own interest best. His assertion that man is born free, but that education was sufficient to restrain him within society, rocked the monarchical society of his age. His assertion of an organic will of a nation argued for self-determination of peoples, again in contravention of established political practice. His ideas were a key element in the declaration of the ] in the French Revolution, and in the thinking of Americans such as ] and ]. In his view the unity of a state came from the concerted action of consent, or the "national will". This unity of action would allow states to exist without being chained to pre-existing social orders, such as aristocracy.


]'s '']'' (1644) argued for the importance of ].]]
A main contributing group of thinkers whose work would become considered part of liberalism are those associated with the "]", including the writers ] and ], and the German ] philosopher ].
Locke also originated the concept of the ].<ref name=AFP>Feldman, Noah (2005). ''Divided by God''. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, p. 29 ("It took ] to translate the demand for liberty of conscience into a systematic argument for distinguishing the realm of government from the realm of religion.")</ref> Based on the social contract principle, Locke argued that the government lacked authority in the realm of individual ], as this was something ] people could not cede to the government for it or others to control. For Locke, this created a natural right to the liberty of conscience, which he argued must remain protected from any government authority.<ref>Feldman, Noah (2005). ''Divided by God''. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, p. 29</ref> In his ''Letters Concerning Toleration'', he also formulated a general defence for ]. Three arguments are central:


# Earthly judges, the state in particular, and human beings generally, cannot dependably evaluate the truth claims of competing religious standpoints;
]]]
# Even if they could, enforcing a single "]" would not have the desired effect because belief cannot be compelled by ];
]'s contributions were many and varied, but most important was his assertion that fundamental rules of human behavior would overwhelm attempts to restrict or regulate them, in '']'', 1739-1740. One example of this is in his disparaging of ], and the accumulation of gold and silver. He argued that prices were related to the quantity of money, and that hoarding gold and issuing paper money would only lead to inflation.
# Coercing ] would lead to more social disorder than allowing diversity.<ref>]. 1998. ''Historical Theology, An Introduction to the History of Christian Thought.'' Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. pp. 214–15.</ref>


Locke was also influenced by the liberal ideas of Presbyterian politician and poet ], who was a staunch advocate of freedom in all its forms.<ref>{{Citation | first = Heinrich | last = Bornkamm | language = de | contribution = Toleranz. In der Geschichte des Christentums | title = Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart | year = 1962}}, 3. Auflage, Band VI, col. 942</ref> Milton argued for ] as the only effective way of achieving broad ]. Rather than force a man's conscience, the government should recognise the persuasive force of the gospel.<ref>Hunter, William Bridges. ''A Milton Encyclopedia, Volume 8'' (East Brunswick, NJ: Associated University Presses, 1980). pp. 71, 72. {{ISBN|0-8387-1841-8}}.</ref> As assistant to ], Milton also drafted a constitution of the ] (''Agreement of the People''; 1647) that strongly stressed the equality of all humans as a consequence of democratic tendencies.<ref>{{Citation | first = W | last = Wertenbruch | contribution = Menschenrechte | title = Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart | language = de | place = Tübingen, DE | year = 1960}}, 3. Auflage, Band IV, col. 869</ref> In his '']'', Milton provided one of the first arguments for the importance of freedom of speech—"the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties". His central argument was that the individual could use reason to distinguish right from wrong. To exercise this right, everyone must have unlimited access to the ideas of his fellow men in "]", which will allow good arguments to prevail.
Although Adam Smith is the most famous of the economic liberal thinkers, he was not without antecedents. The ] in France had proposed studying systematically political economy and the self organizing nature of markets. Benjamin Franklin wrote in favor of the freedom of American industry in 1750. In ] the period of liberty and parliamentary government from 1718 to 1772 produced a ] parliamentarian, ], who was one of the first to propose free trade and unregulated industry, in '']'', 1765. His impact has proven to be lasting particularly in the Nordic area, but it also had a powerful effect in later developments elsewhere.


In a natural state of affairs, liberals argued, humans were driven by the instincts of survival and ], and the only way to escape from such a dangerous existence was to form a common and supreme power capable of arbitrating between competing human desires.<ref name="Young 30">{{Harvnb|Young|2002|p=30}}.</ref> This power could be formed in the framework of a ] that allows individuals to make a voluntary social contract with the sovereign authority, transferring their natural rights to that authority in return for the protection of life, liberty and property.<ref name="Young 30"/> These early liberals often disagreed about the most appropriate form of government, but all believed that liberty was natural and its restriction needed strong justification.<ref name="Young 30" /> Liberals generally believed in limited government, although several liberal philosophers decried government outright, with ] writing, "government even in its best state is a necessary evil".<ref name="Young, p. 31">{{Harvnb|Young|2002|p=31}}.</ref>
The Scotsman ] (1723&ndash;1790) expounded the theory that individuals could structure both moral and economic life without direction from the state, and that nations would be strongest when their citizens were free to follow their own initiative. He advocated an end to feudal and mercantile regulations, to state-granted monopolies and patents, and he promulgated "]" government. In '']'', 1759, he developed a theory of motivation that tried to reconcile human self-interest and an unregulated social order. In '']'', 1776, he argued that the market, under certain conditions, would naturally regulate itself and would produce more than the heavily restricted markets that were the norm at the time. He assigned to government the role of taking on tasks which could not be entrusted to the profit motive, such as preventing individuals from using force or fraud to disrupt competition, trade, or production. His theory of taxation was that governments should levy taxes only in ways which did not harm the economy, and that "The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state." He agreed with Hume that capital, not gold, is the wealth of a nation.


==== James Madison and Montesquieu ====
]]]
As part of the project to limit the powers of government, liberal theorists such as ] and ] conceived the notion of ], a system designed to equally distribute governmental authority among the ], ] and ] branches.<ref name="Young, p. 31" /> Governments had to realise, liberals maintained, that legitimate government only exists with the ], so poor and improper governance gave the people the authority to overthrow the ruling order through all possible means, even through outright violence and ], if needed.<ref>{{Harvnb|Young|2002|p=32}}.</ref> Contemporary liberals, heavily influenced by social liberalism, have supported limited ] while advocating for ] and provisions to ensure equal rights. Modern liberals claim that formal or official guarantees of individual rights are irrelevant when individuals lack the material means to benefit from those rights and call for a ] in the administration of economic affairs.<ref>{{Harvnb|Young|2002|pp=32–33}}.</ref> Early liberals also laid the groundwork for the separation of church and state. As heirs of the Enlightenment, liberals believed that any given social and political order emanated ], not from ].<ref name="Gould, p. 4">Gould, p. 4.</ref> Many liberals were openly hostile to ] but most concentrated their opposition to the union of religious and political authority, arguing that faith could prosper independently without official sponsorship or administration by the state.<ref name="Gould, p. 4"/>
] was strongly influenced by Hume's empiricism and rationalism. His most important contributions to liberal thinking are in the realm of ethics, particularly his assertion of the ]. Kant argued that received systems of reason and morals were subordinate to natural law, and that, therefore, attempts to stifle this basic law would meet with failure. His idealism would become increasingly influential, since it asserted that there were fundamental truths upon which systems of knowledge could be based. This meshed well with the ideas of the English Enlightenment about natural rights.


Beyond identifying a clear role for government in modern society, liberals have also argued over the meaning and nature of the most important principle in liberal philosophy: liberty. From the 17th century until the 19th century, liberals (from ] to ]) conceptualised liberty as the absence of interference from government and other individuals, claiming that all people should have the freedom to develop their unique abilities and capacities without being sabotaged by others.<ref name="Young, p. 33">{{Harvnb|Young|2002|p=33}}.</ref> Mill's '']'' (1859), one of the classic texts in liberal philosophy, proclaimed, "the only freedom which deserves the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way".<ref name="Young, p. 33"/> Support for ''laissez-faire'' ] is often associated with this principle, with ] arguing in '']'' (1944) that reliance on free markets would preclude totalitarian control by the state.<ref>Wolfe, p. 74.</ref>
=== Revolutionary ideology ===
These thinkers, however, worked within the political framework of monarchies and in societies in which the class system and an established church were the norm. Although the earlier ] had resulted in the republican ] between 1649 and 1660, the idea that ordinary human beings could structure their own affairs had been suppressed with ] and then remained theoretical until the ] and ] Revolutions. (The ] of 1688 is often cited as a precedent, but it replaced one monarch with another monarch. It had, however, weakened the power of the monarch and strengthened the ] which had refused to accept the ] succession.) The republican ideas of ] influenced these two late 18th century revolutions which became the examples which later ] liberals followed. Both used as their philosophical justification the ] or the rights given, in the words of ], by "Nature and Nature's God". They rejected both tradition and established power.


==== Coppet Group and Benjamin Constant ====
]]]
]]]
], ], and ] would be instrumental in persuading their fellow Americans to revolt in the name of ''life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness'', echoing Locke, but with one important change (opposed by Alexander Hamilton). Jefferson replaced Locke's word "property" by "the pursuit of happiness". The "American Experiment" would be in favor of democratic government and individual liberty.
The development into maturity of modern classical in contrast to ancient liberalism took place before and soon after the French Revolution. One of the historic centres of this development was at ] near ], where the eponymous ] gathered under the aegis of the exiled writer and ], ], in the period between the establishment of ]'s First Empire (1804) and the ] of 1814–1815.<ref>{{cite journal |last1= Tenenbaum |first1= Susan |title= The Coppet Circle. Literary Criticism as Political Discourse |journal= History of Political Thought |date= 1980 |volume= 1 |issue= 2 |pages= 453–473}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1= Lefevere |first1= Andre |title= Translation, Rewriting, and the Manipulation of Literary Fame |date= 2016 |publisher= Taylor & Francis |page= 109}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1= Fairweather |first1= Maria |title= Madame de Stael |date= 2013 |publisher= Little, Brown Book Group}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1= Hofmann |first1= Etienne |last2= Rosset |first2= François |title= Le Groupe de Coppet. Une constellation d'intellectuels européens |date= 2005 |publisher= Presses polytechniques et universitaires romandes}}</ref> The unprecedented concentration of European thinkers who met there was to have a considerable influence on the development of nineteenth-century liberalism and, incidentally, ].<ref>{{cite book |last1= Jaume |first1= Lucien |title= Coppet, creuset de l'esprit libéral: Les idées politiques et constitutionnelles du Groupe de Madame de Staël |date= 2000 |publisher= Presses Universitaires d'Aix-Marseille |page= 10}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1= Delon |first1= Michel |editor1-last= Francillon |editor1-first= Roger |title= Histoire de la littérature en Suisse romande t.1 |date= 1996 |publisher= Payot |chapter= Le Groupe de Coppet}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=The Home of French Liberalism|publisher=The Coppet Institute|url=https://coppetinstitute.org|access-date=2020-02-20}}</ref> They included ], ], ], ], ], ], ], Sir ], ] and ].<ref>{{cite book|title=Making Way for Genius: The Aspiring Self in France from the Old Regime to the New|author=Kete, Kathleen|publisher= Yale University Press|date= 2012|isbn= 978-0-300-17482-3}}</ref>


], a Franco-Swiss political activist and theorist]]
] was prominent among the next generation of political theorists in America, arguing that in a republic self-government depended on setting "interest against interest", thus providing protection for the rights of minorities, particularly economic minorities. The American ] instituted a system of checks and balances: federal government balanced against states' rights; executive, legislative, and judicial branches; and a ]. The goal was to insure liberty by preventing the concentration of power in the hands of any one man. Standing armies were held in suspicion, and the belief was that the ] would be enough for defense, along with a ] maintained by the government for the purpose of trade.
Among them was also one of the first thinkers to go by the name of "liberal", the ]-educated Swiss Protestant, ], who looked to the United Kingdom rather than to ] for a practical model of freedom in a large mercantile society. He distinguished between the "Liberty of the Ancients" and the "Liberty of the Moderns".<ref name="AncientModern">{{cite web |url=http://www.uark.edu/depts/comminfo/cambridge/ancients.html |title=Constant, Benjamin, 1988, 'The Liberty of the Ancients Compared with that of the Moderns' (1819), in The Political Writings of Benjamin Constant, ed. Biancamaria Fontana, Cambridge, pp. 309–28 |publisher=Uark.edu |access-date=2013-09-17 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://archive.today/20120805184450/http://www.uark.edu/depts/comminfo/cambridge/ancients.html |archive-date=5 August 2012 |df=dmy-all}}</ref> The Liberty of the Ancients was a participatory ] liberty,<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Bertholet |first=Auguste |date=2021 |title=Constant, Sismondi et la Pologne |url=https://www.slatkine.com/fr/editions-slatkine/75250-book-05077807-3600120175625.html |journal=Annales Benjamin Constant |volume=46 |pages=65–76}}</ref> which gave the citizens the right to influence politics directly through debates and votes in the public assembly.<ref name="AncientModern"/> In order to support this degree of participation, citizenship was a burdensome moral obligation requiring a considerable investment of time and energy. Generally, this required a sub-group of slaves to do much of the productive work, leaving citizens free to deliberate on public affairs. Ancient Liberty was also limited to relatively small and homogenous male societies, where they could congregate in one place to transact public affairs.<ref name="AncientModern"/>


In contrast, the Liberty of the Moderns was based on the possession of ], the rule of law, and freedom from excessive state interference. Direct participation would be limited: a necessary consequence of the size of modern states and the inevitable result of creating a mercantile society where there were no slaves, but almost everybody had to earn a living through work. Instead, the voters would elect ] who would deliberate in Parliament on the people's behalf and would save citizens from daily political involvement.<ref name="AncientModern"/> The importance of Constant's writings on the liberty of the ancients and that of the "moderns" has informed the understanding of liberalism, as has his critique of the French Revolution.<ref>{{cite book|title=Benjamin Constant, Madame de Staël et le Groupe de Coppet: Actes du Deuxième Congrès de Lausanne à l'occasion du 150e anniversaire de la mort de Benjamin Constant Et Du Troisième Colloque de Coppet, 15–19 juilliet 1980|editor=Hofmann, Étienne|publisher=Oxford, The ] and Lausanne, Institut Benjamin Constant|date=1982|language=fr|isbn= 0-7294-0280-0}}</ref> The British philosopher and historian of ideas, Sir ], has pointed to the debt owed to Constant.<ref>{{cite book|author=Rosen, Frederick |title=Classical Utilitarianism from Hume to Mill |date=2005 |publisher=Routledge |page=251}} According to Berlin, the most eloquent of all defenders of freedom and privacy Benjamin Constant, who had not forgotten the Jacobin dictatorship.</ref>
]
The French Revolution overthrew monarch, ] social order, and an established ]. These revolutionaries were more vehement and less compromising than those in America. A key moment in the French Revolution was the declaration by the representatives of the ] that they were the "National Assembly" and had the right to speak for the French people. During the first few years the revolution was guided by liberal ideas, but the transition from revolt to stability was to prove more difficult than the similar American transition. In addition to native Enlightenment traditions, some leaders of the early phase of the revolution, such as ], had fought in the U.S. War of Independence against Britain, and brought home Anglo-American liberal ideas. Later, under the leadership of ], a ] faction greatly centralized power and dispensed with most aspects of ], resulting in the ]. Instead of an ultimately republican constitution, ] rose from Director, to Consul, to Emperor. On his death bed he confessed "They wanted another Washington", meaning a man who could militarily establish a new state, without desiring a dynasty. Nevertheless, the French Revolution would go farther than the American Revolution in establishing liberal ideals with such policies as universal male ], national citizenship, and a far reaching "]", paralleling the American ]. One of the side-effects of Napoleon's military campaigns was to carry these ideas throughout Europe.


==== British liberalism ====
]]]
] was based on core concepts such as ], ], '']'' government with minimal intervention and taxation and a ]. Classical liberals were committed to individualism, liberty and equal rights. Writers such as ] and ] opposed aristocratic privilege and property, which they saw as an impediment to developing a class of ] farmers.<ref name="Vincent, pp. 29–30">{{cite book|last=Vincent|first=Andrew|title=Modern Political Ideologies|url=https://archive.org/details/modernpoliticali0000vinc/mode/2up?view=theater|url-access = registration |year=1992|publisher=Blackwell|location=Oxford, UK, & Cambridge, US|isbn=0-631-16451-0|pages=29–30}}</ref>
The examples of United States and France were followed in many other countries. The usurpation of the Spanish monarchy by Napoleon's forces in 1808 led to autonomist and independence movements across Latin America, which often turned to liberal ideas as alternatives to the monarchical-clerical corporatism of the colonial era. Movements such as that led by ] in the Andean countries aspired to constitutional government, individual rights, and free trade. The struggle between liberals and corporatist conservatives continued for the rest of the century in Latin America, with ] liberals like ] of Mexico attacking the traditional role of the ].


], an influential ] who established in ''Prolegomena to Ethics'' (1884) the first major foundations for what later became known as ] and in a few years, his ideas became the ] of the ] in ], precipitating the rise of ] and the modern ]]]
The transition to liberal society in Europe sometimes came through ]ary or ]ist violence, and there were repeated explicitly liberal revolutions and revolts throughout Europe in the first half of the 19th century. However, in Britain and many other nations, the process was driven more by politics than revolution, even if the process was not entirely tranquil. The ] violence during the ] was seen by opponents at the time, and for most of the 19th century, as explicitly liberal in origin. At the same time many French liberals too were victim of the ] terror.
Beginning in the late 19th century, a new conception of liberty entered the liberal intellectual arena. This new kind of liberty became known as ] to distinguish it from the prior ], and it was first developed by ] ]. Green rejected the idea that humans were driven solely by ], emphasising instead the complex circumstances involved in the evolution of our ].<ref name="Adams 1998">{{cite book|last=Adams|first=Ian|title=Ideology and Politics in Britain Today|series = Politics Today | url=https://archive.org/details/ideologypolitics0000adam/mode/2up?view=theater|url-access = registration| chapter-url = https://archive.org/details/ideologypolitics0000adam/page/52/mode/2up?view=theater | chapter-url-access = registration|year=1998|publisher=Manchester University Press|location=Manchester & New York|isbn=0-7190-5055-3|chapter=New Liberals to Liberal Democrats}}</ref>{{rp|54–55}} In a very profound step for the future of modern liberalism, he also tasked society and political institutions with the enhancement of individual freedom and identity and the development of moral character, will and reason and the state to create the conditions that allow for the above, allowing genuine ].<ref name="Adams 1998"/>{{rp|54–55}} Foreshadowing the new liberty as the freedom to act rather than to avoid suffering from the acts of others, Green wrote the following: {{blockquote|If it were ever reasonable to wish that the usage of words had been other than it has been ... one might be inclined to wish that the term 'freedom' had been confined to the ... power to do what one wills.<ref>Wempe, p. 123.</ref>|sign=|source=}}


Rather than previous liberal conceptions viewing society as populated by selfish individuals, Green viewed society as an organic whole in which all individuals have a ] to promote the ].<ref name="Adams 1998"/>{{rp|55}} His ideas spread rapidly and were developed by other thinkers such as ] and ]. In a few years, this ''New Liberalism'' had become the essential social and political programme of the Liberal Party in Britain,<ref name="Adams 1998"/>{{rp|58}} and it would encircle much of the world in the 20th century. In addition to examining negative and positive liberty, liberals have tried to understand the proper relationship between liberty and democracy. As they struggled to expand ], liberals increasingly understood that people left out of the ] were liable to the "]", a concept explained in Mill's ''On Liberty'' and '']'' (1835) by ].<ref name="Young, p. 36">{{Harvnb|Young|2002|p=36}}.</ref> As a response, liberals began demanding proper safeguards to thwart majorities in their attempts at suppressing the ].<ref name="Young, p. 36"/>
With the coming of ], liberal notions moved from being proposals for reform of existing governments, to demands for change. The ] and the ] would add "]" to the list of values which liberal thought promoted. The idea, that the people were sovereign, and capable of making all necessary laws and enforcing them, went beyond the conceptions of the Enlightenment. Instead of merely asserting the rights of individuals within the state, all of the state's powers were derived from the nature of man (]), given by God (supernatural law), or by contract ("the just consent of the governed".) This made compromise with previously autocratic orders far less likely, and the resulting violence was justified, in the minds of monarchists, to restore order.


Besides liberty, liberals have developed several other principles important to the construction of their philosophical structure, such as equality, pluralism and tolerance. Highlighting the confusion over the first principle, ] commented, "equality is at once the most natural and at times the most chimeral of things".<ref>Wolfe, p. 63.</ref> All forms of liberalism assume in some basic sense that individuals are equal.<ref name="auto">{{Harvnb|Young|2002|p=39}}.</ref> In maintaining that people are naturally equal, liberals assume they all possess the same right to liberty.<ref>{{Harvnb|Young|2002|pp=39–40}}.</ref> In other words, no one is inherently entitled to enjoy the benefits of liberal society more than anyone else, and all people are ].<ref name="Young, p. 40">{{Harvnb|Young|2002|p=40}}.</ref> Beyond this basic conception, liberal theorists diverge in their understanding of equality. American philosopher ] emphasised the need to ensure equality under the law and the equal distribution of material resources that individuals required to develop their ] in life.<ref name="Young, p. 40"/> Libertarian thinker ] disagreed with Rawls, championing the former version of ].<ref name="Young, p. 40"/>
] (1762) by Jean-Jacques Rousseau. From an early pirated edition possibly printed in Germany <ref>R.A. Leigh, Unsolved Problems in the Bibliography of J.-J. Rousseau, Cambridge, 1990, plate 22. </ref>]]
The ]ual nature of liberal thought to this point must be stressed. One of the basic ideas of the first wave of thinkers in the liberal tradition was that ''individuals'' made agreements and owned property. This may not seem a radical notion today, but at the time most property laws defined property as belonging to a ''family'' or to a particular figure within it, such as the "head of the family". Obligations were based on feudal ties of loyalty and personal fealty, rather than an exchange of goods and services. Gradually, the liberal tradition introduced the idea that voluntary consent and voluntary agreement were the basis for legitimate government and law. This view was further advanced by Rousseau with his notion of a ].


To contribute to the development of liberty, liberals also have promoted concepts like pluralism and tolerance. By pluralism, liberals refer to the proliferation of opinions and beliefs that characterise a stable ].<ref>{{Harvnb|Young|2002|pp=42–43}}.</ref> Unlike many of their competitors and predecessors, liberals do not seek ] and homogeneity in how people think. Their efforts have been geared towards establishing a governing framework that ] but still allows those views to exist and flourish.<ref>{{Harvnb|Young|2002|p=43}}.</ref> For liberal philosophy, pluralism leads easily to toleration. Since individuals will hold diverging viewpoints, liberals argue, they ought to uphold and respect the right of one another to disagree.<ref name="Young, p. 44">{{Harvnb|Young|2002|p=44}}.</ref> From the liberal perspective, toleration was initially connected to ], with ] condemning "the stupidity of religious persecution and ideological wars".<ref name="Young, p. 44"/> Toleration also played a central role in the ] and John Stuart Mill. Both thinkers believed that society would contain different conceptions of a good ethical life and that people should be allowed to make their own choices without interference from the state or other individuals.<ref name="Young, p. 44"/>
Between 1774 and 1848, there were several waves of revolutions, each revolution demanding greater and greater primacy for individual rights. The revolutions placed increasing value on ]. This could lead to secession – a particularly important concept in the revolutions which ended Spanish control over much of her colonial ] in the Americas, and in the American Revolution. European liberals, particularly after the French Constitution of 1793, thought that democracy, considered as majority rule by propertyless men, would be a danger to private property, and favored a franchise limited to those with a certain amount of property. Later liberal democrats, like ], disagreed. In countries where feudal property arrangements still held sway, liberals generally supported unification as the path to liberty. The strongest examples of this are ] and ]. As part of this revolutionary program, the importance of education, a value repeatedly stressed from ] onward, became more and more central to the idea of liberty.


=== Liberal economic theory ===
Liberal parties in many European monarchies agitated for parliamentary government, increased representation, expansion of the franchise where present, and the creation of a counterweight to monarchical power. This political liberalism was often driven by economic liberalism, namely, the desire to end feudal privileges, guild or royal monopolies, restrictions on ownership, and laws which did not permit the full range of corporate and economic arrangements being developed in other countries. To one degree or another, these forces were seen even in autocracies such as Turkey, Russia and Japan. As the Russian Empire crumbled under the weight of economic failure and military defeat, it was the liberal parties who took control of the Duma, and in 1905 and 1917 began revolutions against the government. Later ] would formulate a theory of "Liberal Revolution" to explain what he felt was the radical element in liberal ideology. Another example of this form of liberal revolution is from ] where ] in 1895 lead a "radical liberal" revolution that secularized the state, opened marriage laws, engaged in the development of infrastructure and the economy.
{{main|Economic liberalism}}


], ], (])]]
===Splits within ideologies===
]'s '']'', published in 1776, followed by the French liberal economist ]'s treatise on '']'' published in 1803 and expanded in 1830 with practical applications, were to provide most of the ideas of economics until the publication of ]'s ''Principles'' in 1848.<ref name="Mills">{{cite book|last=Mills|first=John|author-link=John Mills (businessman)|title=A Critical History of Economics|url=https://archive.org/details/criticalhistoryo0000mill/page/n5/mode/2up?view=theater|year=2002|publisher=Palgrave Macmillan|location=Basingstoke|isbn=0-333-97130-2}}</ref>{{rp|63, 68}} Smith addressed the motivation for economic activity, the causes of ] and ], and the ] the state should follow to maximise ].<ref name="Mills"/>{{rp|64}}
==== Role of the State====
By the end of the 19th century, a growing body of liberal thought asserted that, in order to be free, individuals needed access to the requirements of fulfillment, including protection from exploitation and education. In 1911, ] published ''Liberalism'',<ref>]: '''', 1911.</ref> which summarized the new liberalism, including qualified acceptance of government intervention in the economy, and the collective right to equality in dealings, what he called "just consent."


Smith wrote that as long as ], ]s and ] were left free of government regulation, the pursuit of material self-interest, rather than altruism, maximises society's wealth<ref>'' {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221206080447/https://books.google.com/books?id=KpWg1DYxRTwC&pg=PA81&lpg=PA81&dq=%22public+good%22&sa=X#v=onepage&q=%22public%20good%22 |date=6 December 2022 }}'', Strahan and Cadell, 1778</ref> through profit-driven production of goods and services. An "]" directed individuals and firms to work toward the nation's good as an unintended consequence of efforts to maximise their gain. This provided a moral justification for accumulating wealth, which some had previously viewed as sinful.<ref name="Mills"/>{{rp|64}}
Opposed to these changes was a strain of liberalism which became increasingly anti-government, in some cases adopting ]. Gustave de Molinari<ref>Gustave de Molinari: '''', 1849.</ref> in France and Herbert Spencer<ref>Herbert Spencer: '''', 1851.</ref> in England were prominent.


Smith assumed that workers could be ] as low as was necessary for their survival, which ] and ] later transformed into the "]".<ref name="Mills"/>{{rp|65}} His main emphasis was on the benefit of free internal and ], which he thought could increase wealth through specialisation in production.<ref name="Mills"/>{{rp|66}} He also opposed restrictive ]s, state grants of ] and ]s and ]s.<ref name="Mills"/>{{rp|67}} Government should be limited to defence, ]s and the ], financed by ].<ref name="Mills"/>{{rp|68}} Smith was one of the progenitors of the idea, which was long central to classical liberalism and has resurfaced in the ] literature of the later 20th and early 21st centuries, that free trade promotes peace.<ref>See, e.g., ], ''John Maynard Keynes and International Relations: Economic Paths to War and Peace'', Oxford University Press, 2006, chapter 1.</ref> Smith's economics was carried into practice in the 19th century with the lowering of tariffs in the 1820s, the repeal of the ] that had restricted the mobility of labour in 1834 and the end of the rule of the ] over India in 1858.<ref name="Mills"/>{{rp|69}}
====Natural rights vs. utilitarianism====
]]
The German ] developed the modern concepts of liberalism in his book '']''.<ref>]: '''', 1792. </ref> ] popularized and expanded these ideas in '']'' (1859) and other works. He opposed ] tendencies while still placing emphasis on quality of life for the individual. He also had sympathy for female suffrage and (later in life) for labor co-operatives.


In his ''Treatise'' (Traité d'économie politique), Say states that any production process requires effort, knowledge and the "application" of the entrepreneur. He sees entrepreneurs as intermediaries in the production process who combine productive factors such as land, capital and labour to meet the consumers' demands. As a result, they play a central role in the economy through their coordinating function. He also highlights qualities essential for successful entrepreneurship and focuses on judgement, in that they have continued to assess market needs and the means to meet them. This requires an "unerring market sense". Say views entrepreneurial income primarily as the high revenue paid in compensation for their skills and expert knowledge. He does so by contrasting the enterprise and supply-of-capital functions, distinguishing the entrepreneur's earnings on the one hand and the remuneration of capital on the other. This differentiates his theory from that of ], who describes entrepreneurial rent as short-term profits which compensate for high risk (Schumpeterian rent). Say himself also refers to risk and uncertainty along with innovation without analysing them in detail.
One of Mill's most important contributions was his ] justification of liberalism. Mill grounded liberal ideas in the instrumental and pragmatic, allowing the unification of subjective ideas of liberty gained from the French thinkers in the tradition of ] and the more rights-based philosophies of ] in the British tradition.


Say is also credited with ], or the law of markets which may be summarised as "] creates its own ]",
====Democracy====
and "]", or "Supply constitutes its own demand" and "Inherent in supply is the need for its own consumption". The related phrase "supply creates its own demand" was coined by ], who criticized Say's separate formulations as amounting to the same thing. Some advocates of Say's law who disagree with Keynes have claimed that Say's law can be summarized more accurately as "production precedes consumption" and that what Say is stating is that for consumption to happen, one must produce something of value so that it can be traded for money or barter for consumption later.<ref name="clower92">{{Harv|Clower|2004|loc=}}</ref><ref>Bylund, Per. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210308022031/https://twitter.com/perbylund/status/883692795583746049 |date=8 March 2021 }}.</ref>
The relationship between liberalism and democracy may be summed up by ]'s famous remark, "...democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms..." In short, there is nothing about democracy per se that guarantees freedom rather than a tyranny of the masses. The coinage ] suggests a more harmonious marriage between the two principles than actually exists.<ref>Anthony Alblaster: The Rise and Decline of Western Liberalism, New York, Basil Blackwell, 1984, page 353</ref> Liberals strive after the replacement of absolutism by limited government: government by consent. The idea of consent suggests democracy. At the same time, the founders of the first liberal democracies feared ], and so they built into the constitutions of liberal democracies ] intended to limit the power of government by dividing those powers among several branches. For liberals, democracy is not an end in itself, but an essential means to secure liberty, individuality and diversity.<ref>compare: Guide de Ruggeiro: The History of European Liberalism, Bacon press, 1954, page 379</ref>
Say argues, "products are paid for with products" (1803, p.&nbsp;153) or "a glut occurs only when too much resource is applied to making one product and not enough to another" (1803, pp.&nbsp;178–179).<ref>.{{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090326021523/http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/profiles/say.htm|date=26 March 2009}}</ref>


Related reasoning appears in the work of ] and earlier in that of his Scottish classical economist father, ] (1808). Mill senior restates Say's law in 1808: "production of commodities creates, and is the one and universal cause which creates a market for the commodities produced".<ref>{{cite book |last=Mill |first=James |date=1808 |title=Commerce Defended |chapter-url=http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1668&layout=html |chapter=VI: Consumption |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210224092944/https://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=1668&layout=html |archive-date=24 February 2021 |page=81}}</ref>
====Radicalism====
{{see|Radicalism (historical)}}
In various countries in Europe and Latin-America the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth century show the existence of a radical political tendency next to or as successor of a more doctrinal liberal tendency. In some countries the radical tendency is a variant of liberalism that is less doctrinal and more willing to accept democratic reforms than traditional liberals. In the ] the ] unite with the more traditional liberal ] into the Liberal Party. In other countries, these left wing liberals form their own radical parties with various names (e.g. in ] and ] (the ]), ], ], ] and the ]<ref>See for more information the Liberale und radikale Parteien in Klaus von Beyme: Parteien in westlichen Demokratien, München, 1982</ref> but also ] and ].<ref>Compare page 255 and further in the Guide to the Political Parties of South America (Pelican Books, 1973</ref> This doesn't mean that all radical parties were formed by left wing liberals. In the French political literature it is normal to make clear separation between liberalism and radicalism in ]. In Serbia liberalism and radicalism had and have almost nothing in common.
But even the French radicals were aligned to the international liberal movement in the first half of the twentieth century, in the ''Entente Internationale des Partis Radicaux et des Partis Démocratiques similaires''<ref>See page 1 and further of A sense of liberty, by Julie Smith, published by the Liberal International in 1997.</ref>


In addition to Smith's and Say's legacies, ]' theories of population and ]'s ] became central doctrines of classical economics.<ref name="Mills"/>{{rp|76}} Meanwhile, Jean-Baptiste Say challenged Smith's ], believing that prices were determined by utility and also emphasised the critical role of the entrepreneur in the economy. However, neither of those observations became accepted by British economists at the time. Malthus wrote '']'' in 1798,<ref name="Mills"/>{{rp|71–72}} becoming a major influence on classical liberalism. Malthus claimed that population growth would outstrip food production because the population grew geometrically while food production grew arithmetically. As people were provided with food, they would reproduce until their growth outstripped the food supply. Nature would then provide a check to growth in the forms of vice and misery. No gains in income could prevent this, and any welfare for the poor would be self-defeating. The poor were, in fact, responsible for their problems which could have been avoided through self-restraint.<ref name="Mills"/>{{rp|72}}
===The great depression===
]
Despite some dispute whether there was an actual laissez-faire capitalist state in existence at the time,<ref>http://www.mackinac.org/archives/1998/sp1998-01.pdf</ref> the ] of the 1930s shook public faith in "laissez-faire capitalism" and "the profit motive," leading many to conclude that the unregulated markets could not produce prosperity and prevent poverty. Many liberals were troubled by the political instability and restrictions on liberty that they believed were caused by the growing relative inequality of wealth. Key liberals of this persuasion, such as ], ], and ], argued for the creation of a more elaborate state apparatus to serve as the bulwark of individual liberty, permitting the continuation of capitalism while protecting the citizens against its perceived excesses. Some liberals, including ], whose work '']'' remains influential, argued against these institutions, believing the Great Depression and Second World War to be individual events, that, once passed, did not justify a permanent change in the role of government.


Several liberals, including Adam Smith and ], argued that the free exchange of goods between nations would lead to world peace.<ref>Erik Gartzke, "", in ''Economic Freedom of the World: 2005 Annual Report'' (Vancouver: Fraser Institute, 2005). {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181227133203/http://www.columbia.akadns.net/itc/journalism/stille/Politics%20Fall%202007/readings%20weeks%206-7/Economic%20Freedom%20and%20Peace%20--%20Garzke.pdf |date=27 December 2018 }}.</ref> Smith argued that as societies progressed, the spoils of war would rise, but the costs of war would rise further, making war difficult and costly for industrialised nations.<ref>Michael Doyle, ''Ways of War and Peace: Realism, Liberalism, and Socialism'' (New York: Norton, 1997), p. 237 ({{ISBN|0-393-96947-9}}).</ref> Cobden believed that military expenditures worsened the state's welfare and benefited a small but concentrated elite minority, combining his ] beliefs with opposition to the economic restrictions of mercantilist policies. To Cobden and many classical liberals, those who advocated peace must also advocate free markets.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Howe |first1=Anthony |last2=Morgan |first2=Simon |title=Rethinking nineteenth-century liberalism: Richard Cobden bicentenary essays |year=2006 |publisher=] |isbn=978-0-7546-5572-5 |pages=231, 239 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Eqp4Hae4bmUC |via=]}}</ref>
Key liberal thinkers, such as ], ], ], ], ] and ], described how a government should intervene in the economy to protect liberty while avoiding ]. These liberals developed the theory of ] (also "new liberalism," not to be confused with present-day ]). Modern liberals rejected both radical capitalism and the ] elements of the ] school. ], in particular, had a significant impact on liberal thought throughout the world. The ] in Britain, particularly since Lloyd George's ], was heavily influenced by Keynes, as was the ], the Oxford Liberal Manifesto of 1947 of the world organization of ]. In the United States and in Canada, the influence of ] on ]'s ] and on ] has led ] to be identified with ] and Canadian Liberalism.


] was seen as a ] for implementing ] by British governments, an idea dominating economic policy from the 1840s. Although utilitarianism prompted legislative and administrative reform, and John Stuart Mill's later writings foreshadowed the welfare state, it was mainly used as a premise for a ''laissez-faire'' approach.<ref name = "Richardson 2001">{{cite book|first=James L.|last=Richardson|year=2001|title=Contending Liberalisms in World Politics: Ideology and Power|location=Boulder, Colorado|publisher=Lynne Rienner Publishers|isbn=155587939X}}</ref>{{rp|32}} The central concept of utilitarianism, developed by ], was that ] should seek to provide "the greatest happiness of the greatest number". While this could be interpreted as a justification for state action to ], it was used by classical liberals to justify inaction with the argument that the net benefit to all individuals would be higher.<ref name="Mills"/>{{rp|76}} His philosophy proved highly influential on government policy and led to increased Benthamite attempts at government ], including ]'s ], ]s, the ]s and ] for the mentally ill.
Other liberals, including ], ], and ], argued that the great depression was not a result of "laissez-faire" capitalism but a result of too much government intervention and regulation upon the market. In Friedman's work, "Capitalism and Freedom" he elucidated government regulation that occurred before the great depression including heavy regulations upon banks that prevented them, he argued, from reacting to the markets' demand for money. Furthermore, the U.S. Federal government had created a fixed currency pegged to the value of gold. This pegged value created a massive surplus of gold, but later the pegged value was too low which created a massive migration of gold from the U.S. Friedman and Hayek both believed that this inability to react to currency demand created a run on the banks that the banks were no longer able to handle, and that and the fixed exchange rates between the dollar and gold both worked to cause the ] by creating, and then not fixing, deflationary pressures. He further argued in this thesis, that the government inflicted more pain upon the American public by first raising taxes, then by printing money to pay debts (thus causing inflation), the combination of which helped to wipe out the savings of the middle class.


==== Keynesian economics ====
Only in 1974 was Hayek awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics for, among other reasons, his theory of business cycles and his conception of the effects of monetary and credit policies and for being "one of the few economists who gave warning of the possibility of a major economic crisis before the great crash came in the autumn of 1929."<ref>http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/economics/laureates/1974/press.html</ref>
{{main|Keynesian economics}}
], one of the most influential economists of modern times and whose ideas, which are still ], formalized modern liberal economic policy.]]


During the ], the English economist ] (1883–1946) gave the definitive liberal response to the economic crisis. Keynes had been "brought up" as a classical liberal, but especially after World War I, became increasingly a welfare or social liberal.<ref>See studies of Keynes by, e.g., ], ], Donald Moggridge, and ].</ref> A prolific writer, among many other works, he had begun a theoretical work examining the relationship between unemployment, money and prices back in the 1920s.<ref>{{cite book |last=Pressman |first=Steven |title=Fifty Great Economists |year=1999 |isbn=978-0-415-13481-1 |pages=96–100 |publisher=] |location=London}}</ref> Keynes was deeply critical of the British government's ] measures ]. He believed ]s were a good thing, a product of ]s. He wrote: "For Government borrowing of one kind or another is nature's remedy, so to speak, for preventing business losses from being, in so severe a slump as the present one, so great as to bring production altogether to a standstill".<ref name="Cassidy2011">{{cite magazine |last=Cassidy |first=John |author-link=John Cassidy (journalist) |title=The Demand Doctor |magazine=] |date=10 October 2011 |url=https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2011/10/10/the-demand-doctor}}</ref> At the height of the Great Depression in 1933, Keynes published ''The Means to Prosperity'', which contained specific policy recommendations for tackling unemployment in a global recession, chiefly counter cyclical public spending. ''The Means to Prosperity'' contains one of the first mentions of the ].<ref name="Skid30s">{{cite book |last=Skidelsky |first=Robert |title=John Maynard Keynes: 1883–1946: Economist, Philosopher, Statesman |year=2003 |isbn=978-0-330-48867-9 |pages=494–500, 504, 509–510 |publisher=Pan MacMillan Ltd}}</ref>
=== Totalitarianism ===
In the mid-20th century, liberalism began to define itself in opposition to ]. The term was first used by ] to describe the socio-political system set up by ]. ] would apply it to German ], and after the war it became a descriptive term for what liberalism considered the common characteristics of ], Nazi and ] regimes. Totalitarian ]s sought and tried to implement absolute centralized control over all aspects of society, in order to achieve prosperity and stability. These governments often justified such absolutism by arguing that the survival of their civilization was at risk. Opposition to totalitarian regimes acquired great importance in liberal and democratic thinking, and they were often portrayed as trying to destroy liberal democracy. On the other hand, the opponents of liberalism strongly objected to the classification that unified mutually hostile fascist and communist ideologies and considered them fundamentally different.


], with its periods of worldwide economic hardship, formed the backdrop against which the ] took place (the image is ]'s '']'' depiction of destitute ] in California, taken in March 1936).]]
In Italy and Germany, nationalist governments linked corporate capitalism to the state, and promoted the idea that their nations were culturally and racially superior, and that conquest would give them their "rightful" place in the world. The propaganda machines of these countries argued that democracy was weak and incapable of decisive action, and that only a strong leader could impose necessary discipline. In Soviet Union, the ruling communists banned private property, claiming to act for the sake of economic and social justice, and the government had full control over the ]. The regime insisted that personal interests be linked and inferior to those of the society, of class, which was ultimately an excuse for persecuting both oppositions as well as dissidents within the communists ranks as well as arbitrary use of severe ].


Keynes's '']'', '']'', was published in 1936<ref>{{cite book |first=Keith |last=Tribe |title=Economic careers: economics and economists in Britain, 1930–1970 |date=1997 |page=61}}</ref> and served as a theoretical justification for the ] Keynes favoured for tackling a recession. The ''General Theory'' challenged the earlier ] paradigm, which had held that the ] would naturally establish ] equilibrium if it were unfettered by government interference. ] believed in ], which states that "]" and that in a ], workers would always be willing to lower their wages to a level where employers could profitably offer them jobs. An innovation from Keynes was the concept of ], i.e. the recognition that, in reality, workers often refuse to lower their wage demands even in cases where a classical economist might argue it is ] for them to do so. Due in part to price stickiness, it was established that the interaction of "]" and "]" may lead to stable unemployment equilibria, and in those cases, it is the state and not the market that economies must depend on for their salvation. The book advocated activist economic policy by the government to stimulate demand in times of high unemployment, for example, by spending on public works. In 1928, he wrote: "Let us be up and doing, using our idle resources to increase our wealth. ... With men and plants unemployed, it is ridiculous to say that we cannot afford these new developments. It is precisely with these plants and these men that we shall afford them".<ref name="Cassidy2011"/> Where the market failed to allocate resources properly, the government was required to stimulate the economy until private funds could start flowing again—a "prime the pump" kind of strategy designed to boost ].<ref>Palmer and Colton, p. 808.</ref>
The rise of totalitarianism became a lens for liberal thought. Many liberals began to analyze their own beliefs and principles, and came to the conclusion that totalitarianism arose because people in a degraded condition turn to dictatorships for solutions. From this, it was argued that the state had the duty to protect the economic well being of its citizens. As ] said, "Freedom for the wolves means death for the sheep." This growing body of liberal thought argued that reason requires a government to act as a balancing force in economics.


=== Liberal feminist theory ===
Other liberal interpretations on the rise of totalitarianism were quite contrary to the growing body of thought on government regulation in supporting the market and capitalism. This included ]'s work, '']''. He argued that the rise of totalitarian dictatorships was the result of too much government intervention and regulation upon the market which caused loss of political and civil freedoms. Hayek also saw these economic controls being instituted in the United Kingdom, the United States, and in Canada and warned against these "Keynesian" institutions, believing that they can and will lead to the same totalitarian governments "Keynesians liberals" were attempting to avoid. Hayek saw authoritarian regimes such as the fascist, Nazis, and communists, as the same totalitarian branch; all of which sought the elimination or reduction of economic freedom. To him the elimination of economic freedom brought about the elimination of political freedom. Thus Hayek believes the differences between Nazis and communists are only rhetorical.
{{main|Liberal feminism}}
], widely regarded as the pioneer of ]]]
], the dominant tradition in ], is an ] form of ] that focuses on women's ability to maintain their equality through their actions and choices. Liberal feminists hope to eradicate all barriers to ], claiming that the continued existence of such barriers eviscerates the individual rights and freedoms ostensibly guaranteed by a liberal social order.<ref>Jensen, p. 2.</ref> They argue that society believes women are naturally ] than men; thus, it tends to ] in the ], the forum and the ]. Liberal feminists believe that "female subordination is rooted in a set of customary and legal constraints that blocks women's entrance to and success in the so-called public world". They strive for sexual equality via political and legal reform.<ref name="Tong, Rosemarie 1989">Tong, Rosemarie. 1989. Feminist Thought: A Comprehensive Introduction. Oxon, United Kingdom: Unwin Human Ltd. Chapter 1</ref>


British ] ] (1759–1797) is widely regarded as the pioneer of liberal feminism, with '']'' (1792) expanding the boundaries of liberalism to include women in the political structure of liberal society.<ref>Falco, pp. 47–48.</ref> In her writings, such as ''A Vindication of the Rights of Woman'', Wollstonecraft commented on society's view of women and encouraged women to use their voices in making decisions separate from those previously made for them. Wollstonecraft "denied that women are, by nature, more pleasure seeking and pleasure giving than men. She reasoned that if they were confined to the same cages that trap women, men would develop the same flawed characters. What Wollstonecraft most wanted for women was personhood".<ref name="Tong, Rosemarie 1989"/>
] and ] stated that economic freedom is a necessary condition for the creation and sustainability of civil and political freedoms. Hayek believed the same totalitarian outcomes could occur in Britain (or anywhere else) if the state sought to control the economic freedom of the individual with the policy prescriptions outlined by people like Dewey, Keynes, or Roosevelt.


] was also an early proponent of feminism. In his article '']'' (1861, published 1869), Mill attempted to prove that the legal subjugation of women is wrong and that it should give way to perfect equality.<ref>John Stuart Mill: critical assessments, Volume 4, By ]</ref><ref>Mill, J.S. (1869) {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150429185554/http://www.constitution.org/jsm/women.htm |date=29 April 2015 }}, Chapter 1</ref> He believed that both sexes should have equal rights under the law and that "until conditions of equality exist, no one can possibly assess the natural differences between women and men, distorted as they have been. What is natural to the two sexes can only be found out by allowing both to develop and use their faculties freely".<ref>Mill, John Stuart (1869). The Subjection of Women (1869 first ed.). London: Longmans, Green, Reader & Dyer. Retrieved 10 December 2012.</ref> Mill frequently spoke of this imbalance and wondered if women were able to feel the same "genuine unselfishness" that men did in providing for their families. This unselfishness Mill advocated is the one "that motivates people to take into account the good of society as well as the good of the individual person or small family unit".<ref name="Tong, Rosemarie 1989"/> Like Mary Wollstonecraft, Mill compared sexual inequality to slavery, arguing that their husbands are often just as abusive as masters and that a human being controls nearly every aspect of life for another human being. In his book ''The Subjection of Women'', Mill argues that three major parts of women's lives are hindering them: society and gender construction, education and marriage.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mill-moral-political/|title=Mill's Moral and Political Philosophy|last=Brink|first=David|date=9 October 2007|publisher=Stanford University|access-date=1 October 2016}}</ref>
<!-- Unsourced image removed: ] -->
One of the most influential critics of totalitarianism was ]. In '']'' he defended ] and advocated ], in which the government can be changed without bloodshed. Popper argued that the process of the accumulation of human knowledge is unpredictable and that the theory of ideal government cannot possibly exist. Therefore, the political system should be flexible enough so that governmental policy would be able to evolve and adjust to the needs of the society; in particular, it should encourage ] and ].


] is a form of liberal feminism discussed since the 1980s,<ref>{{cite book |title=Social Feminism |first=Naomi |last=Black |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=kDYqAAAAYAAJ |year=1989 |publisher=] |isbn=9780801422614 |via=]}}</ref><ref name=Halfmann>{{cite book |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Q83kxhOsgxYC&pg=PA79 |title=Industry and Politics in West Germany: Toward the Third Republic |editor-first=Peter J. |editor-last=Katzenstein |chapter=3. Social Change and Political Mobilization in West Germany |page=79 |first=Jost |last=Halfmann |quote=Equity-feminism differs from equality-feminism |year= 1989|publisher=Cornell University Press |isbn=978-0-8014-9595-3 |via=]}}</ref> specifically a kind of classically liberal or libertarian feminism.<ref name=Stanford>{{cite web |url=http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminism-liberal/#EquFem |title=Liberal Feminism |publisher=Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |date=18 October 2007 |access-date=24 February 2016}} (revised 30 September 2013)</ref> ], an ], defines equity feminism as "a moral doctrine about equal treatment that makes no commitments regarding open empirical issues in psychology or biology".<ref>{{cite book |last=Pinker |first=Steven |title=The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature |url=https://archive.org/details/blankslatemodern00pink |url-access=registration |isbn=0-670-03151-8 |publisher=Viking |year=2002 |page=}}</ref> Barry Kuhle asserts that equity feminism is compatible with ] in contrast to ].<ref>{{cite journal |journal=] |url=http://www.epjournal.net/articles/evolutionary-psychology-is-compatible-with-equity-feminism-but-not-with-gender-feminism-a-reply-to-eagly-and-wood-2011/ |url-status=usurped |archive-date=16 January 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120116120314/http://www.epjournal.net/articles/evolutionary-psychology-is-compatible-with-equity-feminism-but-not-with-gender-feminism-a-reply-to-eagly-and-wood-2011/ |title=Evolutionary psychology is compatible with equity feminism |date=2011 |first=Barry X. |last=Kuhle}}</ref>
===After World War II ===
In much of the West, expressly liberal parties were caught between "conservative" parties on one hand, and "labor" or social democratic parties on the other hand. For example, the UK Liberal Party became a minor party. The same process occurred in a number of other countries, as the social democratic parties took the leading role in the ], while pro-business conservative parties took the leading role in the ].


=== Social liberal theory ===
The post-war period saw the dominance of ]. Linking ] and progressivism to the notion that a populace in possession of rights and sufficient economic and educational means would be the best defense against totalitarian threats, the liberalism of this period took the stance that by enlightened use of liberal institutions, individual liberties could be maximized, and ] could be reached by the broad use of technology. Liberal writers in this period include economist ], philosopher ] and sociologist ]. A dissenting strain of thought developed that viewed any government involvement in the economy as a betrayal of liberal principles. Calling itself "libertarianism," this movement was centered around such schools of thought as ].
{{main|Social liberalism}}
], who wrote the first critique of the free market from a liberal perspective in 1819]]
]'s ''New Principles of Political Economy'' (French: ''Nouveaux principes d'économie politique, ou de la richesse dans ses rapports avec la population'') (1819) represents the first comprehensive liberal critique of early capitalism and laissez-faire economics, and his writings, which were studied by ] and ] among many others, had a profound influence on both liberal and socialist responses to the failures and contradictions of industrial society.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Stewart |first1=Ross E. |title=Sismondi's Forgotten Ethical Critique of Early Capitalism |journal=] |date=1984 |volume=3 |issue=3 |pages=227–234|doi=10.1007/BF00382924 |s2cid=154967384}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Spiegel |first1=Henry William |title=The Growth of Economic Thought |date=1991 |publisher=Duke University Press |pages=302–303}}</ref><ref name="Gareth">{{cite book |last1=Stedman Jones |first1=Gareth |editor1-last=Aprile |editor1-first=Sylvie |editor2-last=Bensimon |editor2-first=Fabrice |title=La France et l'Angleterre au XIXe siècle. Échanges, représentations, comparaisons |chapter=Saint-Simon and the Liberal origins of the Socialist critique of Political Economy |date=2006 |publisher=Créaphis |pages=21–47}}</ref> By the end of the 19th century, the ] were being increasingly challenged by downturns in ], a growing perception of the ], unemployment and relative deprivation present within modern industrial cities, as well as the agitation of ]. The ideal of the ] who could make his or her place in the world through hard work and talent seemed increasingly implausible. A major political reaction against the changes introduced by ] and ''laissez-faire'' capitalism came from conservatives concerned about social balance, although ] later became a more important force for change and reform. Some ], including ], ] and ], became early influential critics of social injustice.<ref name = "Richardson 2001"/>{{rp|36–37}}


New liberals began to adapt the old language of liberalism to confront these difficult circumstances, which they believed could only be resolved through a broader and more interventionist conception of the state. An equal right to liberty could not be established merely by ensuring that individuals did not physically interfere with each other or by having impartially formulated and applied laws. More positive and proactive measures were required to ensure that every individual would have an ] for success.<ref name="eatwell">{{cite book |last1=Eatwell |first1=Roger |last2=Wright |first2=Anthony |title=Contemporary political ideologies |publisher=] |year=1999 |isbn=978-0-8264-5173-6}}</ref>
The debate between personal liberty and social optimality occupies much of the theory of liberalism since the Second World War, particularly centering around the questions of social choice and market mechanisms required to produce a "liberal" society. One of the central parts of this argument concerns ]'s ]. This thesis states that there is no consistent social choice function which satisfies unbounded decision making, independence of choices, ], and non-dictatorship. In short, according to the thesis which includes the problem of ], it is not possible to have unlimited liberty, a maximum amount of utility, and an unlimited range of choices at the same time. Another important argument within liberalism is the importance of ] in decision making – whether the liberal state is best based on rigorous procedural rights or whether it should be rooted in substantial equality.


], whose '']'' greatly influenced 19th-century liberalism]]
One important liberal debate concerns whether people have ] as members of communities in addition to being protected from wrongs done by others. For many liberals, the answer is "yes": individuals have positive rights based on being members of a national, political, or local unit, and can expect protection and benefits from these associations. Members of a community have a right to expect that their community will to a certain degree regulate the economy since rising and falling economic circumstances cannot be controlled by the individual. If individuals have a right to participate in a public capacity, then they have a right to expect education and social protections against discrimination from other members of that public. Other liberals would answer "no": individuals have no such rights as members of communities, for such rights conflict with the more fundamental "negative" rights of other members of the community.
] contributed enormously to liberal thought by combining elements of classical liberalism with what eventually became known as the new liberalism. Mill's 1859 '']'' addressed the nature and limits of the ] that can be legitimately exercised by society over the ].<ref>{{cite book |last=Mill |first=John Stuart |author-link=John Stuart Mill |title=] |publisher=Penguin Classics |date=2006 |isbn=978-0-14-144147-4 |pages=90–91}}</ref> He gave an impassioned defence of free speech, arguing that free ] is a ] for intellectual and social progress. Mill defined "]" as protection from "the tyranny of political rulers". He introduced many different concepts of the form tyranny can take, referred to as social tyranny and ]. Social liberty meant limits on the ruler's power through obtaining recognition of political liberties or rights and establishing a system of "] checks".<ref>{{cite book |last=Mill |first=John Stuart |author-link=John Stuart Mill |title=] |publisher=Penguin Classics |date=2006 |isbn=978-0-14-144147-4 |pages=10–11}}</ref>


His definition of liberty, influenced by ] and ], was that the ] ought to be free to do as he wishes unless he harms others.<ref>John Stuart Mill (1806–1873), "The Contest in America". Harper's New Monthly Magazine. Volume 24. Issue 143. pp. 683–684. Harper & Bros. New York. April 1862. .</ref> However, although Mill's initial ] supported ]s and argued that ]ation penalised those who worked harder,<ref> (PDF) {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090327011315/http://www.irefeurope.org/col_docs/doc_51_fr.pdf |date=27 March 2009 }}</ref> he later altered his views toward a more socialist bent, adding chapters to his ''Principles of Political Economy'' in defence of a socialist outlook and defending some socialist causes,<ref>{{cite book |last1=Mill |first1=John Stuart |last2=Bentham |first2=Jeremy |editor-last=Ryan |editor-first=Alan |title=Utilitarianism and other essays |publisher=] |year=2004 |location=London |isbn=978-0-14-043272-5 |page= |url=https://archive.org/details/utilitarianismot00mill/page/11}}</ref> including the radical proposal that the whole wage system be abolished in favour of a co-operative wage system.
After the 1970s, the ''liberal pendulum'' had swung away from increasing the role of government, and towards a greater use of the ] and ] principles. In essence, many of the old pre-World War I ideas were making a comeback.


Another early liberal convert to greater government intervention was ]. Seeing the effects of alcohol, he believed that the state should foster and protect the social, political and economic environments in which individuals will have the best chance of acting according to their consciences. The state should intervene only where there is a clear, proven and strong tendency of liberty to enslave the individual.<ref>Nicholson, P. P., "T. H. Green and State Action: Liquor Legislation", ''History of Political Thought'', 6 (1985), 517–50. Reprinted in A. Vincent, ed., ''The Philosophy of T. H. Green'' (Aldershot: Gower, 1986), pp. 76–103</ref> Green regarded the national state as legitimate only to the extent that it upholds a system of rights and obligations most likely to foster individual self-realisation.
In part this was a reaction to the triumphalism of the dominant forms of liberalism of the time, but as well it was rooted in a foundation of liberal philosophy, particularly suspicion of the state, whether as an economic or philosophical actor. Even liberal institutions could be misused to restrict rather than promote liberty. Increasing emphasis on the free market emerged with ] in the United States, and with members of the ] in Europe. Their argument was that regulation and government involvement in the economy was a slippery slope, that any would lead to more, and that more was difficult to remove.


The New Liberalism or social liberalism movement emerged in about 1900 in Britain.<ref>], ''The New Liberalism: An Ideology of Social Reform'' (Oxford UP, 1978).</ref> The New Liberals, including intellectuals like L. T. Hobhouse and ], saw individual liberty as something achievable only under favourable social and economic circumstances.<ref name="Adams 2011"/>{{rp|29}} In their view, the poverty, squalor and ignorance in which many people lived made it impossible for freedom and individuality to flourish. New Liberals believed these conditions could be ameliorated only through collective action coordinated by a strong, welfare-oriented, interventionist state.<ref>The Routledge Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, p. 599</ref> It supports a ] that includes ] and private property in ]s.<ref name="Stanislao G. Pugliese 1999. p. 99">{{cite book |first=Stanislao G. |last=Pugliese |url=https://archive.org/details/carlorossellisoc00pugl |title=Carlo Rosselli: socialist heretic and antifascist exile |publisher=] |date=1999 |page=99|isbn=9780674000537 }}</ref><ref name="Noel W. Thompson 2006. pp. 60–1">{{cite book |first=Noel W. |last=Thompson |title=Political economy and the Labour Party: the economics of democratic socialism, 1884–2005 |edition=2nd |location=Oxon, England; New York, New York |publisher=] |date=2006 |pages=60–61}}</ref>
==Modern ideology==


Principles that can be described as social liberal have been based upon or developed by philosophers such as John Stuart Mill, ], ], ], ] and ].<ref>Nadia Urbinati. '' {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221206080447/https://books.google.com/books?id=YoS6bMf4toQC&printsec=frontcover |date=6 December 2022 }}''. Cambridge, England, UK: ], 2007 p. 101.</ref> Other important social liberal figures include Guido Calogero, ], Leonard Trelawny Hobhouse and ].<ref name="ref72">Steve Bastow, James Martin. '' {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181227181430/http://research.gold.ac.uk/1882/ |date=27 December 2018 }}''. Edinburgh, Scotland, UK: ], Ltd, 2003. p. 72.</ref> ] has been particularly prominent in British and Italian politics.<ref name="ref72"/>
The impact of liberalism on the modern world is profound. The ideas of individual liberties, personal dignity, free expression, religious tolerance, private property, universal human rights, transparency of government, limitations on government power, popular sovereignty, national self-determination, privacy, "enlightened" and "rational" policy, the rule of law, fundamental equality, a free market economy, and free trade were all radical notions some 250 years ago. ], in its typical form of multiparty political pluralism, has spread to much of the world. Today all are accepted as the goals of policy in most nations, even if there is a wide gap between statements and reality. They are not only the goals of liberals, but also of ], ], and ]. There is, of course, opposition.


=== Anti-state liberal theory ===
===Positions of parties===
{{See also|Polycentric law|Voluntaryism|Panarchy (political philosophy)|Neoclassical liberalism|Anarcho-capitalism}}]]]
Today the word "liberalism" is used differently in different countries. (''See ].'') One of the greatest contrasts is between the usage in the ] and in Canada and usage in Continental ].<ref>See for example ] in 1962: ''Liberalism in the American usage has little in common with the word as used in the politics of any European country, save possibly Britain'' in from ''The Politics of Hope'', Riverside Press, Boston. See for a similar view Jamie F. Metzl: ''In the same "Liberalism" as the term is used in America today is not used in the "older, European sense,'' but ''has come to mean something quite different, namely policies upholding the modern welfare state'' in by Fareed Zakaria, Foreign Affairs, November/December, 1997, Vol 76, No. 6</ref> In the US, liberalism is usually understood to refer to ], as contrasted with ]. American ''liberals'' endorse regulation for business, a limited ], and support broad racial, ethnic, sexual and religious ], and thus more readily embrace ], and ]. In Europe, on the other hand, liberalism is not only contrasted with conservatism and ], but also with ] and ]. In some countries, European liberals share common positions with Christian Democrats.
]]]
] advocates ] under the rule of law. In contrast, the "anti-state liberal tradition", as described by ], was supportive of a system where law enforcement and the courts being provided by private companies, minimizing or rejecting the role of the state. Various theorists have espoused legal philosophies similar to ]. One of the first liberals to discuss the possibility of ] the protection of individual liberty and property was the French philosopher ] in the 18th century. Later in the 1840s, ] and ] advocated the same. In his essay ''The Production of Security'', Molinari argued: "No government should have the right to prevent another government from going into competition with it, or to require consumers of security to come exclusively to it for this commodity". Molinari and this new type of anti-state liberal grounded their reasoning on liberal ideals and classical economics. Historian and libertarian Ralph Raico argued that what these liberal philosophers "had come up with was a form of individualist anarchism, or, as it would be called today, anarcho-capitalism or market anarchism".<ref>Raico, Ralph (2004) {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090610035217/http://www.crea.polytechnique.fr/index.htm |date=10 June 2009 }} Ecole Polytechnique, {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090610035217/http://www.crea.polytechnique.fr/index.htm |date=10 June 2009 }}, Unité associée au CNRS</ref> Unlike the liberalism of Locke, which saw the state as evolving from society, the anti-state liberals saw a fundamental conflict between the voluntary interactions of people, i.e. society, and the institutions of force, i.e. the state. This society versus state idea was expressed in various ways: natural society vs artificial society, liberty vs authority, society of contract vs society of authority and industrial society vs militant society, to name a few.<ref name="Molinari-1849">Molinari, Gustave de (1849) {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070927000023/http://praxeology.net/GM-PS.htm |date=27 September 2007 }} (trans. J. Huston McCulloch). Retrieved 15 July 2006.</ref> The anti-state liberal tradition in Europe and the United States continued after Molinari in the early writings of ] and thinkers such as ] and ]. However, the first person to use the term anarcho-capitalism was ]. In the mid-20th century, Rothbard synthesized elements from the ] of economics, classical liberalism and 19th-century American ]s ] and ] (while rejecting their ] and the norms they derived from it).<ref>"A student and disciple of the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises, Rothbard combined the laissez-faire economics of his teacher with the absolutist views of human rights and rejection of the state he had absorbed from studying the individualist American anarchists of the 19th century such as Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker." Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Thought, 1987, {{ISBN|978-0-631-17944-3}}, p. 290</ref> Anarcho-capitalism advocates the elimination of the state in favour of ], ] and ]. ]s believe that in the absence of ] (law by ] or ]), society would improve itself through the discipline of the free market (or what its proponents describe as a "]").<ref>{{cite encyclopedia |last=Morris |first=Andrew |editor-first=Ronald |editor-last=Hamowy |editor-link=Ronald Hamowy |encyclopedia=The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=yxNgXs3TkJYC |year=2008 |publisher=]; ] |location=Thousand Oaks, CA |doi=10.4135/9781412965811.n8 |isbn=978-1-4129-6580-4 |oclc=750831024 |lccn=2008009151 |pages=13–14 |chapter=Anarcho-Capitalism}}</ref><ref name=Stringham51>Edward Stringham, ''Anarchy and the law: the political economy of choice,'' {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221206080458/https://books.google.com/books?id=nft4e62nicsC&pg=PA51&dq=anarcho-capitalism+libertarian&sa=X&ct=result&resnum=8#v=onepage&q=anarcho-capitalism%20libertarian |date=6 December 2022 }}.</ref>


In a theoretical ] society, ], ]s and all other security services would be operated by privately funded competitors rather than centrally through ]. ] and other ] would be privately and competitively provided in an ]. Anarcho-capitalists say personal and economic activities under anarcho-capitalism would be regulated by victim-based dispute resolution organizations under ] and ] law rather than by statute through centrally determined punishment under what they describe as "political monopolies".<ref name="libertarianpapers"> {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181001010127/http://libertarianpapers.org/articles/2011/lp-3-3.pdf |date=1 October 2018 }} Libertarian Papers VOL. 3, ART. NO. 3 (2011)</ref> A Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist society would operate under a mutually agreed-upon libertarian "legal code which would be generally accepted, and which the courts would pledge themselves to follow".<ref>Rothbard, Murray. For A New Liberty. {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111213124557/http://mises.org/rothbard/newliberty11.asp |date=13 December 2011 }}</ref> Although enforcement methods vary, this pact would recognize ] and the ] (NAP).
Before an explanation of this subject proceeds, it is important to add this disclaimer: There is always a disconnect between philosophical ideals and political realities. Also, opponents of any belief are apt to describe that belief in different terms from those used by adherents. What follows is a record of those goals that overtly appear most consistently across major liberal manifestos (e.g., the ] of 1947). It is not an attempt to catalogue the idiosyncratic views of particular persons, parties, or countries, nor is it an attempt to investigate any covert goals, since both are beyond the scope of this article.


====Freedom==== == History ==
{{main|History of liberalism}}
Most political parties which identify themselves as liberal claim to promote the rights and responsibilities of the individual, free choice within an open competitive process, the ], and the dual responsibility of the state to protect the individual citizen and guarantee their liberty. Critics of liberal parties tend to state liberal policies in different terms. Economic freedom may lead to gross inequality. Free speech may lead to speech that is obscene, blasphemous, or treasonous. The role of the state as promoter of freedom and as protector of its citizens may come into conflict.
<!---- This section should be a summary of the article "History of liberalism" according with WP:SUMMARY. ---->
{{cleanup|section|reason=Needs better presentation and content summarization|date=May 2017}}
] was the first to develop a liberal philosophy, including the ] and the ].]]
Isolated strands of liberal thought had existed in ] since the Chinese ]<ref name=Murray >Rothbard, Murray (2005). Excerpt from "Concepts of the Role of Intellectuals in Social Change Toward Laissez Faire", ''The Journal of Libertarian Studies'', Vol. IX, No. 2 (Fall 1990) at {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141108220713/http://mises.org/daily/1967 |date=8 November 2014 }}</ref> and ] since the ]. The economist ] suggested that Chinese ] philosopher ] was the first libertarian,<ref name="Murray"/> likening Laozi's ideas on government to ]'s theory of ].<ref>Rothbard, Murray (2005). "The Ancient Chinese Libertarian Tradition", ''Mises Daily'', (5 December 2005) (original source unknown) at {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141108220713/http://mises.org/daily/1967 |date=8 November 2014 }}</ref> These ideas were first drawn together and systematized as a distinct ideology by the English philosopher ], generally regarded as the father of modern liberalism.<ref name="Taverne, p. 18"/><ref name="Godwin et al., p. 12"/><ref name="FungCambridge">{{cite book |last1=Fung |first1=Edmund S. K. |title=The Intellectual Foundations of Chinese Modernity: Cultural and Political Thought in the Republican Era |date=2010 |publisher=] |isbn=978-1-139-48823-5 |page=130 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=7muduLXtSGMC&pg=PA130 |access-date=16 May 2017 |via=]}}</ref><ref name="BevirSAGE">{{cite book |last1=Bevir |first1=Mark |title=Encyclopedia of Political Theory: A–E, Volume 1 |year=2010 |publisher=] |isbn=978-1-4129-5865-3 |page=164 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=wVIoCtB3m74C&pg=PA164 |access-date=19 May 2017 |via=]}}</ref> The first major signs of liberal politics emerged in modern times. These ideas began to coalesce at the time of the ]. The ], a largely ignored minority political movement that primarily consisted of ], ], and ], called for ], frequent convening of parliament and equality under the law. The ] of 1688 enshrined ] and the ] in Britain and was referred to by author ] as the "first modern liberal revolution".<ref>{{cite book |url=https://archive.org/details/1688firstmodernr00stev |url-access=registration |title=1688: The First Modern Revolution |first=Steven |last=Pincus |year=2009 |publisher=] |isbn=978-0-300-15605-8 |access-date=7 February 2013}}</ref> The development of liberalism continued throughout the 18th century with the burgeoning Enlightenment ideals of the era. This period of profound intellectual vitality questioned old traditions and influenced several ] throughout the 18th century. Political tension between England and its ] grew after 1765 and the ] over the issue of ], culminating in the ] and, eventually, the ]. After the war, the leaders debated about how to move forward. The ], written in 1776, now appeared inadequate to provide security or even a functional government. The ] called a ] in 1787, which resulted in the writing of a new ] establishing a ] government. In the context of the times, the Constitution was a republican and liberal document.<ref>] ''The Penguin History of the World''. New York: Penguin Group, 1992. {{ISBN|0-19-521043-3}} p. 701.</ref><ref>{{cite book |first=Milan |last=Zafirovski |title=Liberal Modernity and Its Adversaries: Freedom, Liberalism and Anti-Liberalism in the 21st Century |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=GNlT9Qho0tAC |year=2007 |publisher=] |pages=237–38 |isbn=978-90-04-16052-1 |via=]}}</ref> It remains the oldest liberal governing document in effect worldwide.


], who argued for the ]]]
====Democracy====
The two key events that marked the triumph of liberalism in France were the ] on the night of 4 August 1789, which marked the collapse of feudal and old traditional rights and privileges and restrictions, as well as the passage of the ] in August, itself based on the U.S. Declaration of Independence from 1776.<ref>{{cite book |first=Jon |last=Meacham |title=Thomas Jefferson: President and Philosopher |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=tvBMBAAAQBAJ&pg=PT131 |year=2014|publisher=] |page=131 |isbn=978-0-385-38751-4}}</ref> During the ], the French brought Western Europe the liquidation of the ], the liberalization of ]s, the end of ], the abolition of ]s, the legalization of ], the disintegration of ], the collapse of the ], the end of the ], the elimination of church courts and religious authority, the establishment of the ] and equality under the law for all men.<ref>Palmer and Colton, pp. 428–29.</ref> His most lasting achievement, the ], served as "an object of emulation all over the globe"<ref>Lyons, p. 94.</ref> but also perpetuated further discrimination against women under the banner of the "natural order".<ref>Lyons, pp. 98–102.</ref>
{{main|Liberal democracy}}
Liberalism stresses the importance of representative ] as the best form of government. Elected representatives are subject to the ], and their power is moderated by a ], which emphasizes the protection of rights and freedoms of individuals and limits the will of the ]. Liberals are in favour of a ] system in which differing political and social views, even extreme or fringe views, compete for ] on a democratic basis and have the opportunity to achieve power through periodically held ]s. They stress the resolution of differences by peaceful means within the bounds of democratic or lawful processes. Many liberals seek ways to increase the involvement and participation of citizens in the democratic process. Some liberals favour ] instead of representative democracy.


The development into maturity of classical liberalism took place before and after the French Revolution in Britain.<ref name="Vincent, pp. 29–30"/> ]'s '']'', published in 1776, was to provide most of the ideas of economics, at least until the publication of ]'s ''Principles'' in 1848.<ref name="Mills"/>{{rp|63, 68}} Smith addressed the motivation for economic activity, the causes of prices and wealth distribution, and the policies the state should follow to maximise wealth.<ref name="Mills"/>{{rp|64}} The ] began in the 1790s in England and concentrated on parliamentary and electoral reform, emphasizing natural rights and ]. Radicals like ] and ] saw parliamentary reform as a first step toward dealing with their many grievances, including the treatment of ], the slave trade, high prices and high taxes.<ref>Turner, p. 86</ref>{{full citation needed|date=August 2023}}
====Civil rights====
{{main|Civil rights}}
Liberalism advocates ] for all citizens: the protection and privileges of personal liberty extended to all ]s equally by law. It includes the equal treatment of all citizens irrespective of ], ] and ]. Liberals are divided over the extent to which positive rights are to be included, such as the right to food, shelter, and education. Critics from an internationalist human rights school of thought argue that the civil rights advocated in the liberal view are not extended to all people, but are limited to citizens of particular states. Unequal treatment on the basis of nationality is therefore possible, especially in regard to ] itself.


In ], liberal unrest dates back to the 18th century, when liberal agitation in Latin America led to ] from the imperial power of Spain and Portugal. The new regimes were generally liberal in their political outlook and employed the philosophy of ], which emphasized the truth of modern science, to buttress their positions.<ref>{{cite journal |url=http://pics3441.upmf-grenoble.fr/articles/cult/ |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150212190612/http://pics3441.upmf-grenoble.fr/articles/cult/assimilation_and_transformation_of_positivism_in_latin_america.pdf |url-status=dead |archive-date=12 February 2015 |jstor=2707981 |title=Assimilation and Transformation of Positivism in Latin America |journal=] |volume=24 |issue=4 |pages=515–522 |last1=Ardao |first1=Arturo |year=1963 |doi=10.2307/2707981}}</ref> In the United States, a ] ensured the integrity of the nation and the abolition of slavery in the ]. Historian ] has argued that the Union victory in the ] (1861–1865) greatly boosted the course of liberalism.<ref>{{cite book |first=Don H. |last=Doyle | author-link = Don H. Doyle |title=The Cause of All Nations: An International History of the American Civil War |date=2014}}</ref>{{page needed|date=August 2023}}
====Rule of law====
The ] and equality before the law are fundamental to liberalism. Government authority may only be legitimately exercised in accordance with laws that are adopted through an established procedure. Another aspect of the rule of law is an insistence upon the guarantee of an independent ], whose political independence is intended to act as a safeguard against arbitrary rulings in individual cases. The rule of law includes concepts such as the ], no ], and ]. Rule of law is seen by liberals as a guard against despotism and as enforcing limitations on the power of government. In the penal system, liberals in general reject punishments they see as inhumane, including ]<ref>See for example the of the Liberal International.</ref>


In the 19th century, ] liberal ] were the most influential in the global tradition of liberalism.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Caldwell |first=Wallace E. |title=History of the World |last2=Merrill |first2=Edward H. |publisher=The Greystone Press |year=1964 |volume=1 |location=] |pages=428}}</ref>
====Neutral government====
Liberals generally believe in neutral government, in the sense that it is not for the state to determine personal values. As ] put it, "The state has no right to determine a particular conception of ''the good life''". In the United States this neutrality is expressed in the ] as the right to the pursuit of happiness.


During the 19th and early 20th century, in the Ottoman Empire and the Middle East, liberalism influenced periods of reform, such as the ] and ]; the rise of secularism, constitutionalism and nationalism; and different intellectuals and religious groups and movements, like the ] and ]. Prominent of the era were ], ] and ]. However, the reformist ideas and trends did not reach the common population successfully, as the books, periodicals, and newspapers were accessible primarily to intellectuals and segments of the emerging middle class. Many ]s saw them as foreign influences on the ]. That perception complicated reformist efforts made by Middle Eastern states.<ref name="Abdelmoula">{{cite book |last1=Abdelmoula |first1=Ezzeddine |title=Al Jazeera and Democratization: The Rise of the Arab Public Sphere |year=2015 |publisher=] |isbn=978-1-317-51847-1 |pages=50–52 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=vP7qBgAAQBAJ&pg=PA50 |access-date=7 May 2017 |via=]}}</ref><ref>Roderic. H. Davison, ''Essays in Ottoman and Turkish History, 1774–1923 – The Impact of the West'', University of Texas Press, 1990, pp. 115-116.</ref> These changes, along with other factors, helped to create a sense of crisis within Islam, which continues to this day. This led to ].<ref name="LindgrenRoss">{{cite book |last1=Lindgren |first1=Allana |last2=Ross |first2=Stephen |title=The Modernist World |year=2015 |publisher=] |isbn=978-1-317-69616-2 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=YFvLCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA440 |access-date=6 May 2017 |via=]}}</ref>
Both in Europe and in the United States, liberals often support the ] movement and advocate equal rights for women and homosexuals.


]'' by ], a tableau of the ] in 1830]]
====Equality====
] and ] movements spread, along with representative and democratic ideals. France established an ] in the 1870s. However, nationalism also spread rapidly after 1815. A mixture of liberal and nationalist sentiments in ] and Germany brought about the unification of the two countries in the late 19th century. A liberal regime came to power in Italy and ended the secular power of the Popes. However, the ] launched a counter-crusade against liberalism. ] issued the '']'' in 1864, condemning liberalism in all its forms. In many countries, liberal forces responded by ]. By the end of the nineteenth century, the principles of classical liberalism were being increasingly challenged, and the ideal of the self-made individual seemed increasingly implausible. Victorian writers like ], ] and ] were early influential critics of social injustice.<ref name = "Richardson 2001"/>{{rp|36–37}}
] is incompatible with liberalism. Liberals in Europe are generally hostile to any attempts by the state to enforce equality in employment by legal action against employers, whereas in the United States many liberals favor such ]. Liberals in general support equal opportunity, but not necessarily equal outcome. Most European liberal parties do not favour employment ] for women and ethnic minorities as the best way to end ] and racial inequality. However, all agree that arbitrary discrimination on the basis of race or gender is morally wrong.


],<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.eduskunta.fi/triphome/bin/hx5000.sh?{hnro}=911547&{kieli}=su&{haku}=kaikki |title=Edustajamatrikkeli |language=fi |trans-title= |publisher=Eduskunta |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120212180625/http://www.eduskunta.fi/triphome/bin/hx5000.sh?%7Bhnro%7D=911547&%7Bkieli%7D=su&%7Bhaku%7D=kaikki |archive-date=2012-02-12}}</ref> ] (1865–1952), the ], anchored the state in ], guarded the fragile germ of the ], and embarked on internal reforms.<ref>{{cite web |first=Juha |last=Mononen |title=War or Peace for Finland? Neoclassical Realist Case Study of Finnish Foreign Policy in the Context of the Anti-Bolshevik Intervention in Russia 1918–1920 |url=https://tampub.uta.fi/handle/10024/80491 |date=2 February 2009 |publisher=] |access-date=25 August 2020 |archive-date=7 June 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150607035630/http://tampub.uta.fi/handle/10024/80491 |url-status=dead}}</ref>]]
====Free market====
{{main|Economic liberalism}}
Economic liberals today stress the importance of a free market and free trade, and seek to limit ] in both the domestic ] and foreign trade. Modern liberal movements often agree in principle with the idea of free trade, but maintain some skepticism, seeing unrestricted trade as leading to the growth of multi-national corporations and the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the few. In the ] on the ] in Europe, liberals supported government responsibility for health, education, and alleviating poverty while still calling for a market based on independent exchange. Liberals agree that a high quality of health care and education should be available for all citizens, but differ in their views on the degree to which governments should supply these benefits. Since poverty is a threat to personal liberty, liberalism seeks a balance between individual responsibility and community responsibility. In particular, liberals favor special protection for the handicapped, the sick, the disabled, and the aged.<ref>, 1947</ref>


Liberalism gained momentum at the beginning of the 20th century. The bastion of ], the ], was overthrown in the ] of the ]. The Allied victory in the ] and the collapse of four empires seemed to mark the triumph of liberalism across the European continent, not just among the ] but also in Germany and the newly created states of ]. Militarism, as typified by Germany, was defeated and discredited. As Blinkhorn argues, the liberal themes were ascendant in terms of "cultural pluralism, religious and ethnic toleration, national ], free market economics, representative and responsible government, free trade, unionism, and the peaceful settlement of international disputes through a new body, the ]".
European liberalism turned back to more '']'' policies in the 1980s and 1990s, and supported ] and ] in health care and other public sectors. Modern European liberals generally tend to believe in a smaller role for government than would be supported by most ], let alone ] or ]. The European liberal consensus appears to involve a belief that economies should be decentralized. In general, contemporary European liberals do not believe that the government should directly control any industrial production through ]s, which places them in opposition to ]s.


In the Middle East, liberalism led to constitutional periods, like the Ottoman ] and ] and the ], but it declined in the late 1930s due to the growth and opposition of ] and ] ].<ref>{{cite book|last1=Kurzman|first1=Charles|title=Liberal Islam: A Source Book|year=1998|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0-19-511622-9|page=10|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=4n8HSe9SfXMC&pg=PA10|access-date=25 May 2017}}</ref><ref name="Moaddel1">{{cite book|last1=Moaddel|first1=Mansoor|title=Islamic Modernism, Nationalism, and Fundamentalism: Episode and Discourse|year=2005|publisher=University of Chicago Press|isbn=978-0-226-53333-9|page=4|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Dk6BLopmn3gC&pg=PA4}}</ref><ref name="lapidus">{{cite book |title=A History of Islamic Societies |last=Lapidus |first=Ira Marvin |year=2002 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |isbn=978-0-521-77933-3 |page=496 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=I3mVUEzm8xMC&pg=PA496}}</ref><ref name="LorentzIran">{{cite book|last1=Lorentz|first1=John H.|title=The A to Z of Iran|year=2010|publisher=Scarecrow Press|isbn=978-1-4617-3191-7|page=224|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=oV9WwxXbCB8C&pg=PA224|access-date=9 May 2017}}</ref><ref name="LindgrenRoss"/> However, many intellectuals advocated liberal values and ideas. Prominent liberals were ], ], ], ] and ].<ref>{{cite book|last1=Hanssen|first1=Jens|last2=Weiss|first2=Max|title=Arabic Thought beyond the Liberal Age: Towards an Intellectual History of the Nahda|year=2016|publisher=]|isbn=978-1-107-13633-5|page=299|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=dPF7DQAAQBAJ&pg=PA299|access-date=10 May 2017}}</ref>
====Environment====
{{main|Green liberalism}}
Many liberals share values with environmentalists, such as the ]. They seek to minimize the damage done by the human species on the natural world, and to maximize the regeneration of damaged areas. Some such activists attempt to make changes on an economic level by acting together with businesses, but others favor legislation in order to achieve ]. Other liberals do not accept government regulation in this matter and argue that the market should regulate itself in some fashion.


]]]
====International relations====
In the United States, ] traces its history to the popular presidency of ], who initiated the ] in response to the ] and won an ]. The ] established by Roosevelt left a strong legacy and influenced many future American presidents, including ].<ref>Alterman, p. 32.</ref> Meanwhile, the definitive liberal response to the Great Depression was given by the British economist ], who had begun a theoretical work examining the relationship between unemployment, money and prices back in the 1920s.<ref>{{cite book|last=Pressman|first=Steven|title=Fifty Great Economists|year=1999|isbn=978-0-415-13481-1|pages=96–100|publisher=London: routledge|location=London}}</ref> The worldwide Great Depression, starting in 1929, hastened the discrediting of liberal economics and strengthened calls for state control over economic affairs. Economic woes prompted widespread unrest in the European political world, leading to the rise of ] as an ideology and a movement against liberalism and ], especially in ] and ].<ref>Heywood, pp. 218–26.</ref> The rise of fascism in the 1930s eventually culminated in ], the deadliest conflict in human history. The ] prevailed in the war by 1945, and their victory set the stage for the ] between the ] ] and the liberal ].
{{main|Liberal international relations theory}}
There is no consensus about liberal doctrine in international politics, though there are some central notions, which can be deduced from, for example, the opinions of ].<ref></ref> Social liberals often believe that ] can be abolished. Some favor internationalism, and support the ]. Economic liberals, on the other hand, favor non-interventionism rather than collective security. Liberals believe in the right of every individual to enjoy the essential human liberties, and support self-determination for national minorities. Essential also is the free exchange of ideas, news, goods and services between people, as well as freedom of travel within and between all countries. Liberals generally oppose ], protective trade barriers, and exchange regulations.


], liberalism enjoyed wide popularity. In April 1951, the ] became the governing coalition when democratically elected ], a liberal nationalist, took office as the ]. However, his way of governing conflicted with Western interests, and he was removed from power in a ]. The coup ended the dominance of liberalism in the country's politics.<ref name="jrisen">{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-index.html|work=The New York Times|title=Secrets of History: The C.I.A. in Iran|author=James Risen|date=16 April 2000|access-date=3 November 2006|author-link=James Risen}}</ref><ref>''Clandestine Service History: Overthrow of Premier Mossadeq of Iran'' (March 1954). p. iii.</ref><ref name="CN-IC-01">{{cite book|title=Ends of British Imperialism: The Scramble for Empire, Suez, and Decolonization|year=2007|publisher=I.B.Tauris|isbn=978-1-84511-347-6|pages=775 of 1082|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=NQnpQNKeKKAC&pg=PA775}}</ref><ref name="FP 2013">{{cite journal|title=CIA Admits It Was Behind Iran's Coup|first=Malcolm|last=Bryne|date=18 August 2013|journal=Foreign Policy |url=https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/19/cia-admits-it-was-behind-irans-coup/}}</ref><ref>The CIA's history of the 1953 coup in Iran is made up of the following documents: a historian's note, a summary introduction, a lengthy narrative account written by Donald N. Wilber and as appendices five planning documents he attached. Published on 18 June 2000 under the title {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130125113825/http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-index.html |date=25 January 2013 }} by ''The New York Times''.</ref>
Some liberals were among the strongest advocates of international co-operation and the building of supra-national organizations, such as the ]. In the view of social liberals, a global free and fair market can only work if companies worldwide respect a set of common minimal social and ecological standards. A controversial question, on which there is no liberal consensus, is ]. Do nations have a right to limit the flow of immigrants from countries with growing populations to countries with stable or declining populations?


Among the various regional and national movements, the ] in the United States during the 1960s strongly highlighted the liberal efforts for ].<ref>Mackenzie and Weisbrot, p. 178.</ref> The ] project launched by ] ] oversaw the creation of ] and ], the establishment of ] and the ] as part of the ] and the passage of the landmark ], an altogether rapid series of events that some historians have dubbed the "Liberal Hour".<ref>Mackenzie and Weisbrot, p. 5.</ref>
===Conservative liberalism===


] were organized by Russia's liberal opposition.]]
{{main|Conservative liberalism}}
The Cold War featured extensive ideological competition and several ]s, but the widely feared ] between the Soviet Union and the United States never occurred. While communist states and liberal democracies competed against one another, an ] in the 1970s inspired a move away from ], especially under ] in the United Kingdom and ] in the United States. This trend, known as ], constituted a ] away from the ], which lasted from 1945 to 1980.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Palley|first1=Thomas I|date=2004-05-05|title=From Keynesianism to Neoliberalism: Shifting Paradigms in Economics|url=http://fpif.org/from_keynesianism_to_neoliberalism_shifting_paradigms_in_economics/|journal=Foreign Policy in Focus|access-date=25 March 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=igrwb3rsOOUC&pg=PA339|title=Modern Political Ideologies|last1=Vincent|first1=Andrew|date=2009|publisher=]|isbn=978-1-4051-5495-6|location=Hoboken, New Jersey|page=339}}</ref> Meanwhile, nearing the end of the 20th century, communist states in Eastern Europe ], leaving liberal democracies as the only major forms of government in the West.


At the beginning of World War II, the number of democracies worldwide was about the same as it had been forty years before.<ref>]. ''Great Empires, Small Nations''. New York: Routledge, 2007. {{ISBN|0-415-43775-X}}, p. 62.</ref> After 1945, liberal democracies spread very quickly but then retreated. In ''The Spirit of Democracy'', Larry Diamond argues that by 1974 "dictatorship, not democracy, was the way of the world" and that "barely a quarter of independent states chose their governments through competitive, free, and fair elections". Diamond says that democracy bounced back, and by 1995 the world was "predominantly democratic".<ref>{{cite book|author=Larry Diamond|title=The Spirit of Democracy: The Struggle to Build Free Societies Throughout the World|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=vx3JTGSB5JcC&pg=PA7|year=2008|publisher=Henry Holt|page=7|isbn=978-0-8050-7869-5}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=Freedom in the World 2016|publisher=Freedom House|url=https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/freedom-world-2016|date=2016-01-27}}</ref> However, liberalism still faces challenges, especially with the phenomenal growth of China as a model combination of authoritarian government and economic liberalism.<ref>Peerenboom, Randall. ''China modernizes''. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. {{ISBN|0-19-920834-4}}, pp. 7–8.</ref>
Conservative liberalism represents the right-wing of the liberal movement, stressing much on economic issues and combining some ] elements. Examples include the ] in the ], the ] and, in some ways, the ] of ].


Liberalism is frequently cited as the dominant ] of the ].<ref name=":1" /><ref name="Adams 2011"/>{{rp|11}}
===Liberal conservatism===


== Criticism and support ==
{{main|Liberal conservatism}}
] in 1831 as Spanish King ] took ] against the liberal forces in his country]]
], a ]n writer and the creator of the website Free Saudi Liberals, who was sentenced to ten years in prison and 1,000 lashes for "insulting Islam" in 2014]]
Liberalism has drawn criticism and support from various ideological groups throughout its history. Despite these complex relationships, some scholars have argued that liberalism actually "rejects ideological thinking" altogether, largely because such thinking could lead to unrealistic expectations for human society.<ref>Wolfe, p. 116.</ref>


===Conservatism===
Liberal conservatism is a variant of conservatism which includes some liberal elements. This strain often emerged in countries with strong ] and/or ], and is often strongly influenced by the writings of ]. Examples include the ], the ], the ] (]), the ] (]), ], ] (]), the ] in ], ] in ], and the ]. These parties are mainly member of the ], not of the ].
Conservatives have attacked what they perceive as the reckless liberal pursuit of progress and material gains, arguing that such preoccupations undermine traditional social values rooted in community and continuity.<ref>Koerner, p. 14.</ref> However, a few variations of conservatism, like ], expound some of the same ideas and principles championed by classical liberalism, including "small government and thriving capitalism".<ref name="Grigsby, p. 108"/>


The first major proponent of modern conservative thought, ], offered a blistering critique of the French Revolution by assailing the liberal pretensions to the power of rationality and the natural equality of all humans.<ref name="Grigsby, p. 108">Grigsby, p. 108.</ref> Burke was, however, highly influential on other classical liberal thought, and has been praised by both conservatives and liberals alike.<ref>{{cite book |last=O'Keeffe |first=Dennis |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=YVO9QuYUGwwC&pg=PA93 |title=Edmund Burke |publisher=Continuum |year=2009 |isbn=978-0826429780 |editor-last=Meadowcroft |editor-first=John |page=93}}</ref>
=== International relations theory ===
{{main|Liberal international relations theory}}


In the book '']'' (2018), ] argued that liberalism has led to ], cultural decline, atomization, ], the erosion of freedoms, and the growth of powerful, centralized bureaucracies.<ref name="Linker">Damon Linker, , ''The Week'', January 22, 2018.</ref><ref name=":02">{{Cite web |last=Burns |first=Nick |date=2020-04-08 |title=The new intellectuals of the American right |url=https://www.newstatesman.com/world/americas/north-america/2020/04/new-intellectuals-american-right |access-date=2023-08-10 |website=New Statesman |language=en-US}}</ref> The book also argues that liberalism has replaced old values of community, religion and tradition with self-interest.<ref name=":02" />
"Liberalism" in international relations is a theory that holds that state preferences, rather than state capabilities, are the primary determinant of state behavior. Unlike ] where the state is seen as a unitary actor, liberalism allows for plurality in state actions. Thus, preferences will vary from state to state, depending on factors such as ], ] or ]. Liberalism also holds that interaction between states is not limited to the political/security ("high politics"), but also economic/cultural ("low politics") whether through commercial firms, organizations or individuals. Thus, instead of an anarchic international system, there are plenty of opportunities for cooperation and broader notions of power, such as cultural capital (for example, the influence of a country's films leading to the popularity of its culture and the creation of a market for its exports worldwide). Another assumption is that ]s can be made through co-operation and interdependence – thus peace can be achieved.


Russian President ] believes that "liberalism has become obsolete" and claims that the vast majority of people in the world oppose multiculturalism, immigration, and ] for ] people.<ref>{{Cite news|date= 27 June 2019|editor1-last=Tiounine|editor1-first=Margot|editor2-last=Hannen|editor2-first=Tom|work=]|title=Liberalism 'has outlived its purpose' — President Putin speaks exclusively to the Financial Times|url=https://www.ft.com/video/a49cfa25-610e-438c-b11d-5dac19619e08|language=en-GB|access-date=23 August 2019}}</ref>
Liberalism as an international relations theory is not inherently linked to liberalism as a more general domestic political ideology. Increasingly, modern liberals are integrating ] into their foreign policy positions.


=== Neoliberalism === ===Catholicism===
{{See also|Integralism|Christian democracy|Religious democracy}}
One of the most outspoken early critics of liberalism was the ], which resulted in lengthy power struggles between national governments and the Church.<ref>{{cite book|last=Grew|first=Raymond|chapter=Liberty and the Catholic Church in 19th century Europe|title=Freedom and Religion in the 19th Century|editor-last=Helmstadter|editor-first=Richard|publisher=Stanford University Press|year=1997|isbn=978-0-8047-3087-7|page=|chapter-url=https://archive.org/details/freedomreligioni0000unse/page/201}}</ref>


A movement associated with modern democracy, ], hopes to spread ] and has gained a large following in some European nations.<ref>Riff, pp. 34–36.</ref> The early roots of Christian democracy developed as a reaction against the ] and ] associated with ''laissez-faire'' liberalism in the 19th century.<ref>Riff, p. 34.</ref>
{{main|Neoliberalism}}


=== Anarchism ===
Neoliberalism is a label for some ]. The swing away from government action in the 1970s led to the introduction of this term, which refers to a program of reducing trade barriers and internal market restrictions, while using government power to enforce opening of foreign markets. Neoliberalism accepts a certain degree of government involvement in the domestic economy, particularly a central bank with the power to print fiat money. This is strongly opposed by libertarians. While neoliberalism is sometimes described as overlapping with ], economists as diverse as ] and ] have been described &mdash; by others &mdash; as "neoliberal". This economic agenda is not necessarily combined with a liberal agenda in politics: neoliberals often do not subscribe to individual liberty on ethical issues or in sexual mores. An extreme example was the Pinochet regime in ], but some also classify ], ] and even ] and ] as being neo-liberal.
Anarchists criticize the liberal ], arguing that it creates a state that is "oppressive, violent, corrupt, and inimical to liberty."<ref>{{Citation |last=Fiala |first=Andrew |title=Anarchism |date=2021 |url=https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2021/entries/anarchism/ |encyclopedia=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |editor-last=Zalta |editor-first=Edward N. |access-date=2023-06-17 |edition=Winter 2021 |publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University}}</ref>


===Marxism===
In the 1990s, many social democratic parties adopted "neoliberal" economic policies such as privatization of industry and open markets, much to the dismay of many of their own voters. This has led these parties to become ''de facto'' neoliberal, and has often resulted in a drastic loss of popular support. For example, critics to the left of the German Social Democratic Party and the British Labour Party accuse them of pursuing neoliberal policies by refusing to renationalise industry. As a result of this, much support for these parties has been lost to the Christian Democratic Union and the Liberal Democrats, respectively. This "adopting of the wolves clothes" has led Labour in the UK to spectacular electoral success. However, tensions between the executive and Labour's backbenches is a consistent issue.
] rejected the foundational aspects of liberal theory, hoping to destroy both the state and the liberal distinction between society and the individual while fusing the two into a collective whole designed to overthrow the developing capitalist order of the 19th century.<ref>Koerner, pp. 9–12.</ref>


] stated that—in contrast with ]—liberal science defends ].<ref>{{cite book|last1=Selsam|first1=Howard|last2=Martel|first2=Harry|author-link1=Howard Selsam|title=Reader in Marxist Philosophy|year=1963|publisher=]|isbn=978-0-7178-0167-1|page=|url=https://archive.org/details/readerinmarxistp00sels|url-access=registration|access-date=1 June 2017}}</ref><ref>{{cite book|last1=Lenin|first1=Vladimir|author-link1=Vladimir Lenin|title=On Culture and Cultural Revolution|date=2008|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=CsoSQ6vD8fUC&pg=PA37|publisher=Wildside Press LLC|isbn=978-1-4344-6352-4|page=34|access-date=1 June 2017}}</ref> However, some proponents of liberalism, such as ], ], and ], were critics of wage slavery.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.ssa.gov/history/paine4.html |title=Social Security Online History Pages |access-date=1 June 2017 |archive-date=15 March 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150315055647/http://www.ssa.gov/history/paine4.html |url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=Rodriguez |first1=Junius P.|author1-link=Junius P. Rodriguez |title=Slavery in the United States: A Social, Political, and Historical Encyclopedia |volume=1 |year=2007 |publisher=] |page=500 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=4X44KbDBl9gC&pg=PA500 |access-date=1 June 2017 |isbn=978-1-85109-544-5}}</ref>
Sometimes "Neoliberalism" is used as a catch-all term for the anti-socialist reaction which swept through some countries during the 70s, 80s and 90s. "Neoliberalism" in the form of Thatcher, Reagan, and Pinochet claimed to move from a bureaucratic welfare-based society toward a meritocracy acting in the interests of business. In actuality, these governments cut funding for education and taxed income more heavily than wealth, which increased the influence of big business and the upper class.


] believed that liberalization would destroy the political stability of the ] and the ], making it difficult for development to take place, and is inherently capitalistic. He termed it "]".<ref>{{Cite web |title=《邓小平文选第三卷》《在党的十二届六中全会上的讲话》|language=zh |url=http://www.qstheory.cn/books/2019-07/31/c_1119485398_58.htm|access-date=2022-02-27 |archive-date=2022-02-27 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220227203520/http://www.qstheory.cn/books/2019-07/31/c_1119485398_58.htm |quote=大家可以回想一下,粉碎“四人帮"以后,全国人大在一九八○年通过一个议案,取消宪法中的关于“大鸣、大放、大辩论、大字报"这一条。为什么做这件事?因为有一股自由化思潮。搞自由化,就会破坏我们安定团结的政治局面。没有一个安定团结的政治局面,就不可能搞建设。<br />自由化本身就是资产阶级的,没有什么无产阶级的、社会主义的自由化,自由化本身就是对我们现行政策、现行制度的对抗,或者叫反对,或者叫修改。实际情况是,搞自由化就是要把我们引导到资本主义道路上去,所以我们用反对资产阶级自由化这个提法。管什么这里用过、那里用过,无关重要,现实政治要求我们在决议中写这个。我主张用。|trans-quote=}}</ref> Thus, some socialists accuse the economic doctrines of liberalism, such as ], of giving rise to what they view as a system of exploitation that goes against the democratic principles of liberalism, while some liberals oppose the wage slavery that the economic doctrines of capitalism allow.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Beauchamp |first=Zack |date=2019-09-09 |title=The anti-liberal moment |url=https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/9/9/20750160/liberalism-trump-putin-socialism-reactionary |access-date=2021-05-06 |website=] |language=en}}</ref>
Some conservatives see themselves as the true inheritors of classical liberalism. ] of ] argues that "most conservatives are closer to classical liberals than a lot of ]-libertarians" because conservatives want to preserve some institutions that they see as needed for liberty.<ref>], '']'' Online, ] ].
</ref> Further confusing the classification of liberalism and conservatism is that some conservatives claim liberal values as their own.


=== Social democracy === === Feminism ===
Some ] argue that liberalism's emphasis on distinguishing between the private and public spheres in society "allow the flourishing of bigotry and intolerance in the private sphere and to require respect for equality only in the public sphere", making "liberalism vulnerable to the right-wing populist attack. Political liberalism has rejected the feminist call to recognize that the ] and has relied on political institutions and processes as barriers against illiberalism."<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Stopler |first=Gila |date=May 8, 2021 |title=The personal is political: The feminist critique of liberalism and the challenge of right-wing populism |url=https://academic.oup.com/icon/article/19/2/393/6272532 |access-date=2023-07-13 |journal=] |volume=19 |issue=2 |pages=393–402 |doi=10.1093/icon/moab032|doi-access=free }}</ref>
Liberalism shares many basic goals and methods with social democracy, but in some places diverges. The fundamental difference between liberalism and social democracy is disagreement over the role of the state in the economy. Social democracy can be understood to combine features from both ] and ]. Democratic socialism seeks to achieve some minimum ]. Democratic socialists support a large ] and the ] of utilities such as gas and electricity in order to avoid private monopolies, achieve ], and raise the standard of living. By contrast, liberalism, in its distrust of monopolies (both public and private), prefers much less state intervention, choosing for example ] and regulation rather than outright nationalization. Liberalism also emphasizes ], and not equality of outcome, citing the desire for a ]. American liberalism, in contrast to liberalism in most countries, never put a major focus on ] nor demanded the same state social welfare programs as its European counterparts. Today, the ] and ] do not share the ] programs applied in most of Europe and have implemented fewer social programs to aid those in the lower ] level than ].{{Fact|date=February 2007}}


==Criticisms== ===Islam===
] is supported by some ].<ref name="Kurzman 1998">{{cite book |author-last=Kurzman |author-first=Charles |author-link=Charles Kurzman |year=1998 |chapter=Liberal Islam and Its Islamic Context |chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=4n8HSe9SfXMC&pg=PA1 |editor-last=Kurzman |editor-first=Charles |title=Liberal Islam: A Sourcebook |location=] and ] |publisher=] |pages=1–26 |isbn=9780195116229 |oclc=37368975}}</ref><ref name="Essays by Muslims">{{cite book |editor-last=Safi |editor-first=Omid |editor-link=Omid Safi |date=2003 |title=Progressive Muslims: on justice, gender and pluralism |location=Oxford |publisher=] |isbn=9781851683161 |oclc=52380025}}</ref> The ] verse in ] supports liberalism by stating "there is no compulsion in religion".<ref name="qref|2|256">{{qref|2|256|b=yl}}</ref> ], which includes criminal punishment of ] up to ], opposes liberalism.<ref name="g263">{{cite journal | last=Kumar H. M. | first=Sanjeev | title=Islam and the Question of Confessional Religious Identity: The Islamic State, Apostasy, and the Making of a Theology of Violence | journal=Contemporary Review of the Middle East | publisher=SAGE Publications | volume=5 | issue=4 | date=10 October 2018 | issn=2347-7989 | doi=10.1177/2347798918806415 | pages=327–348}}</ref>
{{Refimprove|date=December 2006}}
] opponents of liberalism reject its emphasis on individual rights, and instead emphasize the ] or the ] to a degree where the rights of the individual are either diminished or abolished. Collectivism can be found both to the right and to the left of liberalism. On the left, the collective that tends to be enhanced is the state, often in the form of ]. On the right, conservative and religious opponents argue that liberalism has removed the traditional ] that informally regulated societies, replacing them with abstract and idealistic principles which are imposed by the liberal-dominated schools, ], courts and ]. Opponents like ] claim that these new principles have actually undermined the concepts of ] and personal responsibility which are vital to any functional society. The liberal answer to this is that it is not the purpose of the law to legislate ], but to protect the citizen from ]. However, conservatives often see the legislation of morality as an essential aspect of protecting citizens from harm.


=== Social democracy ===
Anti-statist critiques of liberalism, such as ], assert the illegitimacy of the state for any purposes.
] is an ideology that advocates for the reform of capitalism in a progressive manner. It emerged in the 20th century and was influenced by socialism. Social democracy aims to address what it perceives as the inherent flaws of capitalism through government reform, with a focus on reducing inequality.<ref>Lightfoot, p. 17.</ref> Importantly, social democracy does not oppose the state's existence. Several commentators have noted strong similarities between social liberalism and social democracy, with one political scientist{{who|date=October 2024}} calling ] "bootleg social democracy" due to the absence of a significant social democratic tradition in the United States.<ref>Susser, p. 110.</ref>

A softer critique of liberalism can be found in ], which emphasizes a return to communities without necessarily denigrating individual rights.

Beyond these clear theoretical differences, some liberal principles can be disputed in a piecemeal fashion, with some portions kept and others abandoned ''(see ] and ].)'' This ongoing process – where putatively liberal agents accept some traditionally liberal values and reject others – causes some critics to question whether or not the word "liberal" has any useful meaning at all.

In terms of international politics, the universal claims of human rights which liberalism tends to endorse are disputed by rigid adherents of non-interventionism, since intervention in the interests of human rights can conflict with the ] of nations. By contrast, ] criticize liberalism for its adherence to the doctrine of sovereign nation-states, which the World federalists believe is not helpful in the face of genocide and other mass human rights abuses.

Liberalism has also been accused of being non-political in the works of some critics, for instance in "]" by Francis Parker Yockey:

<blockquote>
Liberalism, however, with its compromising, vague attitude, incapable of precise formulation, incapable also of rousing precise feelings, either affirmative or negative, is not an idea of political force. Its numerous devotees, in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries have taken part in practical politics only as the ally of other groups.<ref>Francis Parker Yockey, "Imperium: The Philosophy of History and Politics", 1948, p. 207</ref>

</blockquote>

Left-leaning opponents of economic liberalism reject the view that the private sector can act for the collective benefit, citing the harm done to those individuals who lose out in competition. They oppose the use of the state to impose market principles, usually through an enforced market mechanism in a previously non-market sector. They argue that the dominance of liberal principles in economy and society has contributed to ] among states, and inequality within states. They argue that liberal societies are characterised by long-term ], and by ethnic and class differentials in health, by (infant) mortality and lower life expectancy. Some would even say they have much higher unemployment than centrally planned economies.

A response to these claims is that liberal states tend to be wealthier than less free states, that the poor in liberal states are better off than the average citizen in non-liberal states, and that inequality is a necessary spur to the hard work that produces prosperity. Throughout history, poverty has been the common lot of mankind, and it is only the progress of science and the rise of the modern industrial state that has brought prosperity to large numbers of people.

==See also==
{{col-begin}}
{{col-break}}
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
{{col-break}}
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
*]
{{col-end}}

==References ==
===Notes===
{{reflist|2}}

===Other references===
*Willard, Charles Arthur. Liberalism and the Problem of Knowledge: A New Rhetoric for Modern Democracy, University of Chicago Press, 1996.
* Michael Scott Christofferson "An Antitotalitarian History of the French Revolution: François Furet's Penser la Révolution française in the Intellectual Politics of the Late 1970s" (in French Historical Studies, Fall 1999)
* Piero Gobetti La Rivoluzione liberale. Saggio sulla lotta politica in Italia, Bologna, Rocca San Casciano, 1924

==Further reading on liberalism==
:''Literature by thinkers contributing to liberal theory is listed at ].''

===Prominent law scholars===

*Putting liberalism in its place / Paul W Kahn., 2005 (YALE)
*Liberalism divided : freedom of speech and the many uses of State power / Owen M Fiss., 1996 (YALE)
*The future of liberal revolution / Bruce A Ackerman., 1992 (YALE)
*Social justice in the liberal state / Bruce A Ackerman., 1980 (YALE)
*Notions of fairness versus the Pareto principle : on the role of logical consistency / Louis Kaplow., 2000 (HARVARD)
*Knowledge & politics / Roberto Mangabeira Unger., 1975 (HARVARD)
*Principles for a free society / Richard Allen Epstein., 1999 (UCHICAGO)
*Fairness in a liberal society / Richard Allen Epstein., 2005 (UCHICAGO)
*Skepticism and freedom : a modern case for classical liberalism / Richard Allen Epstein., 2003 (UCHICAGO)
*Cultivating humanity : a classical defense of reform in liberal education / Martha Nussbaum., 1997 (UCHICAGO)
*Free markets and social justice / Cass R Sunstein., 1997 (UCHICAGO)
*Reasonably radical : deliberative liberalism and the politics of identity / Anthony Simon Laden., 2001 (UCHICAGO)
*The new inequality : creating solutions for poor America / ed. Joshua Cohen., 1999 (STANFORD)
*The rise and fall of British liberalism, 1776-1988 / Alan Sykes., 1997 (STANFORD)
*A stream of windows : unsettling reflections on trade, immigration, and democracy / Jagdish Bhagwati., 1998 (COLUMBIA)
*Nature and politics : liberalism in the philosophies of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau / Andrzej Rapaczynski., 1987 (COLUMBIA)
*Law and liberalism in the 1980s : the Rubin lectures at Columbia University / Vincent Blasi., 1991 (COLUMBIA)
*Ways of war and peace : realism, liberalism, and socialism / Michael W Doyle., 1997 (COLUMBIA)
*The Liberal future in America : essays in renewal / ed. Michael B Levy., 1985 (UCBERKELEY)
*Boundaries and allegiances : problems of justice and responsibility in liberal thought / Samuel Scheffler., 2001 (UCBERKELEY)
*The anatomy of antiliberalism / Stephen Holmes., 1993 (NYU)
*Passions and constraint : on the theory of liberal democracy / Stephen Holmes., 1995 (NYU)
*Benjamin Constant and the making of modern liberalism / Stephen Holmes., 1984 (NYU)
*Liberal rights : collected papers, 1981-1991 / Jeremy Waldron., 1993 (NYU)
*Liberals and social democrats / Peter Clarke., 1978 (OXFORD)
*Law and the community : the end of individualism? / ed. Leslie Green., 1989 (OXFORD)
*From promise to contract : towards a liberal theory of contract / Dori Kimel., 2003 (OXFORD)
*The new enlightenment : the rebirth of liberalism / ed. Peter Clarke., 1986 (OXFORD)
*Constitutional justice: a liberal theory of the rule of law / T.R.S Allan., 2001 (CAMBRIDGE)

===Prominent philosophers===

*Liberalism and social action / John Dewey., 1963 (UCHICAGO)
*Combat liberalism / Mao Zedong., 1954 (PEKING)
*Free thought and official propaganda / Bertrand Russell., 1922 (CAMBRIDGE)
*Political Liberalism / John Rawls., 2005 (HARVARD)
*Lectures on the history of political philosophy / John Rawls., 2007 (HARVARD)
*The law of peoples ; with, The idea of public reason revisited / John Rawls., 1999 (HARVARD)
*Conditions of liberty : civil society and its rivals / Ernest Gellner., 1994 (CAMBRIDGE)
*Liberty : incorporating four essays on liberty / Isaiah Berlin., 2002 (OXFORD)
*Objectivity and liberal scholarship / Noam Chomsky., 2003 (MIT)
*Profit over people : neoliberalism and global order / Noam Chomsky., 1999 (MIT)
*Democracy in a neoliberal order : doctrines and reality / Noam Chomsky., 1997 (MIT)
*Liberal politics and the public sphere / Charles Taylor., 1995 (MCGILL)
*Beyond liberalization : social opportunity and human capability / Amartya Kumar Sen., 1994 (HARVARD)
*Sovereign virtue : the theory and practice of equality / Ronald Dworkin., 2000 (NYU)
*The legacy of Isaiah Berlin / ed. Ronald Dworkin., 2001 (NYU)
*Concealment and exposure : and other essays / Thomas Nagel., 2002 (NYU)
*Liberals and communitarians / Stephen Mulhall., 1992 (OXFORD)
*John Dewey and the High Tide of American Liberalism / Alan Ryan., 1995 (OXFORD)
*Liberal reform in an illiberal regime: the creation of private property in Russia / Stephen Williams., 2006 (OXFORD)
*Liberalism, religion, and the sources of value / Simon Blackburn., 2005 (CAMBRIDGE)
*Achieving Our Country : Leftist Thought in Twentieth-Century America / Richard Rorty., 1999 (STANFORD)
*Bridging Liberalism and Multiculturalism in American Education / Bob Reich., 2002 (STANFORD)
*Boundaries and allegiances : problems of justice and responsibility in liberal thought / Samuel Scheffler., 2001 (UCBERKELEY)
*The logos reader : rational radicalism and the future of politics / ed. Michael Thompson., 2006 (UPITTSBURGH)
*The feminist critique of liberalism / Martha Craven Nussbaum., 1997 (UCHICAGO)
*Nietzsche, politics, and modernity : a critique of liberal reason / David Owen., 1995 (UARIZONA)
*Contemporary Theories of Liberalism / Gerald Gaus., 2003 (UARIZONA)
*Pragmatic Liberalism and the Critique of Modernity / Gary Gutting., 1999 (NOTREDAME)

===Prominent political scientists===


=== Fascism ===
*Communities and Law: Politics and Cultures of Legal Identities/Gad Barzilai., 2003
] of materialism and a lack of spiritual values.<ref name="massaschussetts1">{{cite book |first1=Marvin |last1=Perry |first2=Myrna |last2=Chase |first3=Margaret |last3=Jacob |first4=James R. |last4=Jacob |title=Western Civilization: Ideas, Politics, and Society – From 1600 |volume=2 |edition=9th |location=Boston, Massachusetts |publisher=] |date=2009 |page=760}}</ref> In particular, fascism opposes liberalism for its ], ], ] and ].<ref name="revolution1994">{{cite book |last1=Sternhell |first1=Zeev |first2=Mario |last2=Sznajder |first3=Maia |last3=Ashéri |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=hnv0F88nLawC |title=The Birth of Fascist Ideology: From Cultural Rebellion to Political Revolution |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221206080448/https://books.google.com/books?id=hnv0F88nLawC&printsec=frontcover |archive-date=6 December 2022 |location=Princeton, New Jersey |publisher=] |date=1994 |page=7|isbn=0691044864 }}</ref> Fascists believe that the liberal emphasis on individual freedom produces national divisiveness,<ref name="massaschussetts1"/> but many fascists agree with liberals in their support of ] and a ].<ref name="revolution1994"/>
*Liberal America and the Third World; political development ideas in foreign aid and social science / Robert A Packenham., 1973 (STANFORD)
*Structural conflict : the Third World against global liberalism / Stephen D Krasner., 1985 (STANFORD)
*Democracy's discontent : America in search of a public philosophy / Michael J Sandel., 1998 (HARVARD)
*Liberalism and the limits of justice / Michael J Sandel., 1998 (HARVARD)
*The spirit of liberalism / Harvey Claflin Mansfield., 1978 (HARVARD)
*Liberalism and the moral life / Nancy L Rosenblum., 1989 (HARVARD)
*Bentham's theory of the modern state / Nancy L Rosenblum., 1978 (HARVARD)
*Another liberalism : romanticism and the reconstruction of liberal thought / Nancy L Rosenblum., 1987 (HARVARD)
*Liberalism and its critics / Michael J Sandel., 1984 (HARVARD)
*Technopols : freeing politics and markets in Latin America in the 1990s / Jorge I Domínguez., 1997 (HARVARD)
*The new majority : towards a popular progressive politics / Theda Skocpol., 1999 (HARVARD)
*Tyranny and liberty : big government and the individual in Tocqueville's science of politics / Harvey Mansfield., 1999 (HARVARD)
*The new American dilemma : liberal democracy and school desegregation / Jennifer L Hochschild., 1984 (HARVARD)
*Politics out of history / Wendy Brown., 2001 (UCBERKELEY)
*Radicals and conservatives / William McGovern; David S Collier., 1957 (UCBERKELEY)
*Tocqueville's revenge : state, society, and economy in contemporary France / Jonah D Levy., 1999 (UCBERKELEY)
*Liberalism's crooked circle : letters to Adam Michnik / Ira Katznelson., 1996 (COLUMBIA)
*Liberal socialism (Carlo Rosselli) / ed. Nadia Urbinati., 1994 (COLUMBIA)
*On liberal revolution (Piero Gobetti) / ed. Nadia Urbinati., 2000 (COLUMBIA)
*The clash of orthodoxies : law, religion, and morality in crisis / Robert P George., 2001 (PRINCETON)
*Liberal equality / Amy Gutmann., 1980 (PRINCETON)
*Diversity and distrust : civic education in a multicultural democracy / Stephen Macedo., 1999 (PRINCETON)
*Liberal virtues : citizenship, virtue, and community in liberal constitutionalism / Stephen Macedo., 1991 (PRINCETON)
*The inner ocean : individualism and democratic culture / George Kateb., 1992 (PRINCETON)
*Economic change and political liberalization in Sub-Saharan Africa / Jennifer A Widner., 1994 (PRINCETON)
*Natural law, liberalism, and morality : contemporary essays / Robert P George., 1996 (PRINCETON)
*Natural law and public reason / Robert P George., 2000 (PRINCETON)
*Liberal international relations theory : a social scientific assessment / Andrew Moravcsik., 2001 (PRINCETON)
*Liberalism and international relations theory / Andrew Moravcsik., 1992 (PRINCETON)


== See also ==
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


== References ==
''For secondary literature bibliographies in languages other than English see ]''
'''Notes'''
{{reflist}}


=== Bibliography and further reading ===
</div>
{{refbegin}}
* ]. ''Why We're Liberals''. New York: Viking Adult, 2008. {{ISBN|0-670-01860-0}}.
* Ameringer, Charles. ''Political parties of the Americas, 1980s to 1990s''. Westport: ], 1992. {{ISBN|0-313-27418-5}}.
* ]. ''The liberal virus: permanent war and the americanization of the world''. New York: Monthly Review Press, 2004.
* Antoninus, Marcus Aurelius. ''The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius Antoninus''. New York: ], 2008. {{ISBN|0-19-954059-4}}.
* Arnold, N. Scott. ''Imposing values: an essay on liberalism and regulation''. New York: ], 2009. {{ISBN|0-495-50112-3}}.
* Auerbach, Alan and Kotlikoff, Laurence. ''Macroeconomics'' Cambridge: MIT Press, 1998. {{ISBN|0-262-01170-0}}.
* Barzilai, Gad. ''Communities and Law: Politics and Cultures of Legal Identities'' ], 2003. {{ISBN|978-0-472-03079-8}}.
* Bell, Duncan. "What is Liberalism?" ''Political Theory'', 42/6 (2014).
* Brack, Duncan and Randall, Ed (eds.). ''Dictionary of Liberal Thought''. London: Politico's Publishing, 2007. {{ISBN|978-1-84275-167-1}}.
* ], Tom Harley & ] (editors). ''Liberals Face the Future: Essays on Australian Liberalism'', Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1984.
* ] & ] (editors). ''The Liberal Tradition: From Fox to Keynes'', Oxford: ], 1967.
* Chodos, Robert et al. ''The unmaking of Canada: the hidden theme in Canadian history since 1945''. Halifax: James Lorimer & Company, 1991. {{ISBN|1-55028-337-5}}.
* {{Cite book|last=Clower|first=Robert W.|editor1-first=K. Vela|editor1-last=Velupillai|editor1-link=Vela Velupillai|date=22 April 2004|title=Macroeconomic Theory and Economic Policy: Essays in Honour of Jean-Paul Fitoussi|chapter=5: Trashing J.B. Say: The Story of a Mare's Nest|publisher=Routledge|isbn=978-0-203-35650-0|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=tzzClShefiYC}}
* Coker, Christopher. ''Twilight of the West''. Boulder: Westview Press, 1998. {{ISBN|0-8133-3368-7}}.
* Taverne, Dick. ''The march of unreason: science, democracy, and the new fundamentalism''. New York: ], 2005. {{ISBN|0-19-280485-5}}.
* Diamond, Larry. ''The Spirit of Democracy''. New York: Macmillan, 2008. {{ISBN|0-8050-7869-X}}.
* Dobson, John. ''Bulls, Bears, Boom, and Bust''. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 2006. {{ISBN|1-85109-553-5}}.
* Dorrien, Gary. ''The making of American liberal theology''. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001. {{ISBN|0-664-22354-0}}.
* Farr, Thomas. ''World of Faith and Freedom''. New York: Oxford University Press US, 2008. {{ISBN|0-19-517995-1}}.
* Fawcett, Edmund. ''Liberalism: The Life of an Idea''. Princeton: ], 2014. {{ISBN|978-0-691-15689-7}}.
* Feuer, Lewis. ''Spinoza and the Rise of Liberalism''. New Brunswick: Transaction 1984.
* Flamm, Michael and Steigerwald, David. ''Debating the 1960s: liberal, conservative, and radical perspectives''. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2008. {{ISBN|0-7425-2212-1}}.
* Freeden, Michael, Javier Fernández-Sebastián, et al. ''In Search of European Liberalisms: Concepts, Languages, Ideologies'' (2019)
* Gallagher, Michael et al. ''Representative government in modern Europe''. New York: McGraw Hill, 2001. {{ISBN|0-07-232267-5}}.
* Gifford, Rob. ''China Road: A Journey into the Future of a Rising Power''. Random House, 2008. {{ISBN|0-8129-7524-3}}.
* Godwin, Kenneth et al. ''School choice tradeoffs: liberty, equity, and diversity''. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2002. {{ISBN|0-292-72842-5}}.
* Gould, Andrew. ''Origins of liberal dominance''. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1999. {{ISBN|0-472-11015-2}}.
* Gray, John. ''Liberalism''. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1995. {{ISBN|0-8166-2801-7}}.
* Grigsby, Ellen. ''Analyzing Politics: An Introduction to Political Science''. Florence: Cengage Learning, 2008. {{ISBN|0-495-50112-3}}.
* Gross, Jonathan. ''Byron: the erotic liberal''. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2001. {{ISBN|0-7425-1162-6}}.
* Hafner, Danica and Ramet, Sabrina. ''Democratic transition in Slovenia: value transformation, education, and media''. College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2006. {{ISBN|1-58544-525-8}}.
* Handelsman, Michael. ''Culture and Customs of Ecuador''. Westport: Greenwood Press, 2000. {{ISBN|0-313-30244-8}}.
* ]. ''The liberal tradition in America''. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, 1955. {{ISBN|0-15-651269-6}}.
* {{Cite book|last= Heywood|first=Andrew|year=2003|title=Political Ideologies: An Introduction|location= New York|publisher=]|isbn= 978-0-333-96177-3}}
* Hodge, Carl. ''Encyclopedia of the Age of Imperialism, 1800–1944''. Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2008. {{ISBN|0-313-33406-4}}.
* Jensen, Pamela Grande. ''Finding a new feminism: rethinking the woman question for liberal democracy''. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 1996. {{ISBN|0-8476-8189-0}}.
* Johnson, Paul. ''The Renaissance: A Short History''. New York: Modern Library, 2002. {{ISBN|0-8129-6619-8}}.
* {{cite journal|last=Kanazawa|first=Satoshi|author-link=Satoshi Kanazawa|year=2010|title=Why Liberals and Atheists Are More Intelligent|url=http://personal.lse.ac.uk/kanazawa/pdfs/SPQ2010.pdf |journal= ]|volume=73|issue=1|pages=33–57|jstor=25677384|doi=10.1177/0190272510361602|citeseerx=10.1.1.395.4490|s2cid=2642312}}
* Karatnycky, Adrian. ''Freedom in the World''. Piscataway: Transaction Publishers, 2000. {{ISBN|0-7658-0760-2}}.
* Karatnycky, Adrian et al. ''Nations in transit, 2001''. Piscataway: Transaction Publishers, 2001. {{ISBN|0-7658-0897-8}}.
* Kelly, Paul. ''Liberalism''. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2005. {{ISBN|0-7456-3291-2}}.
* Kirchner, Emil. ''Liberal parties in Western Europe''. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. {{ISBN|0-521-32394-0}}.
* Knoop, Todd. ''Recessions and Depressions'' Westport: Greenwood Press, 2004. {{ISBN|0-313-38163-1}}.
* Koerner, Kirk. ''Liberalism and its critics''. Oxford: Taylor & Francis, 1985. {{ISBN|0-7099-1551-9}}.
* Lightfoot, Simon. ''Europeanizing social democracy?: The rise of the Party of European Socialists''. New York: Routledge, 2005. {{ISBN|0-415-34803-X}}.
* ]. ''Liberalism: a counter-history''. London: Verso, 2011.
* Mackenzie, G. Calvin and Weisbrot, Robert. ''The liberal hour: Washington and the politics of change in the 1960s''. New York: Penguin Group, 2008. {{ISBN|1-59420-170-6}}.
* Manent, Pierre and Seigel, Jerrold. ''An Intellectual History of Liberalism''. Princeton: ], 1996. {{ISBN|0-691-02911-3}}.
* ]. ''] and International Relations: Economic Paths to War and Peace'', ], 2006.
* Mazower, Mark. ''Dark Continent''. New York: Vintage Books, 1998. {{ISBN|0-679-75704-X}}.
* Monsma, Stephen and Soper, J. Christopher. ''The Challenge of Pluralism: Church and State in Five Democracies''. Lanham: ], 2008. {{ISBN|0-7425-5417-1}}.
* ] and Joel Colton. ''A History of the Modern World''. New York: ], Inc., 1995. {{ISBN|0-07-040826-2}}.
* Perry, Marvin et al. ''Western Civilization: Ideas, Politics, and Society''. Florence, KY: ], 2008. {{ISBN|0-547-14742-2}}.
* Pierson, Paul. ''The New Politics of the Welfare State''. New York: ], 2001. {{ISBN|0-19-829756-4}}.
* Puddington, Arch. ''Freedom in the World: The Annual Survey of Political Rights and Civil Liberties''. Lanham: ], 2007. {{ISBN|0-7425-5897-5}}.
* Riff, Michael. ''Dictionary of modern political ideologies''. Manchester: ], 1990. {{ISBN|0-7190-3289-X}}.
* Rivlin, Alice. ''Reviving the American Dream'' Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 1992. {{ISBN|0-8157-7476-1}}.
* Ros, Agustin. ''Profits for all?: the cost and benefits of employee ownership''. New York: Nova Publishers, 2001. {{ISBN|1-59033-061-7}}.
* Routledge, Paul et al. ''The geopolitics reader''. New York: ], 2006. {{ISBN|0-415-34148-5}}.
* {{cite book |last= Russell |first=Bertrand |author-link=Bertrand Russell |year=2000 |orig-date=1945 |title=History of Western Philosophy |location=London |publisher=] |isbn=978-0-415-22854-1 |title-link=A History of Western Philosophy}}
* ]. ''The Philosophy of John Stuart Mill''. Humanity Books: 1970. {{ISBN|978-1-57392-404-7}}.
* ]. ''The Making of Modern Liberalism'' (], 2012).
* ]. ''On Politics: A History of Political Thought: From Herodotus to the Present''. Allen Lane, 2012. {{ISBN|978-0-87140-465-7}}.
* Shell, Jonathan. ''The Unconquerable World: Power, Nonviolence, and the Will of the People''. New York: Macmillan, 2004. {{ISBN|0-8050-4457-4}}.
* Shaw, G. K. ''Keynesian Economics: The Permanent Revolution''. Aldershot, England: Edward Elgar Publishing Company, 1988. {{ISBN|1-85278-099-1}}.
* Sinclair, Timothy. ''Global governance: critical concepts in political science''. Oxford: ], 2004. {{ISBN|0-415-27662-4}}.
* Smith, Steven B. ''Spinoza, Liberalism, and the Question of Jewish Identity''. New Haven: Yale University Press 1997. {{ISBN|0300066805}}
* Song, Robert. ''Christianity and Liberal Society''. Oxford: ], 2006. {{ISBN|0-19-826933-1}}.
* Stacy, Lee. ''Mexico and the United States''. New York: Marshall Cavendish Corporation, 2002. {{ISBN|0-7614-7402-1}}.
* Steindl, Frank. ''Understanding Economic Recovery in the 1930s''. Ann Arbor: ], 2004. {{ISBN|0-472-11348-8}}.
* Susser, Bernard. ''Political ideology in the modern world''. Upper Saddle River: Allyn and Bacon, 1995. {{ISBN|0-02-418442-X}}.
* {{cite journal |last=Trivers |first=Robert L. |author-link=Robert Trivers |year=1971 |title=The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism |url=http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/images/uploads/Trivers-EvolutionReciprocalAltruism.pdf |journal=] |volume=46 |number=1 |pages=35–57 |jstor=2822435 |doi=10.1086/406755 |s2cid=19027999}}.
* Van den Berghe, Pierre. ''The Liberal dilemma in South Africa''. Oxford: ], 1979. {{ISBN|0-7099-0136-4}}.
* Van Schie, P. G. C. and Voermann, Gerrit. ''The dividing line between success and failure: a comparison of Liberalism in the Netherlands and Germany in the 19th and 20th Centuries''. Berlin: LIT Verlag Berlin-Hamburg-Münster, 2006. {{ISBN|3-8258-7668-3}}.
* Venturelli, Shalini. ''Liberalizing the European media: politics, regulation, and the public sphere''. New York: ], 1998. {{ISBN|0-19-823379-5}}.
* Wallerstein, Immanuel. ''The Modern World-System IV: Centrist Liberalism trimphant 1789–1914''. Berkeley and Los Angeles: ], 2011.
* Whitfield, Stephen. ''Companion to twentieth-century America''. Hoboken: ], 2004. {{ISBN|0-631-21100-4}}.
* ]. ''The Future of Liberalism''. New York: ], Inc., 2009. {{ISBN|0-307-38625-2}}.
* {{cite book |last=Young |first=Shaun |year=2002 |title=Beyond Rawls: An Analysis of the Concept of Political Liberalism |location=Lanham, MD |publisher=] |isbn=978-0-7618-2240-0 |url-access=registration |url=https://archive.org/details/beyondrawlsanaly0000youn}}
* Zvesper, John. ''Nature and liberty''. New York: ], 1993. {{ISBN|0-415-08923-9}}.


:: '''Britain'''
== External links==
* Adams, Ian. ''Ideology and politics in Britain today''. Manchester: ], 1998. {{ISBN|0-7190-5056-1}}.
{{wiktionary}}
* Cook, Richard. ''The Grand Old Man''. Whitefish: Kessinger Publishing, 2004. {{ISBN|1-4191-6449-X}} on Gladstone.
*
* Falco, Maria. ''Feminist interpretations of Mary Wollstonecraft''. State College: Penn State Press, 1996. {{ISBN|0-271-01493-8}}.
* {{sep entry|liberalism}}
* Forster, Greg. ''John Locke's politics of moral consensus''. Cambridge: ], 2005. {{ISBN|0-521-84218-2}}.
*
* Locke, John. '']''. 1689.
*
* ]. ''Two Treatises of Government''. reprint, New York: Hafner Publishing Company, Inc., 1947. {{ISBN|0-02-848500-9}}.
*
* Wempe, Ben. ''T. H. Green's theory of positive freedom: from metaphysics to political theory''. Exeter: Imprint Academic, 2004. {{ISBN|0-907845-58-4}}.
*
* , Ludwig von Mises
*
*
* Magazine committed to reinvigorating Liberalism
* an online magazine relating to liberalism in the UK


:: '''France'''
{{Liberalism_footer}}
* Frey, Linda and Frey, Marsha. ''The French Revolution''. Westport: ], 2004. {{ISBN|0-313-32193-0}}.
{{Ideologies}}
* Hanson, Paul. ''Contesting the French Revolution''. Hoboken: ], 2009. {{ISBN|1-4051-6083-7}}.
* Leroux, Robert, ''Political Economy and Liberalism in France: The Contributions of Frédéric Bastiat'', London and New York, ], 2011.
* Leroux, Robert, and David Hart (eds), ''French Liberalism in the 19th century. An Anthology'', London and New York, ], 2012.
* Lyons, Martyn. ''Napoleon Bonaparte and the Legacy of the French Revolution''. New York: ], Inc., 1994. {{ISBN|0-312-12123-7}}.
* Shlapentokh, Dmitry. ''The French Revolution and the Russian Anti-Democratic Tradition''. Edison, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1997. {{ISBN|1-56000-244-1}}.
{{refend}}


== External links ==
]
{{Library resources box}}
]
* —entry at '']''
]
* {{cite SEP|url-id=liberalism|title=Liberalism}}
* .


{{Link FA|ru}} {{liberalism}}
{{navboxes
{{Link FA|sr}}
|list=
{{aspects of capitalism}}
{{political ideologies}}
{{political philosophy}}
{{Western culture}}
}}
{{Subject bar|Current events|Liberalism|Libertarianism|Politics|wikt=yes|commons=yes|commons-search=Category:Liberalism|q=yes|s=yes|s-search=Category:Liberalism|b=yes|v=yes|d=yes|d-search=Q6216}}
{{authority control}}


]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]

Latest revision as of 23:05, 8 December 2024

Political ideology based on individual rights and liberty For other uses, see Liberal (disambiguation). Not to be confused with Libertarianism.

Part of a series on
Liberalism
History
Principles
Philosophers
Politicians
Organizations
Regional variants
Related topics
Schools
Part of the Politics series
Party politics
Political spectrum
Left-wing
Centre
Right-wing
Major ideologies
Types
Leaders and organization
Internal elections
Party discipline
Party systems
Coalitions between parties
Lists of political parties
icon Politics portal

Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality, the right to private property and equality before the law. Liberals espouse various and often mutually warring views depending on their understanding of these principles but generally support private property, market economies, individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), liberal democracy, secularism, rule of law, economic and political freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion. Liberalism is frequently cited as the dominant ideology of modern history.

Liberalism became a distinct movement in the Age of Enlightenment, gaining popularity among Western philosophers and economists. Liberalism sought to replace the norms of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, the divine right of kings and traditional conservatism with representative democracy, rule of law, and equality under the law. Liberals also ended mercantilist policies, royal monopolies, and other trade barriers, instead promoting free trade and marketization. Philosopher John Locke is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct tradition based on the social contract, arguing that each man has a natural right to life, liberty and property, and governments must not violate these rights. While the British liberal tradition has emphasized expanding democracy, French liberalism has emphasized rejecting authoritarianism and is linked to nation-building.

Leaders in the British Glorious Revolution of 1688, the American Revolution of 1776, and the French Revolution of 1789 used liberal philosophy to justify the armed overthrow of royal sovereignty. The 19th century saw liberal governments established in Europe and South America, and it was well-established alongside republicanism in the United States. In Victorian Britain, it was used to critique the political establishment, appealing to science and reason on behalf of the people. During the 19th and early 20th centuries, liberalism in the Ottoman Empire and the Middle East influenced periods of reform, such as the Tanzimat and Al-Nahda, and the rise of constitutionalism, nationalism, and secularism. These changes, along with other factors, helped to create a sense of crisis within Islam, which continues to this day, leading to Islamic revivalism. Before 1920, the main ideological opponents of liberalism were communism, conservatism, and socialism; liberalism then faced major ideological challenges from fascism and Marxism–Leninism as new opponents. During the 20th century, liberal ideas spread even further, especially in Western Europe, as liberal democracies found themselves as the winners in both world wars and the Cold War.

Liberals sought and established a constitutional order that prized important individual freedoms, such as freedom of speech and freedom of association; an independent judiciary and public trial by jury; and the abolition of aristocratic privileges. Later waves of modern liberal thought and struggle were strongly influenced by the need to expand civil rights. Liberals have advocated gender and racial equality in their drive to promote civil rights, and global civil rights movements in the 20th century achieved several objectives towards both goals. Other goals often accepted by liberals include universal suffrage and universal access to education. In Europe and North America, the establishment of social liberalism (often called simply liberalism in the United States) became a key component in expanding the welfare state. Today, liberal parties continue to wield power and influence throughout the world. The fundamental elements of contemporary society have liberal roots. The early waves of liberalism popularised economic individualism while expanding constitutional government and parliamentary authority.

Definitions

Origins

Part of a series on
Libertarianism
Concepts
Issues
Philosophers
Politicians
National variants
Historical background
Related topics

Liberal, liberty, libertarian, and libertine all trace their etymology to liber, a root from Latin that means "free". One of the first recorded instances of liberal occurred in 1375 when it was used to describe the liberal arts in the context of an education desirable for a free-born man. The word's early connection with the classical education of a medieval university soon gave way to a proliferation of different denotations and connotations. Liberal could refer to "free in bestowing" as early as 1387, "made without stint" in 1433, "freely permitted" in 1530, and "free from restraint"—often as a pejorative remark—in the 16th and the 17th centuries.

In the 16th-century Kingdom of England, liberal could have positive or negative attributes in referring to someone's generosity or indiscretion. In Much Ado About Nothing, William Shakespeare wrote of "a liberal villaine" who "hath ... confest his vile encounters". With the rise of the Enlightenment, the word acquired decisively more positive undertones, defined as "free from narrow prejudice" in 1781 and "free from bigotry" in 1823. In 1815, the first use of liberalism appeared in English. In Spain, the liberales, the first group to use the liberal label in a political context, fought for decades to implement the Spanish Constitution of 1812. From 1820 to 1823, during the Trienio Liberal, King Ferdinand VII was compelled by the liberales to swear to uphold the 1812 Constitution. By the middle of the 19th century, liberal was used as a politicised term for parties and movements worldwide.

Yellow is the political colour most commonly associated with liberalism. The United States differs from other countries in that conservatism is associated with red and liberalism with blue.

Modern usage and definitions

In Europe and Latin America, liberalism means a moderate form of classical liberalism and includes both conservative liberalism (centre-right liberalism) and social liberalism (centre-left liberalism).

In North America, liberalism almost exclusively refers to social liberalism. The dominant Canadian party is the Liberal Party, and the Democratic Party is usually considered liberal in the United States. In the United States, conservative liberals are usually called conservatives in a broad sense.

Social liberalism

See also: Social liberalism, Welfare state, and Liberalism in the United States

Over time, the meaning of liberalism began to diverge in different parts of the world. Since the 1930s, liberalism is usually used without a qualifier in the United States, to refer to social liberalism, a variety of liberalism that endorses a regulated market economy and the expansion of civil and political rights, with the common good considered as compatible with or superior to the freedom of the individual.

According to the Encyclopædia Britannica: "In the United States, liberalism is associated with the welfare-state policies of the New Deal programme of the Democratic administration of Pres. Franklin D. Roosevelt, whereas in Europe it is more commonly associated with a commitment to limited government and laissez-faire economic policies." This variety of liberalism is also known as modern liberalism to distinguish it from classical liberalism, which evolved into modern conservatism. In the United States, the two forms of liberalism comprise the two main poles of American politics, in the forms of modern American liberalism and modern American conservatism.

Some liberals, who call themselves classical liberals, fiscal conservatives, or libertarians, endorse fundamental liberal ideals but diverge from modern liberal thought on the grounds that economic freedom is more important than social equality. Consequently, the ideas of individualism and laissez-faire economics previously associated with classical liberalism are key components of modern American conservatism and movement conservatism, and became the basis for the emerging school of modern American libertarian thought. In this American context, liberal is often used as a pejorative.

This political philosophy is exemplified by enactment of major social legislation and welfare programs. Two major examples in the United States are Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal policies and later Lyndon B. Johnson's Great Society, as well as other accomplishments such as the Works Progress Administration and the Social Security Act in 1935, as well as the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Modern liberalism, in the United States and other major Western countries, now includes issues such as same-sex marriage, transgender rights, the abolition of capital punishment, reproductive rights and other women's rights, voting rights for all adult citizens, civil rights, environmental justice, and government protection of the right to an adequate standard of living. National social services, such as equal educational opportunities, access to health care, and transportation infrastructure are intended to meet the responsibility to promote the general welfare of all citizens as established by the United States Constitution.

Classical liberalism

See also: Classical liberalism and Conservative liberalism

Classical liberalism is a political tradition and a branch of liberalism that advocates free market and laissez-faire economics and civil liberties under the rule of law, with special emphasis on individual autonomy, limited government, economic freedom, political freedom and freedom of speech. Classical liberalism, contrary to liberal branches like social liberalism, looks more negatively on social policies, taxation and the state involvement in the lives of individuals, and it advocates deregulation.

Until the Great Depression and the rise of social liberalism, classical liberalism was called economic liberalism. Later, the term was applied as a retronym, to distinguish earlier 19th-century liberalism from social liberalism. By modern standards, in the United States, the bare term liberalism often means social liberalism, but in Europe and Australia, the bare term liberalism often means classical liberalism.

Classical liberalism gained full flowering in the early 18th century, building on ideas dating at least as far back as the 16th century, within the Iberian, British, and Central European contexts, and it was foundational to the American Revolution and "American Project" more broadly. Notable liberal individuals whose ideas contributed to classical liberalism include John Locke, Jean-Baptiste Say, Thomas Malthus, and David Ricardo. It drew on classical economics, especially the economic ideas espoused by Adam Smith in Book One of The Wealth of Nations, and on a belief in natural law. In contemporary times, Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, Ludwig von Mises, Thomas Sowell, George Stigler, Larry Arnhart, Ronald Coase and James M. Buchanan are seen as the most prominent advocates of classical liberalism. However, other scholars have made reference to these contemporary thoughts as neoclassical liberalism, distinguishing them from 18th-century classical liberalism.

In the context of American politics, "classical liberalism" may be described as "fiscally conservative" and "socially liberal". Despite this, classical liberals tend to reject the right's higher tolerance for economic protectionism and the left's inclination for collective group rights due to classical liberalism's central principle of individualism. Additionally, in the United States, classical liberalism is considered closely tied to, or synonymous with, American libertarianism.

Philosophy

Liberalism—both as a political current and an intellectual tradition—is mostly a modern phenomenon that started in the 17th century, although some liberal philosophical ideas had precursors in classical antiquity and Imperial China. The Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius praised "the idea of a polity administered with regard to equal rights and equal freedom of speech, and the idea of a kingly government which respects most of all the freedom of the governed". Scholars have also recognised many principles familiar to contemporary liberals in the works of several Sophists and the Funeral Oration by Pericles. Liberal philosophy is the culmination of an extensive intellectual tradition that has examined and popularized some of the modern world's most important and controversial principles. Its immense scholarly output has been characterized as containing "richness and diversity", but that diversity often has meant that liberalism comes in different formulations and presents a challenge to anyone looking for a clear definition.

Major themes

Part of a series on
Individualism
Principles
Philosophers
Ideologies
Principal concerns

Although all liberal doctrines possess a common heritage, scholars frequently assume that those doctrines contain "separate and often contradictory streams of thought". The objectives of liberal theorists and philosophers have differed across various times, cultures and continents. The diversity of liberalism can be gleaned from the numerous qualifiers that liberal thinkers and movements have attached to the term "liberalism", including classical, egalitarian, economic, social, the welfare state, ethical, humanist, deontological, perfectionist, democratic, and institutional, to name a few. Despite these variations, liberal thought does exhibit a few definite and fundamental conceptions.

Political philosopher John Gray identified the common strands in liberal thought as individualist, egalitarian, meliorist and universalist. The individualist element avers the ethical primacy of the human being against the pressures of social collectivism; the egalitarian element assigns the same moral worth and status to all individuals; the meliorist element asserts that successive generations can improve their sociopolitical arrangements, and the universalist element affirms the moral unity of the human species and marginalises local cultural differences. The meliorist element has been the subject of much controversy, defended by thinkers such as Immanuel Kant, who believed in human progress, while suffering criticism by thinkers such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who instead believed that human attempts to improve themselves through social cooperation would fail.

The liberal philosophical tradition has searched for validation and justification through several intellectual projects. The moral and political suppositions of liberalism have been based on traditions such as natural rights and utilitarian theory, although sometimes liberals even request support from scientific and religious circles. Through all these strands and traditions, scholars have identified the following major common facets of liberal thought:

Classical and modern

See also: Age of Enlightenment

John Locke and Thomas Hobbes

See also: John Locke and Thomas Hobbes

Enlightenment philosophers are given credit for shaping liberal ideas. These ideas were first drawn together and systematized as a distinct ideology by the English philosopher John Locke, generally regarded as the father of modern liberalism. Thomas Hobbes attempted to determine the purpose and the justification of governing authority in post-civil war England. Employing the idea of a state of nature — a hypothetical war-like scenario prior to the state — he constructed the idea of a social contract that individuals enter into to guarantee their security and, in so doing, form the State, concluding that only an absolute sovereign would be fully able to sustain such security. Hobbes had developed the concept of the social contract, according to which individuals in the anarchic and brutal state of nature came together and voluntarily ceded some of their rights to an established state authority, which would create laws to regulate social interactions to mitigate or mediate conflicts and enforce justice. Whereas Hobbes advocated a strong monarchical commonwealth (the Leviathan), Locke developed the then-radical notion that government acquires consent from the governed, which has to be constantly present for the government to remain legitimate. While adopting Hobbes's idea of a state of nature and social contract, Locke nevertheless argued that when the monarch becomes a tyrant, it violates the social contract, which protects life, liberty and property as a natural right. He concluded that the people have a right to overthrow a tyrant. By placing the security of life, liberty and property as the supreme value of law and authority, Locke formulated the basis of liberalism based on social contract theory. To these early enlightenment thinkers, securing the essential amenities of life—liberty and private property—required forming a "sovereign" authority with universal jurisdiction.

His influential Two Treatises (1690), the foundational text of liberal ideology, outlined his major ideas. Once humans moved out of their natural state and formed societies, Locke argued, "that which begins and actually constitutes any political society is nothing but the consent of any number of freemen capable of a majority to unite and incorporate into such a society. And this is that, and that only, which did or could give beginning to any lawful government in the world". The stringent insistence that lawful government did not have a supernatural basis was a sharp break with the dominant theories of governance, which advocated the divine right of kings and echoed the earlier thought of Aristotle. Dr John Zvesper described this new thinking: "In the liberal understanding, there are no citizens within the regime who can claim to rule by natural or supernatural right, without the consent of the governed".

Locke had other intellectual opponents besides Hobbes. In the First Treatise, Locke aimed his arguments first and foremost at one of the doyens of 17th-century English conservative philosophy: Robert Filmer. Filmer's Patriarcha (1680) argued for the divine right of kings by appealing to biblical teaching, claiming that the authority granted to Adam by God gave successors of Adam in the male line of descent a right of dominion over all other humans and creatures in the world. However, Locke disagreed so thoroughly and obsessively with Filmer that the First Treatise is almost a sentence-by-sentence refutation of Patriarcha. Reinforcing his respect for consensus, Locke argued that "conjugal society is made up by a voluntary compact between men and women". Locke maintained that the grant of dominion in Genesis was not to men over women, as Filmer believed, but to humans over animals. Locke was not a feminist by modern standards, but the first major liberal thinker in history accomplished an equally major task on the road to making the world more pluralistic: integrating women into social theory.

John Milton's Areopagitica (1644) argued for the importance of freedom of speech.

Locke also originated the concept of the separation of church and state. Based on the social contract principle, Locke argued that the government lacked authority in the realm of individual conscience, as this was something rational people could not cede to the government for it or others to control. For Locke, this created a natural right to the liberty of conscience, which he argued must remain protected from any government authority. In his Letters Concerning Toleration, he also formulated a general defence for religious toleration. Three arguments are central:

  1. Earthly judges, the state in particular, and human beings generally, cannot dependably evaluate the truth claims of competing religious standpoints;
  2. Even if they could, enforcing a single "true religion" would not have the desired effect because belief cannot be compelled by violence;
  3. Coercing religious uniformity would lead to more social disorder than allowing diversity.

Locke was also influenced by the liberal ideas of Presbyterian politician and poet John Milton, who was a staunch advocate of freedom in all its forms. Milton argued for disestablishment as the only effective way of achieving broad toleration. Rather than force a man's conscience, the government should recognise the persuasive force of the gospel. As assistant to Oliver Cromwell, Milton also drafted a constitution of the independents (Agreement of the People; 1647) that strongly stressed the equality of all humans as a consequence of democratic tendencies. In his Areopagitica, Milton provided one of the first arguments for the importance of freedom of speech—"the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties". His central argument was that the individual could use reason to distinguish right from wrong. To exercise this right, everyone must have unlimited access to the ideas of his fellow men in "a free and open encounter", which will allow good arguments to prevail.

In a natural state of affairs, liberals argued, humans were driven by the instincts of survival and self-preservation, and the only way to escape from such a dangerous existence was to form a common and supreme power capable of arbitrating between competing human desires. This power could be formed in the framework of a civil society that allows individuals to make a voluntary social contract with the sovereign authority, transferring their natural rights to that authority in return for the protection of life, liberty and property. These early liberals often disagreed about the most appropriate form of government, but all believed that liberty was natural and its restriction needed strong justification. Liberals generally believed in limited government, although several liberal philosophers decried government outright, with Thomas Paine writing, "government even in its best state is a necessary evil".

James Madison and Montesquieu

As part of the project to limit the powers of government, liberal theorists such as James Madison and Montesquieu conceived the notion of separation of powers, a system designed to equally distribute governmental authority among the executive, legislative and judicial branches. Governments had to realise, liberals maintained, that legitimate government only exists with the consent of the governed, so poor and improper governance gave the people the authority to overthrow the ruling order through all possible means, even through outright violence and revolution, if needed. Contemporary liberals, heavily influenced by social liberalism, have supported limited constitutional government while advocating for state services and provisions to ensure equal rights. Modern liberals claim that formal or official guarantees of individual rights are irrelevant when individuals lack the material means to benefit from those rights and call for a greater role for government in the administration of economic affairs. Early liberals also laid the groundwork for the separation of church and state. As heirs of the Enlightenment, liberals believed that any given social and political order emanated from human interactions, not from divine will. Many liberals were openly hostile to religious belief but most concentrated their opposition to the union of religious and political authority, arguing that faith could prosper independently without official sponsorship or administration by the state.

Beyond identifying a clear role for government in modern society, liberals have also argued over the meaning and nature of the most important principle in liberal philosophy: liberty. From the 17th century until the 19th century, liberals (from Adam Smith to John Stuart Mill) conceptualised liberty as the absence of interference from government and other individuals, claiming that all people should have the freedom to develop their unique abilities and capacities without being sabotaged by others. Mill's On Liberty (1859), one of the classic texts in liberal philosophy, proclaimed, "the only freedom which deserves the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way". Support for laissez-faire capitalism is often associated with this principle, with Friedrich Hayek arguing in The Road to Serfdom (1944) that reliance on free markets would preclude totalitarian control by the state.

Coppet Group and Benjamin Constant

Madame de Staël

The development into maturity of modern classical in contrast to ancient liberalism took place before and soon after the French Revolution. One of the historic centres of this development was at Coppet Castle near Geneva, where the eponymous Coppet group gathered under the aegis of the exiled writer and salonnière, Madame de Staël, in the period between the establishment of Napoleon's First Empire (1804) and the Bourbon Restoration of 1814–1815. The unprecedented concentration of European thinkers who met there was to have a considerable influence on the development of nineteenth-century liberalism and, incidentally, romanticism. They included Wilhelm von Humboldt, Jean de Sismondi, Charles Victor de Bonstetten, Prosper de Barante, Henry Brougham, Lord Byron, Alphonse de Lamartine, Sir James Mackintosh, Juliette Récamier and August Wilhelm Schlegel.

Benjamin Constant, a Franco-Swiss political activist and theorist

Among them was also one of the first thinkers to go by the name of "liberal", the Edinburgh University-educated Swiss Protestant, Benjamin Constant, who looked to the United Kingdom rather than to ancient Rome for a practical model of freedom in a large mercantile society. He distinguished between the "Liberty of the Ancients" and the "Liberty of the Moderns". The Liberty of the Ancients was a participatory republican liberty, which gave the citizens the right to influence politics directly through debates and votes in the public assembly. In order to support this degree of participation, citizenship was a burdensome moral obligation requiring a considerable investment of time and energy. Generally, this required a sub-group of slaves to do much of the productive work, leaving citizens free to deliberate on public affairs. Ancient Liberty was also limited to relatively small and homogenous male societies, where they could congregate in one place to transact public affairs.

In contrast, the Liberty of the Moderns was based on the possession of civil liberties, the rule of law, and freedom from excessive state interference. Direct participation would be limited: a necessary consequence of the size of modern states and the inevitable result of creating a mercantile society where there were no slaves, but almost everybody had to earn a living through work. Instead, the voters would elect representatives who would deliberate in Parliament on the people's behalf and would save citizens from daily political involvement. The importance of Constant's writings on the liberty of the ancients and that of the "moderns" has informed the understanding of liberalism, as has his critique of the French Revolution. The British philosopher and historian of ideas, Sir Isaiah Berlin, has pointed to the debt owed to Constant.

British liberalism

Liberalism in Britain was based on core concepts such as classical economics, free trade, laissez-faire government with minimal intervention and taxation and a balanced budget. Classical liberals were committed to individualism, liberty and equal rights. Writers such as John Bright and Richard Cobden opposed aristocratic privilege and property, which they saw as an impediment to developing a class of yeoman farmers.

T. H. Green, an influential liberal philosopher who established in Prolegomena to Ethics (1884) the first major foundations for what later became known as positive liberty and in a few years, his ideas became the official policy of the Liberal Party in Britain, precipitating the rise of social liberalism and the modern welfare state

Beginning in the late 19th century, a new conception of liberty entered the liberal intellectual arena. This new kind of liberty became known as positive liberty to distinguish it from the prior negative version, and it was first developed by British philosopher T. H. Green. Green rejected the idea that humans were driven solely by self-interest, emphasising instead the complex circumstances involved in the evolution of our moral character. In a very profound step for the future of modern liberalism, he also tasked society and political institutions with the enhancement of individual freedom and identity and the development of moral character, will and reason and the state to create the conditions that allow for the above, allowing genuine choice. Foreshadowing the new liberty as the freedom to act rather than to avoid suffering from the acts of others, Green wrote the following:

If it were ever reasonable to wish that the usage of words had been other than it has been ... one might be inclined to wish that the term 'freedom' had been confined to the ... power to do what one wills.

Rather than previous liberal conceptions viewing society as populated by selfish individuals, Green viewed society as an organic whole in which all individuals have a duty to promote the common good. His ideas spread rapidly and were developed by other thinkers such as Leonard Trelawny Hobhouse and John A. Hobson. In a few years, this New Liberalism had become the essential social and political programme of the Liberal Party in Britain, and it would encircle much of the world in the 20th century. In addition to examining negative and positive liberty, liberals have tried to understand the proper relationship between liberty and democracy. As they struggled to expand suffrage rights, liberals increasingly understood that people left out of the democratic decision-making process were liable to the "tyranny of the majority", a concept explained in Mill's On Liberty and Democracy in America (1835) by Alexis de Tocqueville. As a response, liberals began demanding proper safeguards to thwart majorities in their attempts at suppressing the rights of minorities.

Besides liberty, liberals have developed several other principles important to the construction of their philosophical structure, such as equality, pluralism and tolerance. Highlighting the confusion over the first principle, Voltaire commented, "equality is at once the most natural and at times the most chimeral of things". All forms of liberalism assume in some basic sense that individuals are equal. In maintaining that people are naturally equal, liberals assume they all possess the same right to liberty. In other words, no one is inherently entitled to enjoy the benefits of liberal society more than anyone else, and all people are equal subjects before the law. Beyond this basic conception, liberal theorists diverge in their understanding of equality. American philosopher John Rawls emphasised the need to ensure equality under the law and the equal distribution of material resources that individuals required to develop their aspirations in life. Libertarian thinker Robert Nozick disagreed with Rawls, championing the former version of Lockean equality.

To contribute to the development of liberty, liberals also have promoted concepts like pluralism and tolerance. By pluralism, liberals refer to the proliferation of opinions and beliefs that characterise a stable social order. Unlike many of their competitors and predecessors, liberals do not seek conformity and homogeneity in how people think. Their efforts have been geared towards establishing a governing framework that harmonises and minimises conflicting views but still allows those views to exist and flourish. For liberal philosophy, pluralism leads easily to toleration. Since individuals will hold diverging viewpoints, liberals argue, they ought to uphold and respect the right of one another to disagree. From the liberal perspective, toleration was initially connected to religious toleration, with Baruch Spinoza condemning "the stupidity of religious persecution and ideological wars". Toleration also played a central role in the ideas of Kant and John Stuart Mill. Both thinkers believed that society would contain different conceptions of a good ethical life and that people should be allowed to make their own choices without interference from the state or other individuals.

Liberal economic theory

Main article: Economic liberalism
Monument to the liberals of the 19th century in Agra del Orzán neighborhood, La Coruña, Galicia, (Spain)

Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations, published in 1776, followed by the French liberal economist Jean-Baptiste Say's treatise on Political Economy published in 1803 and expanded in 1830 with practical applications, were to provide most of the ideas of economics until the publication of John Stuart Mill's Principles in 1848. Smith addressed the motivation for economic activity, the causes of prices and wealth distribution, and the policies the state should follow to maximise wealth.

Smith wrote that as long as supply, demand, prices and competition were left free of government regulation, the pursuit of material self-interest, rather than altruism, maximises society's wealth through profit-driven production of goods and services. An "invisible hand" directed individuals and firms to work toward the nation's good as an unintended consequence of efforts to maximise their gain. This provided a moral justification for accumulating wealth, which some had previously viewed as sinful.

Smith assumed that workers could be paid as low as was necessary for their survival, which David Ricardo and Thomas Robert Malthus later transformed into the "iron law of wages". His main emphasis was on the benefit of free internal and international trade, which he thought could increase wealth through specialisation in production. He also opposed restrictive trade preferences, state grants of monopolies and employers' organisations and trade unions. Government should be limited to defence, public works and the administration of justice, financed by taxes based on income. Smith was one of the progenitors of the idea, which was long central to classical liberalism and has resurfaced in the globalisation literature of the later 20th and early 21st centuries, that free trade promotes peace. Smith's economics was carried into practice in the 19th century with the lowering of tariffs in the 1820s, the repeal of the Poor Relief Act that had restricted the mobility of labour in 1834 and the end of the rule of the East India Company over India in 1858.

In his Treatise (Traité d'économie politique), Say states that any production process requires effort, knowledge and the "application" of the entrepreneur. He sees entrepreneurs as intermediaries in the production process who combine productive factors such as land, capital and labour to meet the consumers' demands. As a result, they play a central role in the economy through their coordinating function. He also highlights qualities essential for successful entrepreneurship and focuses on judgement, in that they have continued to assess market needs and the means to meet them. This requires an "unerring market sense". Say views entrepreneurial income primarily as the high revenue paid in compensation for their skills and expert knowledge. He does so by contrasting the enterprise and supply-of-capital functions, distinguishing the entrepreneur's earnings on the one hand and the remuneration of capital on the other. This differentiates his theory from that of Joseph Schumpeter, who describes entrepreneurial rent as short-term profits which compensate for high risk (Schumpeterian rent). Say himself also refers to risk and uncertainty along with innovation without analysing them in detail.

Say is also credited with Say's law, or the law of markets which may be summarised as "Aggregate supply creates its own aggregate demand", and "Supply creates its own demand", or "Supply constitutes its own demand" and "Inherent in supply is the need for its own consumption". The related phrase "supply creates its own demand" was coined by John Maynard Keynes, who criticized Say's separate formulations as amounting to the same thing. Some advocates of Say's law who disagree with Keynes have claimed that Say's law can be summarized more accurately as "production precedes consumption" and that what Say is stating is that for consumption to happen, one must produce something of value so that it can be traded for money or barter for consumption later. Say argues, "products are paid for with products" (1803, p. 153) or "a glut occurs only when too much resource is applied to making one product and not enough to another" (1803, pp. 178–179).

Related reasoning appears in the work of John Stuart Mill and earlier in that of his Scottish classical economist father, James Mill (1808). Mill senior restates Say's law in 1808: "production of commodities creates, and is the one and universal cause which creates a market for the commodities produced".

In addition to Smith's and Say's legacies, Thomas Malthus' theories of population and David Ricardo's Iron law of wages became central doctrines of classical economics. Meanwhile, Jean-Baptiste Say challenged Smith's labour theory of value, believing that prices were determined by utility and also emphasised the critical role of the entrepreneur in the economy. However, neither of those observations became accepted by British economists at the time. Malthus wrote An Essay on the Principle of Population in 1798, becoming a major influence on classical liberalism. Malthus claimed that population growth would outstrip food production because the population grew geometrically while food production grew arithmetically. As people were provided with food, they would reproduce until their growth outstripped the food supply. Nature would then provide a check to growth in the forms of vice and misery. No gains in income could prevent this, and any welfare for the poor would be self-defeating. The poor were, in fact, responsible for their problems which could have been avoided through self-restraint.

Several liberals, including Adam Smith and Richard Cobden, argued that the free exchange of goods between nations would lead to world peace. Smith argued that as societies progressed, the spoils of war would rise, but the costs of war would rise further, making war difficult and costly for industrialised nations. Cobden believed that military expenditures worsened the state's welfare and benefited a small but concentrated elite minority, combining his Little Englander beliefs with opposition to the economic restrictions of mercantilist policies. To Cobden and many classical liberals, those who advocated peace must also advocate free markets.

Utilitarianism was seen as a political justification for implementing economic liberalism by British governments, an idea dominating economic policy from the 1840s. Although utilitarianism prompted legislative and administrative reform, and John Stuart Mill's later writings foreshadowed the welfare state, it was mainly used as a premise for a laissez-faire approach. The central concept of utilitarianism, developed by Jeremy Bentham, was that public policy should seek to provide "the greatest happiness of the greatest number". While this could be interpreted as a justification for state action to reduce poverty, it was used by classical liberals to justify inaction with the argument that the net benefit to all individuals would be higher. His philosophy proved highly influential on government policy and led to increased Benthamite attempts at government social control, including Robert Peel's Metropolitan Police, prison reforms, the workhouses and asylums for the mentally ill.

Keynesian economics

Main article: Keynesian economics
John Maynard Keynes, one of the most influential economists of modern times and whose ideas, which are still widely felt, formalized modern liberal economic policy.

During the Great Depression, the English economist John Maynard Keynes (1883–1946) gave the definitive liberal response to the economic crisis. Keynes had been "brought up" as a classical liberal, but especially after World War I, became increasingly a welfare or social liberal. A prolific writer, among many other works, he had begun a theoretical work examining the relationship between unemployment, money and prices back in the 1920s. Keynes was deeply critical of the British government's austerity measures during the Great Depression. He believed budget deficits were a good thing, a product of recessions. He wrote: "For Government borrowing of one kind or another is nature's remedy, so to speak, for preventing business losses from being, in so severe a slump as the present one, so great as to bring production altogether to a standstill". At the height of the Great Depression in 1933, Keynes published The Means to Prosperity, which contained specific policy recommendations for tackling unemployment in a global recession, chiefly counter cyclical public spending. The Means to Prosperity contains one of the first mentions of the multiplier effect.

The Great Depression, with its periods of worldwide economic hardship, formed the backdrop against which the Keynesian Revolution took place (the image is Dorothea Lange's Migrant Mother depiction of destitute pea-pickers in California, taken in March 1936).

Keynes's magnum opus, The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, was published in 1936 and served as a theoretical justification for the interventionist policies Keynes favoured for tackling a recession. The General Theory challenged the earlier neo-classical economic paradigm, which had held that the market would naturally establish full employment equilibrium if it were unfettered by government interference. Classical economists believed in Say's law, which states that "supply creates its own demand" and that in a free market, workers would always be willing to lower their wages to a level where employers could profitably offer them jobs. An innovation from Keynes was the concept of price stickiness, i.e. the recognition that, in reality, workers often refuse to lower their wage demands even in cases where a classical economist might argue it is rational for them to do so. Due in part to price stickiness, it was established that the interaction of "aggregate demand" and "aggregate supply" may lead to stable unemployment equilibria, and in those cases, it is the state and not the market that economies must depend on for their salvation. The book advocated activist economic policy by the government to stimulate demand in times of high unemployment, for example, by spending on public works. In 1928, he wrote: "Let us be up and doing, using our idle resources to increase our wealth. ... With men and plants unemployed, it is ridiculous to say that we cannot afford these new developments. It is precisely with these plants and these men that we shall afford them". Where the market failed to allocate resources properly, the government was required to stimulate the economy until private funds could start flowing again—a "prime the pump" kind of strategy designed to boost industrial production.

Liberal feminist theory

Main article: Liberal feminism
Mary Wollstonecraft, widely regarded as the pioneer of liberal feminism

Liberal feminism, the dominant tradition in feminist history, is an individualistic form of feminist theory that focuses on women's ability to maintain their equality through their actions and choices. Liberal feminists hope to eradicate all barriers to gender equality, claiming that the continued existence of such barriers eviscerates the individual rights and freedoms ostensibly guaranteed by a liberal social order. They argue that society believes women are naturally less intellectually and physically capable than men; thus, it tends to discriminate against women in the academy, the forum and the marketplace. Liberal feminists believe that "female subordination is rooted in a set of customary and legal constraints that blocks women's entrance to and success in the so-called public world". They strive for sexual equality via political and legal reform.

British philosopher Mary Wollstonecraft (1759–1797) is widely regarded as the pioneer of liberal feminism, with A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792) expanding the boundaries of liberalism to include women in the political structure of liberal society. In her writings, such as A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, Wollstonecraft commented on society's view of women and encouraged women to use their voices in making decisions separate from those previously made for them. Wollstonecraft "denied that women are, by nature, more pleasure seeking and pleasure giving than men. She reasoned that if they were confined to the same cages that trap women, men would develop the same flawed characters. What Wollstonecraft most wanted for women was personhood".

John Stuart Mill was also an early proponent of feminism. In his article The Subjection of Women (1861, published 1869), Mill attempted to prove that the legal subjugation of women is wrong and that it should give way to perfect equality. He believed that both sexes should have equal rights under the law and that "until conditions of equality exist, no one can possibly assess the natural differences between women and men, distorted as they have been. What is natural to the two sexes can only be found out by allowing both to develop and use their faculties freely". Mill frequently spoke of this imbalance and wondered if women were able to feel the same "genuine unselfishness" that men did in providing for their families. This unselfishness Mill advocated is the one "that motivates people to take into account the good of society as well as the good of the individual person or small family unit". Like Mary Wollstonecraft, Mill compared sexual inequality to slavery, arguing that their husbands are often just as abusive as masters and that a human being controls nearly every aspect of life for another human being. In his book The Subjection of Women, Mill argues that three major parts of women's lives are hindering them: society and gender construction, education and marriage.

Equity feminism is a form of liberal feminism discussed since the 1980s, specifically a kind of classically liberal or libertarian feminism. Steven Pinker, an evolutionary psychologist, defines equity feminism as "a moral doctrine about equal treatment that makes no commitments regarding open empirical issues in psychology or biology". Barry Kuhle asserts that equity feminism is compatible with evolutionary psychology in contrast to gender feminism.

Social liberal theory

Main article: Social liberalism
Sismondi, who wrote the first critique of the free market from a liberal perspective in 1819

Jean Charles Léonard Simonde de Sismondi's New Principles of Political Economy (French: Nouveaux principes d'économie politique, ou de la richesse dans ses rapports avec la population) (1819) represents the first comprehensive liberal critique of early capitalism and laissez-faire economics, and his writings, which were studied by John Stuart Mill and Karl Marx among many others, had a profound influence on both liberal and socialist responses to the failures and contradictions of industrial society. By the end of the 19th century, the principles of classical liberalism were being increasingly challenged by downturns in economic growth, a growing perception of the evils of poverty, unemployment and relative deprivation present within modern industrial cities, as well as the agitation of organised labour. The ideal of the self-made individual who could make his or her place in the world through hard work and talent seemed increasingly implausible. A major political reaction against the changes introduced by industrialisation and laissez-faire capitalism came from conservatives concerned about social balance, although socialism later became a more important force for change and reform. Some Victorian writers, including Charles Dickens, Thomas Carlyle and Matthew Arnold, became early influential critics of social injustice.

New liberals began to adapt the old language of liberalism to confront these difficult circumstances, which they believed could only be resolved through a broader and more interventionist conception of the state. An equal right to liberty could not be established merely by ensuring that individuals did not physically interfere with each other or by having impartially formulated and applied laws. More positive and proactive measures were required to ensure that every individual would have an equal opportunity for success.

John Stuart Mill, whose On Liberty greatly influenced 19th-century liberalism

John Stuart Mill contributed enormously to liberal thought by combining elements of classical liberalism with what eventually became known as the new liberalism. Mill's 1859 On Liberty addressed the nature and limits of the power that can be legitimately exercised by society over the individual. He gave an impassioned defence of free speech, arguing that free discourse is a necessary condition for intellectual and social progress. Mill defined "social liberty" as protection from "the tyranny of political rulers". He introduced many different concepts of the form tyranny can take, referred to as social tyranny and tyranny of the majority. Social liberty meant limits on the ruler's power through obtaining recognition of political liberties or rights and establishing a system of "constitutional checks".

His definition of liberty, influenced by Joseph Priestley and Josiah Warren, was that the individual ought to be free to do as he wishes unless he harms others. However, although Mill's initial economic philosophy supported free markets and argued that progressive taxation penalised those who worked harder, he later altered his views toward a more socialist bent, adding chapters to his Principles of Political Economy in defence of a socialist outlook and defending some socialist causes, including the radical proposal that the whole wage system be abolished in favour of a co-operative wage system.

Another early liberal convert to greater government intervention was T. H. Green. Seeing the effects of alcohol, he believed that the state should foster and protect the social, political and economic environments in which individuals will have the best chance of acting according to their consciences. The state should intervene only where there is a clear, proven and strong tendency of liberty to enslave the individual. Green regarded the national state as legitimate only to the extent that it upholds a system of rights and obligations most likely to foster individual self-realisation.

The New Liberalism or social liberalism movement emerged in about 1900 in Britain. The New Liberals, including intellectuals like L. T. Hobhouse and John A. Hobson, saw individual liberty as something achievable only under favourable social and economic circumstances. In their view, the poverty, squalor and ignorance in which many people lived made it impossible for freedom and individuality to flourish. New Liberals believed these conditions could be ameliorated only through collective action coordinated by a strong, welfare-oriented, interventionist state. It supports a mixed economy that includes public and private property in capital goods.

Principles that can be described as social liberal have been based upon or developed by philosophers such as John Stuart Mill, Eduard Bernstein, John Dewey, Carlo Rosselli, Norberto Bobbio and Chantal Mouffe. Other important social liberal figures include Guido Calogero, Piero Gobetti, Leonard Trelawny Hobhouse and R. H. Tawney. Liberal socialism has been particularly prominent in British and Italian politics.

Anti-state liberal theory

See also: Polycentric law, Voluntaryism, Panarchy (political philosophy), Neoclassical liberalism, and Anarcho-capitalism
Gustave de Molinari
Julius Faucher

Classical liberalism advocates free trade under the rule of law. In contrast, the "anti-state liberal tradition", as described by Ralph Raico, was supportive of a system where law enforcement and the courts being provided by private companies, minimizing or rejecting the role of the state. Various theorists have espoused legal philosophies similar to anarcho-capitalism. One of the first liberals to discuss the possibility of privatizing the protection of individual liberty and property was the French philosopher Jakob Mauvillon in the 18th century. Later in the 1840s, Julius Faucher and Gustave de Molinari advocated the same. In his essay The Production of Security, Molinari argued: "No government should have the right to prevent another government from going into competition with it, or to require consumers of security to come exclusively to it for this commodity". Molinari and this new type of anti-state liberal grounded their reasoning on liberal ideals and classical economics. Historian and libertarian Ralph Raico argued that what these liberal philosophers "had come up with was a form of individualist anarchism, or, as it would be called today, anarcho-capitalism or market anarchism". Unlike the liberalism of Locke, which saw the state as evolving from society, the anti-state liberals saw a fundamental conflict between the voluntary interactions of people, i.e. society, and the institutions of force, i.e. the state. This society versus state idea was expressed in various ways: natural society vs artificial society, liberty vs authority, society of contract vs society of authority and industrial society vs militant society, to name a few. The anti-state liberal tradition in Europe and the United States continued after Molinari in the early writings of Herbert Spencer and thinkers such as Paul Émile de Puydt and Auberon Herbert. However, the first person to use the term anarcho-capitalism was Murray Rothbard. In the mid-20th century, Rothbard synthesized elements from the Austrian School of economics, classical liberalism and 19th-century American individualist anarchists Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker (while rejecting their labour theory of value and the norms they derived from it). Anarcho-capitalism advocates the elimination of the state in favour of individual sovereignty, private property and free markets. Anarcho-capitalists believe that in the absence of statute (law by decree or legislation), society would improve itself through the discipline of the free market (or what its proponents describe as a "voluntary society").

In a theoretical anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts and all other security services would be operated by privately funded competitors rather than centrally through taxation. Money and other goods and services would be privately and competitively provided in an open market. Anarcho-capitalists say personal and economic activities under anarcho-capitalism would be regulated by victim-based dispute resolution organizations under tort and contract law rather than by statute through centrally determined punishment under what they describe as "political monopolies". A Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist society would operate under a mutually agreed-upon libertarian "legal code which would be generally accepted, and which the courts would pledge themselves to follow". Although enforcement methods vary, this pact would recognize self-ownership and the non-aggression principle (NAP).

History

Main article: History of liberalism
This section may require cleanup to meet Misplaced Pages's quality standards. The specific problem is: Needs better presentation and content summarization. Please help improve this section if you can. (May 2017) (Learn how and when to remove this message)
John Locke was the first to develop a liberal philosophy, including the right to private property and the consent of the governed.

Isolated strands of liberal thought had existed in Eastern philosophy since the Chinese Spring and Autumn period and Western philosophy since the Ancient Greeks. The economist Murray Rothbard suggested that Chinese Taoist philosopher Laozi was the first libertarian, likening Laozi's ideas on government to Friedrich Hayek's theory of spontaneous order. These ideas were first drawn together and systematized as a distinct ideology by the English philosopher John Locke, generally regarded as the father of modern liberalism. The first major signs of liberal politics emerged in modern times. These ideas began to coalesce at the time of the English Civil War. The Levellers, a largely ignored minority political movement that primarily consisted of Puritans, Presbyterians, and Quakers, called for freedom of religion, frequent convening of parliament and equality under the law. The Glorious Revolution of 1688 enshrined parliamentary sovereignty and the right of revolution in Britain and was referred to by author Steven Pincus as the "first modern liberal revolution". The development of liberalism continued throughout the 18th century with the burgeoning Enlightenment ideals of the era. This period of profound intellectual vitality questioned old traditions and influenced several European monarchies throughout the 18th century. Political tension between England and its American colonies grew after 1765 and the Seven Years' War over the issue of taxation without representation, culminating in the American Revolutionary War and, eventually, the Declaration of Independence. After the war, the leaders debated about how to move forward. The Articles of Confederation, written in 1776, now appeared inadequate to provide security or even a functional government. The Confederation Congress called a Constitutional Convention in 1787, which resulted in the writing of a new Constitution of the United States establishing a federal government. In the context of the times, the Constitution was a republican and liberal document. It remains the oldest liberal governing document in effect worldwide.

Montesquieu, who argued for the separation of the powers of government

The two key events that marked the triumph of liberalism in France were the abolition of feudalism in France on the night of 4 August 1789, which marked the collapse of feudal and old traditional rights and privileges and restrictions, as well as the passage of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen in August, itself based on the U.S. Declaration of Independence from 1776. During the Napoleonic Wars, the French brought Western Europe the liquidation of the feudal system, the liberalization of property laws, the end of seigneurial dues, the abolition of guilds, the legalization of divorce, the disintegration of Jewish ghettos, the collapse of the Inquisition, the end of the Holy Roman Empire, the elimination of church courts and religious authority, the establishment of the metric system and equality under the law for all men. His most lasting achievement, the Civil Code, served as "an object of emulation all over the globe" but also perpetuated further discrimination against women under the banner of the "natural order".

The development into maturity of classical liberalism took place before and after the French Revolution in Britain. Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations, published in 1776, was to provide most of the ideas of economics, at least until the publication of John Stuart Mill's Principles in 1848. Smith addressed the motivation for economic activity, the causes of prices and wealth distribution, and the policies the state should follow to maximise wealth. The radical liberal movement began in the 1790s in England and concentrated on parliamentary and electoral reform, emphasizing natural rights and popular sovereignty. Radicals like Richard Price and Joseph Priestley saw parliamentary reform as a first step toward dealing with their many grievances, including the treatment of Protestant Dissenters, the slave trade, high prices and high taxes.

In Latin America, liberal unrest dates back to the 18th century, when liberal agitation in Latin America led to independence from the imperial power of Spain and Portugal. The new regimes were generally liberal in their political outlook and employed the philosophy of positivism, which emphasized the truth of modern science, to buttress their positions. In the United States, a vicious war ensured the integrity of the nation and the abolition of slavery in the South. Historian Don H. Doyle has argued that the Union victory in the American Civil War (1861–1865) greatly boosted the course of liberalism.

In the 19th century, English liberal political philosophers were the most influential in the global tradition of liberalism.

During the 19th and early 20th century, in the Ottoman Empire and the Middle East, liberalism influenced periods of reform, such as the Tanzimat and Al-Nahda; the rise of secularism, constitutionalism and nationalism; and different intellectuals and religious groups and movements, like the Young Ottomans and Islamic Modernism. Prominent of the era were Rifa'a al-Tahtawi, Namık Kemal and İbrahim Şinasi. However, the reformist ideas and trends did not reach the common population successfully, as the books, periodicals, and newspapers were accessible primarily to intellectuals and segments of the emerging middle class. Many Muslims saw them as foreign influences on the Muslim world. That perception complicated reformist efforts made by Middle Eastern states. These changes, along with other factors, helped to create a sense of crisis within Islam, which continues to this day. This led to Islamic revivalism.

The iconic painting Liberty Leading the People by Eugène Delacroix, a tableau of the July Revolution in 1830

Abolitionist and suffrage movements spread, along with representative and democratic ideals. France established an enduring republic in the 1870s. However, nationalism also spread rapidly after 1815. A mixture of liberal and nationalist sentiments in Italy and Germany brought about the unification of the two countries in the late 19th century. A liberal regime came to power in Italy and ended the secular power of the Popes. However, the Vatican launched a counter-crusade against liberalism. Pope Pius IX issued the Syllabus of Errors in 1864, condemning liberalism in all its forms. In many countries, liberal forces responded by expelling the Jesuit order. By the end of the nineteenth century, the principles of classical liberalism were being increasingly challenged, and the ideal of the self-made individual seemed increasingly implausible. Victorian writers like Charles Dickens, Thomas Carlyle and Matthew Arnold were early influential critics of social injustice.

As a liberal nationalist, K. J. Ståhlberg (1865–1952), the President of Finland, anchored the state in liberal democracy, guarded the fragile germ of the rule of law, and embarked on internal reforms.

Liberalism gained momentum at the beginning of the 20th century. The bastion of autocracy, the Russian Tsar, was overthrown in the first phase of the Russian Revolution. The Allied victory in the First World War and the collapse of four empires seemed to mark the triumph of liberalism across the European continent, not just among the victorious allies but also in Germany and the newly created states of Eastern Europe. Militarism, as typified by Germany, was defeated and discredited. As Blinkhorn argues, the liberal themes were ascendant in terms of "cultural pluralism, religious and ethnic toleration, national self-determination, free market economics, representative and responsible government, free trade, unionism, and the peaceful settlement of international disputes through a new body, the League of Nations".

In the Middle East, liberalism led to constitutional periods, like the Ottoman First and Second Constitutional Era and the Persian constitutional period, but it declined in the late 1930s due to the growth and opposition of Islamism and pan-Arab nationalism. However, many intellectuals advocated liberal values and ideas. Prominent liberals were Taha Hussein, Ahmed Lutfi el-Sayed, Tawfiq al-Hakim, Abd El-Razzak El-Sanhuri and Muhammad Mandur.

Franklin D. Roosevelt

In the United States, modern liberalism traces its history to the popular presidency of Franklin D. Roosevelt, who initiated the New Deal in response to the Great Depression and won an unprecedented four elections. The New Deal coalition established by Roosevelt left a strong legacy and influenced many future American presidents, including John F. Kennedy. Meanwhile, the definitive liberal response to the Great Depression was given by the British economist John Maynard Keynes, who had begun a theoretical work examining the relationship between unemployment, money and prices back in the 1920s. The worldwide Great Depression, starting in 1929, hastened the discrediting of liberal economics and strengthened calls for state control over economic affairs. Economic woes prompted widespread unrest in the European political world, leading to the rise of fascism as an ideology and a movement against liberalism and communism, especially in Nazi Germany and Italy. The rise of fascism in the 1930s eventually culminated in World War II, the deadliest conflict in human history. The Allies prevailed in the war by 1945, and their victory set the stage for the Cold War between the Communist Eastern Bloc and the liberal Western Bloc.

In Iran, liberalism enjoyed wide popularity. In April 1951, the National Front became the governing coalition when democratically elected Mohammad Mosaddegh, a liberal nationalist, took office as the Prime Minister. However, his way of governing conflicted with Western interests, and he was removed from power in a coup on 19 August 1953. The coup ended the dominance of liberalism in the country's politics.

Among the various regional and national movements, the civil rights movement in the United States during the 1960s strongly highlighted the liberal efforts for equal rights. The Great Society project launched by President Lyndon B. Johnson oversaw the creation of Medicare and Medicaid, the establishment of Head Start and the Job Corps as part of the War on Poverty and the passage of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, an altogether rapid series of events that some historians have dubbed the "Liberal Hour".

The 2017–2018 Russian protests were organized by Russia's liberal opposition.

The Cold War featured extensive ideological competition and several proxy wars, but the widely feared World War III between the Soviet Union and the United States never occurred. While communist states and liberal democracies competed against one another, an economic crisis in the 1970s inspired a move away from Keynesian economics, especially under Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom and Ronald Reagan in the United States. This trend, known as neoliberalism, constituted a paradigm shift away from the post-war Keynesian consensus, which lasted from 1945 to 1980. Meanwhile, nearing the end of the 20th century, communist states in Eastern Europe collapsed precipitously, leaving liberal democracies as the only major forms of government in the West.

At the beginning of World War II, the number of democracies worldwide was about the same as it had been forty years before. After 1945, liberal democracies spread very quickly but then retreated. In The Spirit of Democracy, Larry Diamond argues that by 1974 "dictatorship, not democracy, was the way of the world" and that "barely a quarter of independent states chose their governments through competitive, free, and fair elections". Diamond says that democracy bounced back, and by 1995 the world was "predominantly democratic". However, liberalism still faces challenges, especially with the phenomenal growth of China as a model combination of authoritarian government and economic liberalism.

Liberalism is frequently cited as the dominant ideology of the modern era.

Criticism and support

Execution of José María de Torrijos y Uriarte and his men in 1831 as Spanish King Ferdinand VII took repressive measures against the liberal forces in his country
Raif Badawi, a Saudi Arabian writer and the creator of the website Free Saudi Liberals, who was sentenced to ten years in prison and 1,000 lashes for "insulting Islam" in 2014

Liberalism has drawn criticism and support from various ideological groups throughout its history. Despite these complex relationships, some scholars have argued that liberalism actually "rejects ideological thinking" altogether, largely because such thinking could lead to unrealistic expectations for human society.

Conservatism

Conservatives have attacked what they perceive as the reckless liberal pursuit of progress and material gains, arguing that such preoccupations undermine traditional social values rooted in community and continuity. However, a few variations of conservatism, like liberal conservatism, expound some of the same ideas and principles championed by classical liberalism, including "small government and thriving capitalism".

The first major proponent of modern conservative thought, Edmund Burke, offered a blistering critique of the French Revolution by assailing the liberal pretensions to the power of rationality and the natural equality of all humans. Burke was, however, highly influential on other classical liberal thought, and has been praised by both conservatives and liberals alike.

In the book Why Liberalism Failed (2018), Patrick Deneen argued that liberalism has led to income inequality, cultural decline, atomization, nihilism, the erosion of freedoms, and the growth of powerful, centralized bureaucracies. The book also argues that liberalism has replaced old values of community, religion and tradition with self-interest.

Russian President Vladimir Putin believes that "liberalism has become obsolete" and claims that the vast majority of people in the world oppose multiculturalism, immigration, and civil and political rights for LGBTQ people.

Catholicism

See also: Integralism, Christian democracy, and Religious democracy

One of the most outspoken early critics of liberalism was the Roman Catholic Church, which resulted in lengthy power struggles between national governments and the Church.

A movement associated with modern democracy, Christian democracy, hopes to spread Catholic social ideas and has gained a large following in some European nations. The early roots of Christian democracy developed as a reaction against the industrialisation and urbanisation associated with laissez-faire liberalism in the 19th century.

Anarchism

Anarchists criticize the liberal social contract, arguing that it creates a state that is "oppressive, violent, corrupt, and inimical to liberty."

Marxism

Karl Marx rejected the foundational aspects of liberal theory, hoping to destroy both the state and the liberal distinction between society and the individual while fusing the two into a collective whole designed to overthrow the developing capitalist order of the 19th century.

Vladimir Lenin stated that—in contrast with Marxism—liberal science defends wage slavery. However, some proponents of liberalism, such as Thomas Paine, George Henry Evans, and Silvio Gesell, were critics of wage slavery.

Deng Xiaoping believed that liberalization would destroy the political stability of the People’s Republic of China and the Chinese Communist Party, making it difficult for development to take place, and is inherently capitalistic. He termed it "bourgeois liberalization". Thus, some socialists accuse the economic doctrines of liberalism, such as individual economic freedom, of giving rise to what they view as a system of exploitation that goes against the democratic principles of liberalism, while some liberals oppose the wage slavery that the economic doctrines of capitalism allow.

Feminism

Some feminists argue that liberalism's emphasis on distinguishing between the private and public spheres in society "allow the flourishing of bigotry and intolerance in the private sphere and to require respect for equality only in the public sphere", making "liberalism vulnerable to the right-wing populist attack. Political liberalism has rejected the feminist call to recognize that the personal is political and has relied on political institutions and processes as barriers against illiberalism."

Islam

Liberalism within Islam is supported by some Islamic schools and branches. The Al-Baqara 256 verse in Quran supports liberalism by stating "there is no compulsion in religion". Islamic supremacism, which includes criminal punishment of apostasy in Islam up to capital punishment, opposes liberalism.

Social democracy

Social democracy is an ideology that advocates for the reform of capitalism in a progressive manner. It emerged in the 20th century and was influenced by socialism. Social democracy aims to address what it perceives as the inherent flaws of capitalism through government reform, with a focus on reducing inequality. Importantly, social democracy does not oppose the state's existence. Several commentators have noted strong similarities between social liberalism and social democracy, with one political scientist calling American liberalism "bootleg social democracy" due to the absence of a significant social democratic tradition in the United States.

Fascism

Fascists accuse liberalism of materialism and a lack of spiritual values. In particular, fascism opposes liberalism for its materialism, rationalism, individualism and utilitarianism. Fascists believe that the liberal emphasis on individual freedom produces national divisiveness, but many fascists agree with liberals in their support of private property rights and a market economy.

See also

References

Notes

  1. "liberalism In general, the belief that it is the aim of politics to preserve individual rights and to maximize freedom of choice." Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics, Iain McLean and Alistair McMillan, Third edition 2009, ISBN 978-0-19-920516-5.
  2. Dunn, John (1993). Western Political Theory in the Face of the Future. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-43755-4. political rationalism, hostility to autocracy, cultural distaste for conservatism and for tradition in general, tolerance, and ... individualism.
  3. Generally support:
  4. ^ Wolfe, p. 23.
  5. ^ Adams, Ian (2001). "2: Liberalism and democracy". Political Ideology Today. Politics Today (Second ed.). Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press. ISBN 0-7190-6019-2.
  6. ^ Gould, p. 3.
  7. Locke, John. Second Treatise of Government. All mankind ... being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions
  8. Kirchner, p. 3.
  9. Pincus, Steven (2009). 1688: The First Modern Revolution. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-15605-8. Retrieved 7 February 2013.
  10. Zafirovski, Milan (2007). Liberal Modernity and Its Adversaries: Freedom, Liberalism and Anti-Liberalism in the 21st Century. Brill. p. 237. ISBN 978-90-04-16052-1 – via Google Books.
  11. Eddy, Matthew Daniel (2017). "The Politics of Cognition: Liberalism and the Evolutionary Origins of Victorian Education". British Journal for the History of Science. 50 (4): 677–699. doi:10.1017/S0007087417000863. ISSN 0007-0874. PMID 29019300.
  12. Koerner, Kirk F. (1985). Liberalism and Its Critics. London: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-429-27957-7 – via Google Books.
  13. Conway, Martin (2014). "The Limits of an Anti-liberal Europe". In Gosewinkel, Dieter (ed.). Anti-liberal Europe: A Neglected Story of Europeanization. Berghahn Books. p. 184. ISBN 978-1-78238-426-7 – via Google Books. Liberalism, liberal values and liberal institutions formed an integral part of that process of European consolidation. Fifteen years after the end of the Second World War, the liberal and democratic identity of Western Europe had been reinforced on almost all sides by the definition of the West as a place of freedom. Set against the oppression in the Communist East, by the slow development of a greater understanding of the moral horror of Nazism, and by the engagement of intellectuals and others with the new states (and social and political systems) emerging in the non-European world to the South.
  14. Stern, Sol (Winter, 2010) "The Ramparts I Watched." City Journal.
  15. Fukuyama, Francis (1989). "The End of History?". The National Interest (16): 3–18. ISSN 0884-9382. JSTOR 24027184.
  16. Worell, Judith. Encyclopedia of women and gender, Volume I. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 2001. ISBN 0-12-227246-3
  17. "Liberalism in America: A Note for Europeans" Archived 12 February 2018 at the Wayback Machine by Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr. (1956) from: The Politics of Hope (Boston: Riverside Press, 1962). "Liberalism in the U.S. usage has little in common with the word as used in the politics of any other country, save possibly Britain."
  18. ^ Gross, p. 5.
  19. Kirchner, pp. 2–3.
  20. Palmer and Colton, p. 479.
  21. Kirchner, Emil J. (1988). Liberal Parties in Western Europe. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-32394-9. "Liberal parties were among the first political parties to form, and their long-serving and influential records, as participants in parliaments and governments, raise important questions ... ."
  22. Adams, Sean; Morioka, Noreen; Stone, Terry Lee (2006). Color Design Workbook: A Real World Guide to Using Color in Graphic Design. Gloucester, Mass.: Rockport Publishers. pp. 86. ISBN 1-59253-192-X. OCLC 60393965.
  23. Kumar, Rohit Vishal; Joshi, Radhika (October–December 2006). "Colour, Colour Everywhere: In Marketing Too". SCMS Journal of Indian Management. 3 (4): 40–46. ISSN 0973-3167. SSRN 969272.
  24. Cassel-Picot, Muriel "The Liberal Democrats and the Green Cause: From Yellow to Green" in Leydier, Gilles and Martin, Alexia (2013) Environmental Issues in Political Discourse in Britain and Ireland. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. p.105 Archived 6 December 2022 at the Wayback Machine. ISBN 9781443852838
  25. Adams, Sean; Morioka, Noreen; Stone, Terry Lee (2006). Color Design Workbook: A Real World Guide to Using Color in Graphic Design. Gloucester, Mass.: Rockport Publishers. pp. 86. ISBN 159253192X. OCLC 60393965.
  26. "Content". Parties and Elections in Europe. 2020.
  27. Puddington, p. 142. "After a dozen years of centre-left Liberal Party rule, the Conservative Party emerged from the 2006 parliamentary elections with a plurality and established a fragile minority government."
  28. Grigsby, pp. 106–07. "Its liberalism is, for the most part, the later version of liberalism – modern liberalism."
  29. Arnold, p. 3. "Modern liberalism occupies the left-of-center in the traditional political spectrum and is represented by the Democratic Party in the United States."
  30. Cayla, David, ed. (2021). Populism and Neoliberalism. Routledge. p. 62. ISBN 9781000366709 – via Google Books.
  31. Slomp, Hans, ed. (2011). Europe, A Political Profile: An American Companion to European Politics, Volume 1. ABC-CLIO. pp. 106–108. ISBN 9780313391811 – via Google Books.
  32. De Ruggiero, Guido (1959). The History of European Liberalism. pp. 155–157.
  33. "Liberalism". Encyclopædia Britannica.
  34. Pease, Donald E.; Wiegman, Robyn (eds.) (2002). The Futures of American Studies. Duke University Press. p. 518.
  35. Pena, David S. (2001). Economic Barbarism and Managerialism. p. 35.
  36. Rothbard, Murray (2006) . "The Libertarian Heritage: The American Revolution and Classical Liberalism". For a New Liberty: The Libertarian Manifesto. Mises Institute. Archived 18 June 2015 at the Wayback Machine. Retrieved 18 June 2015 – via LewRockewell.com
  37. "The failure of American political speech". The Economist. 6 January 2012. ISSN 0013-0613. Retrieved 1 September 2022.
  38. Jeffries, John W. (1990). "The "New" New Deal: FDR and American Liberalism, 1937–1945". Political Science Quarterly. 105 (3): 397–418. doi:10.2307/2150824. JSTOR 2150824.
  39. "Coretta's Big Dream: Coretta Scott King on Gay Rights". HuffPost. 31 January 2013. Retrieved 21 June 2023.
  40. "Deep partisan divide on whether greater acceptance of transgender people is good for society".
  41. "Classical liberalism". www.britannica.com. Encyclopædia Britannica. 6 September 2023. Retrieved 17 October 2023.
  42. Dickerson, M. O.; Flanagan, Thomas; O'Neill, Brenda (2009). An Introduction to Government and Politics: A Conceptual Approach. p. 129.
  43. Richardson 2001, p. 52.
  44. Goldfarb, Michael (20 July 2010). "Liberal? Are we talking about the same thing?". BBC News. Retrieved 6 August 2020.
  45. Greenberg, David (12 September 2019). "The danger of confusing liberals and leftists". The Washington Post. Retrieved 6 August 2020.
  46. Douma, Michael (2018). What is Classical Liberal History?. Lexington Books. ISBN 978-1-4985-3610-3.
  47. Dickerson, Flanagan & O'Neill 2009, p. 129.
  48. Renshaw, Catherine (18 March 2014). "What is a 'classical liberal' approach to human rights?". The Conversation. Retrieved 12 August 2022.
  49. Steven M. Dworetz (1994). The Unvarnished Doctrine: Locke, Liberalism, and the American Revolution.
  50. Appleby, Joyce (1992). Liberalism and Republicanism in the Historical Imagination. Harvard University Press. p. 58. ISBN 978-0674530133.
  51. Dilley, Stephen C. (2 May 2013). Darwinian Evolution and Classical Liberalism: Theories in Tension. Lexington Books. pp. 13–14. ISBN 978-0-7391-8107-2.
  52. Peters, Michael A. (16 April 2022). "Hayek as classical liberal public intellectual: Neoliberalism, the privatization of public discourse and the future of democracy". Educational Philosophy and Theory. 54 (5): 443–449. doi:10.1080/00131857.2019.1696303. ISSN 0013-1857. S2CID 213420239.
  53. Mayne, Alan James (1999). From Politics Past to Politics Future: An Integrated Analysis of Current and Emergent Paradigmss. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 124–125. ISBN 0275961516.
  54. Ishiyama, John T.; Breuning, Marijke; et al. (Ellen Grigsby) (2011). "Neoclassical liberals". 21st Century Political Science A Reference Handbook. SAGE Publications, Inc. pp. 596–603. ISBN 978-1-4129 6901-7.
  55. Wright, Edmund, ed. (2006). The Desk Encyclopedia of World History. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 370. ISBN 978-0-7394-7809-7.
  56. Goodman, John C. "Classical Liberalism vs. Modern Liberalism and Modern Conservatism". Goodman Institute. Retrieved 2 January 2022.
  57. "Libertarianism vs. Classical Liberalism: Is there a Difference?". Reason.com. 6 April 2023. Retrieved 22 September 2023.
  58. Klein, Daniel B. (3 May 2017). "Libertarianism and Classical Liberalism: A Short Introduction | Daniel B. Klein". fee.org. Retrieved 8 March 2022.
  59. ^ Bevir, Mark (2010). Encyclopedia of Political Theory: A–E, Volume 1. SAGE Publications. p. 164. ISBN 978-1-4129-5865-3. Retrieved 19 May 2017 – via Google Books.
  60. ^ Fung, Edmund S. K. (2010). The Intellectual Foundations of Chinese Modernity: Cultural and Political Thought in the Republican Era. Cambridge University Press. p. 130. ISBN 978-1-139-48823-5. Retrieved 16 May 2017 – via Google Books.
  61. Antoninus, p. 3.
  62. Young 2002, pp. 25–26.
  63. ^ Young 2002, p. 24.
  64. Young 2002, p. 25.
  65. ^ Gray, p. xii.
  66. Wolfe, pp. 33–36.
  67. Young 2002, p. 45.
  68. ^ Taverne, p. 18.
  69. ^ Godwin et al., p. 12.
  70. Copleston, Frederick. A History of Philosophy: Volume V. New York: Doubleday, 1959. ISBN 0-385-47042-8 pp. 39–41.
  71. Young 2002, pp. 30–31
  72. Locke, John (1947). Two Treatises of Government. New York: Hafner Publishing Company.
  73. Forster, p. 219.
  74. Zvesper, Dr John (4 March 1993). Nature and Liberty. Routledge. p. 93. ISBN 9780415089234.
  75. Copleston, Frederick. A History of Philosophy: Volume V. New York: Doubleday, 1959. ISBN 0-385-47042-8, p. 33.
  76. ^ Kerber, Linda (1976). "The Republican Mother: Women and the Enlightenment-An American Perspective". American Quarterly. 28 (2): 187–205. doi:10.2307/2712349. JSTOR 2712349.
  77. Feldman, Noah (2005). Divided by God. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, p. 29 ("It took John Locke to translate the demand for liberty of conscience into a systematic argument for distinguishing the realm of government from the realm of religion.")
  78. Feldman, Noah (2005). Divided by God. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, p. 29
  79. McGrath, Alister. 1998. Historical Theology, An Introduction to the History of Christian Thought. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. pp. 214–15.
  80. Bornkamm, Heinrich (1962), "Toleranz. In der Geschichte des Christentums", Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart (in German), 3. Auflage, Band VI, col. 942
  81. Hunter, William Bridges. A Milton Encyclopedia, Volume 8 (East Brunswick, NJ: Associated University Presses, 1980). pp. 71, 72. ISBN 0-8387-1841-8.
  82. Wertenbruch, W (1960), "Menschenrechte", Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart (in German), Tübingen, DE{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link), 3. Auflage, Band IV, col. 869
  83. ^ Young 2002, p. 30.
  84. ^ Young 2002, p. 31.
  85. Young 2002, p. 32.
  86. Young 2002, pp. 32–33.
  87. ^ Gould, p. 4.
  88. ^ Young 2002, p. 33.
  89. Wolfe, p. 74.
  90. Tenenbaum, Susan (1980). "The Coppet Circle. Literary Criticism as Political Discourse". History of Political Thought. 1 (2): 453–473.
  91. Lefevere, Andre (2016). Translation, Rewriting, and the Manipulation of Literary Fame. Taylor & Francis. p. 109.
  92. Fairweather, Maria (2013). Madame de Stael. Little, Brown Book Group.
  93. Hofmann, Etienne; Rosset, François (2005). Le Groupe de Coppet. Une constellation d'intellectuels européens. Presses polytechniques et universitaires romandes.
  94. Jaume, Lucien (2000). Coppet, creuset de l'esprit libéral: Les idées politiques et constitutionnelles du Groupe de Madame de Staël. Presses Universitaires d'Aix-Marseille. p. 10.
  95. Delon, Michel (1996). "Le Groupe de Coppet". In Francillon, Roger (ed.). Histoire de la littérature en Suisse romande t.1. Payot.
  96. "The Home of French Liberalism". The Coppet Institute. Retrieved 20 February 2020.
  97. Kete, Kathleen (2012). Making Way for Genius: The Aspiring Self in France from the Old Regime to the New. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-17482-3.
  98. ^ "Constant, Benjamin, 1988, 'The Liberty of the Ancients Compared with that of the Moderns' (1819), in The Political Writings of Benjamin Constant, ed. Biancamaria Fontana, Cambridge, pp. 309–28". Uark.edu. Archived from the original on 5 August 2012. Retrieved 17 September 2013.
  99. Bertholet, Auguste (2021). "Constant, Sismondi et la Pologne". Annales Benjamin Constant. 46: 65–76.
  100. Hofmann, Étienne, ed. (1982). Benjamin Constant, Madame de Staël et le Groupe de Coppet: Actes du Deuxième Congrès de Lausanne à l'occasion du 150e anniversaire de la mort de Benjamin Constant Et Du Troisième Colloque de Coppet, 15–19 juilliet 1980 (in French). Oxford, The Voltaire Foundation and Lausanne, Institut Benjamin Constant. ISBN 0-7294-0280-0.
  101. Rosen, Frederick (2005). Classical Utilitarianism from Hume to Mill. Routledge. p. 251. According to Berlin, the most eloquent of all defenders of freedom and privacy Benjamin Constant, who had not forgotten the Jacobin dictatorship.
  102. ^ Vincent, Andrew (1992). Modern Political Ideologies. Oxford, UK, & Cambridge, US: Blackwell. pp. 29–30. ISBN 0-631-16451-0.
  103. ^ Adams, Ian (1998). "New Liberals to Liberal Democrats". Ideology and Politics in Britain Today. Politics Today. Manchester & New York: Manchester University Press. ISBN 0-7190-5055-3.
  104. Wempe, p. 123.
  105. ^ Young 2002, p. 36.
  106. Wolfe, p. 63.
  107. Young 2002, p. 39.
  108. Young 2002, pp. 39–40.
  109. ^ Young 2002, p. 40.
  110. Young 2002, pp. 42–43.
  111. Young 2002, p. 43.
  112. ^ Young 2002, p. 44.
  113. ^ Mills, John (2002). A Critical History of Economics. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 0-333-97130-2.
  114. The Wealth of Nations Archived 6 December 2022 at the Wayback Machine, Strahan and Cadell, 1778
  115. See, e.g., Donald Markwell, John Maynard Keynes and International Relations: Economic Paths to War and Peace, Oxford University Press, 2006, chapter 1.
  116. (Clower 2004, p. 92)
  117. Bylund, Per. "Say's Law (the Law of Markets)" Archived 8 March 2021 at the Wayback Machine.
  118. "Information on Jean-Baptiste Say".Archived 26 March 2009 at the Wayback Machine
  119. Mill, James (1808). "VI: Consumption". Commerce Defended. p. 81. Archived from the original on 24 February 2021.
  120. Erik Gartzke, "Economic Freedom and Peace", in Economic Freedom of the World: 2005 Annual Report (Vancouver: Fraser Institute, 2005). Archived 27 December 2018 at the Wayback Machine.
  121. Michael Doyle, Ways of War and Peace: Realism, Liberalism, and Socialism (New York: Norton, 1997), p. 237 (ISBN 0-393-96947-9).
  122. Howe, Anthony; Morgan, Simon (2006). Rethinking nineteenth-century liberalism: Richard Cobden bicentenary essays. Ashgate Publishing. pp. 231, 239. ISBN 978-0-7546-5572-5 – via Google Books.
  123. ^ Richardson, James L. (2001). Contending Liberalisms in World Politics: Ideology and Power. Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers. ISBN 155587939X.
  124. See studies of Keynes by, e.g., Roy Harrod, Robert Skidelsky, Donald Moggridge, and Donald Markwell.
  125. Pressman, Steven (1999). Fifty Great Economists. London: Routledge. pp. 96–100. ISBN 978-0-415-13481-1.
  126. ^ Cassidy, John (10 October 2011). "The Demand Doctor". The New Yorker.
  127. Skidelsky, Robert (2003). John Maynard Keynes: 1883–1946: Economist, Philosopher, Statesman. Pan MacMillan Ltd. pp. 494–500, 504, 509–510. ISBN 978-0-330-48867-9.
  128. Tribe, Keith (1997). Economic careers: economics and economists in Britain, 1930–1970. p. 61.
  129. Palmer and Colton, p. 808.
  130. Jensen, p. 2.
  131. ^ Tong, Rosemarie. 1989. Feminist Thought: A Comprehensive Introduction. Oxon, United Kingdom: Unwin Human Ltd. Chapter 1
  132. Falco, pp. 47–48.
  133. John Stuart Mill: critical assessments, Volume 4, By John Cunningham Wood
  134. Mill, J.S. (1869) The Subjection of Women Archived 29 April 2015 at the Wayback Machine, Chapter 1
  135. Mill, John Stuart (1869). The Subjection of Women (1869 first ed.). London: Longmans, Green, Reader & Dyer. Retrieved 10 December 2012.
  136. Brink, David (9 October 2007). "Mill's Moral and Political Philosophy". Stanford University. Retrieved 1 October 2016.
  137. Black, Naomi (1989). Social Feminism. Cornell University Press. ISBN 9780801422614 – via Google Books.
  138. Halfmann, Jost (1989). "3. Social Change and Political Mobilization in West Germany". In Katzenstein, Peter J. (ed.). Industry and Politics in West Germany: Toward the Third Republic. Cornell University Press. p. 79. ISBN 978-0-8014-9595-3 – via Google Books. Equity-feminism differs from equality-feminism
  139. "Liberal Feminism". Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 18 October 2007. Retrieved 24 February 2016. (revised 30 September 2013)
  140. Pinker, Steven (2002). The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature. Viking. p. 341. ISBN 0-670-03151-8.
  141. Kuhle, Barry X. (2011). "Evolutionary psychology is compatible with equity feminism". Evolutionary Psychology. Archived from the original on 16 January 2012.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link)
  142. Stewart, Ross E. (1984). "Sismondi's Forgotten Ethical Critique of Early Capitalism". Journal of Business Ethics. 3 (3): 227–234. doi:10.1007/BF00382924. S2CID 154967384.
  143. Spiegel, Henry William (1991). The Growth of Economic Thought. Duke University Press. pp. 302–303.
  144. Stedman Jones, Gareth (2006). "Saint-Simon and the Liberal origins of the Socialist critique of Political Economy". In Aprile, Sylvie; Bensimon, Fabrice (eds.). La France et l'Angleterre au XIXe siècle. Échanges, représentations, comparaisons. Créaphis. pp. 21–47.
  145. Eatwell, Roger; Wright, Anthony (1999). Contemporary political ideologies. Continuum International Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0-8264-5173-6.
  146. Mill, John Stuart (2006). On Liberty. Penguin Classics. pp. 90–91. ISBN 978-0-14-144147-4.
  147. Mill, John Stuart (2006). On Liberty. Penguin Classics. pp. 10–11. ISBN 978-0-14-144147-4.
  148. John Stuart Mill (1806–1873), "The Contest in America". Harper's New Monthly Magazine. Volume 24. Issue 143. pp. 683–684. Harper & Bros. New York. April 1862. Cornell.edu.
  149. IREF | Pour la liberte economique et la concurrence fiscale (PDF) Archived 27 March 2009 at the Wayback Machine
  150. Mill, John Stuart; Bentham, Jeremy (2004). Ryan, Alan (ed.). Utilitarianism and other essays. London: Penguin Books. p. 11. ISBN 978-0-14-043272-5.
  151. Nicholson, P. P., "T. H. Green and State Action: Liquor Legislation", History of Political Thought, 6 (1985), 517–50. Reprinted in A. Vincent, ed., The Philosophy of T. H. Green (Aldershot: Gower, 1986), pp. 76–103
  152. Michael Freeden, The New Liberalism: An Ideology of Social Reform (Oxford UP, 1978).
  153. The Routledge Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, p. 599
  154. Pugliese, Stanislao G. (1999). Carlo Rosselli: socialist heretic and antifascist exile. Harvard University Press. p. 99. ISBN 9780674000537.
  155. Thompson, Noel W. (2006). Political economy and the Labour Party: the economics of democratic socialism, 1884–2005 (2nd ed.). Oxon, England; New York, New York: Routledge. pp. 60–61.
  156. Nadia Urbinati. J.S. Mill's political thought: a bicentennial reassessment Archived 6 December 2022 at the Wayback Machine. Cambridge, England, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2007 p. 101.
  157. ^ Steve Bastow, James Martin. Third way discourse: European ideologies in the twentieth century Archived 27 December 2018 at the Wayback Machine. Edinburgh, Scotland, UK: Edinburgh University Press, Ltd, 2003. p. 72.
  158. Raico, Ralph (2004) Authentic German Liberalism of the 19th century Archived 10 June 2009 at the Wayback Machine Ecole Polytechnique, Centre de Recherce en Epistemologie Appliquee Archived 10 June 2009 at the Wayback Machine, Unité associée au CNRS
  159. Molinari, Gustave de (1849) The Production of Security Archived 27 September 2007 at the Wayback Machine (trans. J. Huston McCulloch). Retrieved 15 July 2006.
  160. "A student and disciple of the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises, Rothbard combined the laissez-faire economics of his teacher with the absolutist views of human rights and rejection of the state he had absorbed from studying the individualist American anarchists of the 19th century such as Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker." Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Thought, 1987, ISBN 978-0-631-17944-3, p. 290
  161. Morris, Andrew (2008). "Anarcho-Capitalism". In Hamowy, Ronald (ed.). The Encyclopedia of Libertarianism. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE; Cato Institute. pp. 13–14. doi:10.4135/9781412965811.n8. ISBN 978-1-4129-6580-4. LCCN 2008009151. OCLC 750831024.
  162. Edward Stringham, Anarchy and the law: the political economy of choice, p. 51 Archived 6 December 2022 at the Wayback Machine.
  163. "Review of Kosanke's Instead of Politics – Don Stacy" Archived 1 October 2018 at the Wayback Machine Libertarian Papers VOL. 3, ART. NO. 3 (2011)
  164. Rothbard, Murray. For A New Liberty. 12 The Public Sector, III: Police, Law, and the Courts Archived 13 December 2011 at the Wayback Machine
  165. ^ Rothbard, Murray (2005). Excerpt from "Concepts of the Role of Intellectuals in Social Change Toward Laissez Faire", The Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. IX, No. 2 (Fall 1990) at mises.org Archived 8 November 2014 at the Wayback Machine
  166. Rothbard, Murray (2005). "The Ancient Chinese Libertarian Tradition", Mises Daily, (5 December 2005) (original source unknown) at mises.org Archived 8 November 2014 at the Wayback Machine
  167. Pincus, Steven (2009). 1688: The First Modern Revolution. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-15605-8. Retrieved 7 February 2013.
  168. Roberts, J.M. The Penguin History of the World. New York: Penguin Group, 1992. ISBN 0-19-521043-3 p. 701.
  169. Zafirovski, Milan (2007). Liberal Modernity and Its Adversaries: Freedom, Liberalism and Anti-Liberalism in the 21st Century. Brill. pp. 237–38. ISBN 978-90-04-16052-1 – via Google Books.
  170. Meacham, Jon (2014). Thomas Jefferson: President and Philosopher. Random House. p. 131. ISBN 978-0-385-38751-4.
  171. Palmer and Colton, pp. 428–29.
  172. Lyons, p. 94.
  173. Lyons, pp. 98–102.
  174. Turner, p. 86
  175. Ardao, Arturo (1963). "Assimilation and Transformation of Positivism in Latin America" (PDF). Journal of the History of Ideas. 24 (4): 515–522. doi:10.2307/2707981. JSTOR 2707981. Archived from the original on 12 February 2015.
  176. Doyle, Don H. (2014). The Cause of All Nations: An International History of the American Civil War.
  177. Caldwell, Wallace E.; Merrill, Edward H. (1964). History of the World. Vol. 1. United States: The Greystone Press. p. 428.
  178. Abdelmoula, Ezzeddine (2015). Al Jazeera and Democratization: The Rise of the Arab Public Sphere. Routledge. pp. 50–52. ISBN 978-1-317-51847-1. Retrieved 7 May 2017 – via Google Books.
  179. Roderic. H. Davison, Essays in Ottoman and Turkish History, 1774–1923 – The Impact of the West, University of Texas Press, 1990, pp. 115-116.
  180. ^ Lindgren, Allana; Ross, Stephen (2015). The Modernist World. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-69616-2. Retrieved 6 May 2017 – via Google Books.
  181. "Edustajamatrikkeli" (in Finnish). Eduskunta. Archived from the original on 12 February 2012.
  182. Mononen, Juha (2 February 2009). "War or Peace for Finland? Neoclassical Realist Case Study of Finnish Foreign Policy in the Context of the Anti-Bolshevik Intervention in Russia 1918–1920". University of Tampere. Archived from the original on 7 June 2015. Retrieved 25 August 2020.
  183. Kurzman, Charles (1998). Liberal Islam: A Source Book. Oxford University Press. p. 10. ISBN 978-0-19-511622-9. Retrieved 25 May 2017.
  184. Moaddel, Mansoor (2005). Islamic Modernism, Nationalism, and Fundamentalism: Episode and Discourse. University of Chicago Press. p. 4. ISBN 978-0-226-53333-9.
  185. Lapidus, Ira Marvin (2002). A History of Islamic Societies. Cambridge University Press. p. 496. ISBN 978-0-521-77933-3.
  186. Lorentz, John H. (2010). The A to Z of Iran. Scarecrow Press. p. 224. ISBN 978-1-4617-3191-7. Retrieved 9 May 2017.
  187. Hanssen, Jens; Weiss, Max (2016). Arabic Thought beyond the Liberal Age: Towards an Intellectual History of the Nahda. Cambridge University Press. p. 299. ISBN 978-1-107-13633-5. Retrieved 10 May 2017.
  188. Alterman, p. 32.
  189. Pressman, Steven (1999). Fifty Great Economists. London: London: routledge. pp. 96–100. ISBN 978-0-415-13481-1.
  190. Heywood, pp. 218–26.
  191. James Risen (16 April 2000). "Secrets of History: The C.I.A. in Iran". The New York Times. Retrieved 3 November 2006.
  192. Clandestine Service History: Overthrow of Premier Mossadeq of Iran (March 1954). p. iii.
  193. Ends of British Imperialism: The Scramble for Empire, Suez, and Decolonization. I.B.Tauris. 2007. pp. 775 of 1082. ISBN 978-1-84511-347-6.
  194. Bryne, Malcolm (18 August 2013). "CIA Admits It Was Behind Iran's Coup". Foreign Policy.
  195. The CIA's history of the 1953 coup in Iran is made up of the following documents: a historian's note, a summary introduction, a lengthy narrative account written by Donald N. Wilber and as appendices five planning documents he attached. Published on 18 June 2000 under the title "The C.I.A. in Iran" Archived 25 January 2013 at the Wayback Machine by The New York Times.
  196. Mackenzie and Weisbrot, p. 178.
  197. Mackenzie and Weisbrot, p. 5.
  198. Palley, Thomas I (5 May 2004). "From Keynesianism to Neoliberalism: Shifting Paradigms in Economics". Foreign Policy in Focus. Retrieved 25 March 2017.
  199. Vincent, Andrew (2009). Modern Political Ideologies. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley-Blackwell. p. 339. ISBN 978-1-4051-5495-6.
  200. Colomer, Josep Maria. Great Empires, Small Nations. New York: Routledge, 2007. ISBN 0-415-43775-X, p. 62.
  201. Larry Diamond (2008). The Spirit of Democracy: The Struggle to Build Free Societies Throughout the World. Henry Holt. p. 7. ISBN 978-0-8050-7869-5.
  202. "Freedom in the World 2016". Freedom House. 27 January 2016.
  203. Peerenboom, Randall. China modernizes. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. ISBN 0-19-920834-4, pp. 7–8.
  204. Wolfe, p. 116.
  205. Koerner, p. 14.
  206. ^ Grigsby, p. 108.
  207. O'Keeffe, Dennis (2009). Meadowcroft, John (ed.). Edmund Burke. Continuum. p. 93. ISBN 978-0826429780.
  208. Damon Linker, An ominous prophecy for liberalism, The Week, January 22, 2018.
  209. ^ Burns, Nick (8 April 2020). "The new intellectuals of the American right". New Statesman. Retrieved 10 August 2023.
  210. Tiounine, Margot; Hannen, Tom, eds. (27 June 2019). "Liberalism 'has outlived its purpose' — President Putin speaks exclusively to the Financial Times". Financial Times. Retrieved 23 August 2019.
  211. Grew, Raymond (1997). "Liberty and the Catholic Church in 19th century Europe". In Helmstadter, Richard (ed.). Freedom and Religion in the 19th Century. Stanford University Press. p. 201. ISBN 978-0-8047-3087-7.
  212. Riff, pp. 34–36.
  213. Riff, p. 34.
  214. Fiala, Andrew (2021), "Anarchism", in Zalta, Edward N. (ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2021 ed.), Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, retrieved 17 June 2023
  215. Koerner, pp. 9–12.
  216. Selsam, Howard; Martel, Harry (1963). Reader in Marxist Philosophy. International Publishers. p. 37. ISBN 978-0-7178-0167-1. Retrieved 1 June 2017.
  217. Lenin, Vladimir (2008). On Culture and Cultural Revolution. Wildside Press LLC. p. 34. ISBN 978-1-4344-6352-4. Retrieved 1 June 2017.
  218. "Social Security Online History Pages". Archived from the original on 15 March 2015. Retrieved 1 June 2017.
  219. Rodriguez, Junius P. (2007). Slavery in the United States: A Social, Political, and Historical Encyclopedia. Vol. 1. ABC-CLIO. p. 500. ISBN 978-1-85109-544-5. Retrieved 1 June 2017.
  220. "《邓小平文选第三卷》《在党的十二届六中全会上的讲话》" (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 27 February 2022. Retrieved 27 February 2022. 大家可以回想一下,粉碎"四人帮"以后,全国人大在一九八○年通过一个议案,取消宪法中的关于"大鸣、大放、大辩论、大字报"这一条。为什么做这件事?因为有一股自由化思潮。搞自由化,就会破坏我们安定团结的政治局面。没有一个安定团结的政治局面,就不可能搞建设。
    自由化本身就是资产阶级的,没有什么无产阶级的、社会主义的自由化,自由化本身就是对我们现行政策、现行制度的对抗,或者叫反对,或者叫修改。实际情况是,搞自由化就是要把我们引导到资本主义道路上去,所以我们用反对资产阶级自由化这个提法。管什么这里用过、那里用过,无关重要,现实政治要求我们在决议中写这个。我主张用。
  221. Beauchamp, Zack (9 September 2019). "The anti-liberal moment". Vox. Retrieved 6 May 2021.
  222. Stopler, Gila (8 May 2021). "The personal is political: The feminist critique of liberalism and the challenge of right-wing populism". International Journal of Constitutional Law. 19 (2): 393–402. doi:10.1093/icon/moab032. Retrieved 13 July 2023.
  223. Kurzman, Charles (1998). "Liberal Islam and Its Islamic Context". In Kurzman, Charles (ed.). Liberal Islam: A Sourcebook. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 1–26. ISBN 9780195116229. OCLC 37368975.
  224. Safi, Omid, ed. (2003). Progressive Muslims: on justice, gender and pluralism. Oxford: Oneworld Publications. ISBN 9781851683161. OCLC 52380025.
  225. Quran 2:256
  226. Kumar H. M., Sanjeev (10 October 2018). "Islam and the Question of Confessional Religious Identity: The Islamic State, Apostasy, and the Making of a Theology of Violence". Contemporary Review of the Middle East. 5 (4). SAGE Publications: 327–348. doi:10.1177/2347798918806415. ISSN 2347-7989.
  227. Lightfoot, p. 17.
  228. Susser, p. 110.
  229. ^ Perry, Marvin; Chase, Myrna; Jacob, Margaret; Jacob, James R. (2009). Western Civilization: Ideas, Politics, and Society – From 1600. Vol. 2 (9th ed.). Boston, Massachusetts: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. p. 760.
  230. ^ Sternhell, Zeev; Sznajder, Mario; Ashéri, Maia (1994). The Birth of Fascist Ideology: From Cultural Rebellion to Political Revolution. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. p. 7. ISBN 0691044864. Archived from the original on 6 December 2022.

Bibliography and further reading

Britain
France
  • Frey, Linda and Frey, Marsha. The French Revolution. Westport: Greenwood Press, 2004. ISBN 0-313-32193-0.
  • Hanson, Paul. Contesting the French Revolution. Hoboken: Blackwell Publishing, 2009. ISBN 1-4051-6083-7.
  • Leroux, Robert, Political Economy and Liberalism in France: The Contributions of Frédéric Bastiat, London and New York, Routledge, 2011.
  • Leroux, Robert, and David Hart (eds), French Liberalism in the 19th century. An Anthology, London and New York, Routledge, 2012.
  • Lyons, Martyn. Napoleon Bonaparte and the Legacy of the French Revolution. New York: St. Martin's Press, Inc., 1994. ISBN 0-312-12123-7.
  • Shlapentokh, Dmitry. The French Revolution and the Russian Anti-Democratic Tradition. Edison, NJ: Transaction Publishers, 1997. ISBN 1-56000-244-1.

External links

Library resources about
Liberalism
Liberalism
Ideas
Schools
Classical
  • Economic
  • Equity feminism
  • Georgist
  • Radical
  • Whig
  • Physiocratic
  • Encyclopaedist
  • Conservative
    Social
    Other
    By region
    Africa
    Asia
    Europe
    Latin America and
    the Caribbean
    North America
    Oceania
    Philosophers
    Politicians
  • Jefferson
  • Kołłątaj
  • Madison
  • Artigas
  • Bolívar
  • Broglie
  • Lamartine
  • Macaulay
  • Kossuth
  • Deák
  • Cobden
  • Mazzini
  • Juárez
  • Lincoln
  • Gladstone
  • Cavour
  • Sarmiento
  • Mommsen
  • Naoroji
  • Itagaki
  • Levski
  • Kemal
  • Deakin
  • Milyukov
  • Lloyd George
  • Venizelos
  • Ståhlberg
  • Gokhale
  • Rathenau
  • Madero
  • Einaudi
  • King
  • Roosevelt
  • Pearson
  • Ohlin
  • Kennedy
  • Jenkins
  • Balcerowicz
  • Verhofstadt
  • Obama
  • Macron
  • Organisations
  • Africa Liberal Network
  • Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe
  • Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe Party
  • Arab Liberal Federation
  • Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats
  • European Democratic Party
  • European Liberal Youth
  • International Alliance of Libertarian Parties
  • International Federation of Liberal Youth
  • Liberal International
  • Liberal Network for Latin America
  • Liberal parties
  • Liberal South East European Network
  • Related topics
  • Liberalism Portal
  • Links to related articles
    Capitalism
    Aspects and perspectives
    General
    Ideology
  • Anglo-Saxon
  • Authoritarian
  • Conservative
  • Corporate
  • Democratic
  • Dirigist
  • Free-market
  • Humanistic
  • Laissez-faire
  • Liberal
  • Libertarian
  • Market
  • Mercantilist
  • Mixed
  • Monopoly
  • National
  • Neo
  • Neoliberal
  • Nordic
  • Private
  • Raw
  • Regulated market
  • Regulatory
  • Rhine
  • Social
  • State
  • State-sponsored
  • Welfare
  • Cultural aspects
  • Advertising
  • American Dream
  • Black Friday
  • Consumerism
  • Decentralization
  • Economic freedom
  • Economic mobility
  • Individualism
  • Liberalism
  • Liberty
  • Mainstream
  • Philanthropy
  • Private foundation
  • Private property
  • Rule of law
  • Social alienation
  • Spontaneous order
  • Social aspects
  • Corporatism
  • Economic inequality
  • Employment
  • Freedom of association
  • Labour market flexibility
  • Labour supply
  • Productivity
  • Prosperity
  • Syndicate
  • Social venture capital
  • Unemployment
  • Criticism
  • Anti-capitalism
  • Capitalist propaganda
  • Critique of political economy
  • Critique of work
  • Market fundamentalism
  • Marxism
  • Wage slavery
  • Antithesis
  • Anarchism
  • Anarcho-communism
  • Anarcho-primitivism
  • Anarcho-syndicalism
  • Collectivist anarchism
  • Communalism
  • Communism
  • Economic democracy
  • Eco-socialism
  • Free-market socialism
  • Green anarchism
  • Individualist anarchism
  • Libertarian socialism
  • Market anarchism
  • Market socialism
  • Mutualism
  • Post-capitalism
  • Post-scarcity economy
  • Sharing economy
  • Social anarchism
  • Socialism
  • Syndicalism
  • Political ideologies
    See also
    Political philosophy
    Terms
    Government
    Ideologies
    Concepts
    Philosophers
    Antiquity
    Middle Ages
    Early modern
    period
    18th and 19th
    centuries
    20th and 21st
    centuries
    Works
    Related
    Western world and culture
    Foundations
    History
    Culture
    Philosophy
    Religion
    Law
    Contemporary
    integration
    Portals:Liberalism at Misplaced Pages's sister projects: Categories: