Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by RJII (talk | contribs) at 00:33, 21 February 2006 (→Complainers, please define). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

A merge would be incredibly naive. Classical Liberalism more refers to the liberals of the Industrialization and Revolution era's where change was needed. Liberalism could be used with almost any idea(s).

                                     GMuffin 20:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)       {

I merged the text into Liberalism. You can find the old text at talk:Liberalism/old text classical liberalism. The old text of this Talk page can be found at talk:liberalism/old text classical liberalism/talk.

Given the merge, I'm redirecting. Dave (talk) 04:13, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with the merger of the articles and prefer the way it was done. Electionworld 17:33, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

There is no reason for mentioning Libertarianism here as there are already debates concerning the link between Classical liberalism and Libertarianism elsewhere. Slizor 15:50, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

There is a reason, which is why it's listed as a "See Also". The "see also" reflects that there is a debate being debated elsewhere.Harvestdancer 17:44, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Fine, but there is no reason for the Libertarianism series to be up there. Slizor 17:46, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

That I can agree to.Harvestdancer 20:13, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Why is the neoconservative Fukuyama listed here? Also Ayn Rand is much less canonical than, e.g., Frederic Bastiat, John Locke, Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, Friedrich von Hayek and many others. (anon, 30 July 2005)

eh, Fukuyama is more liberal than the Green Party...some dingbat included the Greens in the liberalism page..haha! :P —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KDRGibby (talk • contribs) 3 Dec 2005.

Leave Classic Liberalism alone

Classic Liberalism and Classical LIberalism are "merged". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KDRGibby (talk • contribs) 3 Dec 2005.

I'm leaving Classic Liberalism seperate just in case the socialists try and destroy Classical liberalism like they did the liberalism page. - Gibby —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KDRGibby (talk • contribs) 3 Dec 2005.

-- I believe the votes said no with only one yes for a merger of anykind... Once again giving criedence to the old saying "its not who votes that counts but who counts the votes" - Gibby :P

If you want a vote on the redirect, we can do that. I restore the page and will arange a vote. There was no vote yet on this merger. The merger voted down was another one. Electionworld 22:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

this or that article

A comprehensive discussion of classical liberalism is included in the article Liberalism.

If this is true, something must be done about the article "liberalism". Classical liberalism, at least with that name, is hardly explained at all! -EnSamulili 18:33, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Probably was true when the statement was written, but, as you might imagine, the Liberalism article is a bit of a battleground. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:16, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

School of Salamanca

The School of Salamanca certainly anticipated certain aspects of liberal economic theory, but in other respects they seem to me to be much more communitarian, especially in their views on sovereignty. Is there a citation for considering them an antecedent to classical liberalism? Not an insane view, but not so commonplace as to justify asserting it in passing without even noting any differences. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

The recent changes to this article...

... strike me as completely wrongheaded. They take at face value, and as if it were universally accepted, the libertarian claim of being the only true heirs to the heritage of classical liberalism, to the point of identifying contemporary libertarian thought with classical liberalism. From what I've seen in the literature of political science, most political scientists would hesitate to use the term "classical liberalism" to refer to anything much later than the mid-19th century, when liberalism split into, on one hand, the economic liberalism that eventually developed into things like the Austrian School and the libertarians and, on the other hand, the social liberalism of Mill, which leads (for example) to American Cold War liberalism.

I am extremely skeptical of the claim that either of these forks has more claim to the classical liberal heritage than the other. -- Jmabel | Talk 09:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you serious? Read the first few paragraphs. Like libertarianism, classical liberalism is "is a political school of thought that holds that all rights are held by individuals, and that governments are put into place solely in order to defend those rights." It was pro-free-market and against government intervention in the economy, just like modern libertarianism and unlike social liberalism. Hogeye 21:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I'm serious, but I don't have the time to respond at length right now. To sketch my answer: if you are going to say that, you are also going to have to say on similar grounds that the Soviet Union was not really an heir of Marx and Engels. The question is what one sees as the defining point of liberalism, and putting something in the lead of a Misplaced Pages article does not automatically make it true. If you see the emphasis on individual autonomy as the defining point, then of course you end up with something like libertarianism. If you see the maximization of individual liberty for the greatest number of people as the defining point, then you are more likely to end up with social liberalism. The Girondists, certainly classical liberals if ever there were, embraced Liberté - Egalité - Fraternité: fraternité is particularly missing from the libertarian vision, and the egalité has a tendency to degenerate into Anatole France's summary: "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets or steal bread." As for social liberalism, in contrast to this, consider Isaiah Berlin's "Liberty for the wolves is death for the lambs". Basically, social liberals (starting probably with John Stuart Mill) came to conclude that maximising liberty for the largest number of people required that the liberty of the powerful be, at times, impeded. I'm not saying what is right or wrong here, I'm just pointing out where the two views forked, and that they have a common heritage. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The Girondists were not liberal (in our terminology.) They were a moderate republican (anti-monarchy) nationalist faction. During the French revolution, anyone against the monarchy was called "liberal" - even the Jacobins! Our definition requires that a primary value be liberty. As far as I know, there is no evidence that the Girondists cared about liberty at all, let alone "the maximization of individual liberty," except perhaps as an expedient bumper-sticker slogan (Liberté - Egalité - Fraternité). Do have a quote from a Girondist supporting maximization of liberty?

Jmabell: "Basically, social liberals (starting probably with John Stuart Mill) came to conclude that maximising liberty for the largest number of people required that the liberty of the powerful be, at times, impeded."

No, Mill used his utilitarianism to support the "night-watchman" state, i.e. limited government power. He was an economic liberal, not a social liberal. It was only later that people used his utilitarianism to justify instrusive government. Hogeye 22:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I would say that a definition that says that the Girondins were not liberals has serious problems. For that matter, the Jacobins were initially liberals: the constitution that they drafted (and immediately suspended) was admirably liberal in its principles; the problem is that they completely subordinated those principles to what they perceived as the needs of the moment. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Libertarians have the best claim to the heritage of the Liberal than any other group around. Period. In graduate level courses when discusing the theories of liberalism both philisophical, economical...and even in the rhelm of international relations its always what we now call the CLASSICAL LIBERAL meanings. The professors generally...no...always have to re-explain this stuff. Even though they generally call themselves liberals they at least bother to teach the class that liberal in the terms of our academic text are very different from our American understanding. - Gibby

-- perhaps one day one of the two of you will realize there is a difference between the theory and rhetoric / lip service in practice. - Gibby

In my graduate level courses the only time "Liberal" refers ro "Classical Liberalism" is in IR theory, no where else (economically "neo-liberalism" is used and philosophically a historical distinction is made.) Not that it really matters because few people who disagree with your view accept that "Classical Liberalism" is the same as Libertarianism.

Can we just get one thing straight? What is Classical Liberalism? Is it the work of Locke? Is it the work of Smith and Ricardo? Mill, maybe? They didn't all advocate the same thing, so how do we define it? "Classical Liberalism", IMO, is a hindsight historical construction that gives it more solidity and continuity than it actually possessed. Viewing it as an ideology is, to an extent, misleading. Slizor 12:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Economic Liberalism proposed merge

There are currently 2 proposed mergers:

• merge Liberal theory of economics into Classical liberalism
• merge Neoliberalism into Liberal theory of economics

To avoid duplicating arguments, discussion and voting on both mergers should be held at Talk:Liberal theory of economics#proposed mergers with Neoliberalism or Classical economics. Joestynes 14:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I think things are fine where they are. No need for merge.

Article needs rework for NPOV

On 4 december 2005 I posted on this page that (in my opinion) the article needs a rework for NPOV.

Someone (apparently Hogeye) removed my comment from this page (perhaps inadvertently).

1) Please do not deliberately remove other people's comments from the Discussion pages; this is a serious violation of Misplaced Pages etiquette.

2) (IMHO) the article continues to need a rework for NPOV

Technically everything has a point of view. The problem is you prolly don't like what is being said. This article is about classical liberalism, and in fact, classical liberals do believe themselves to be the only liberals. That is there point of view, and Wiki, in order to be factually accurate, must point that out. This article does that quite well.

Please offer suggestions other than NPOV to help us further.

No discussion sense December 4 on the NPOV of this article, obviously this complaint was either unimportant or it has been fixed. NPOV tag removed.

I noticed some problems with the "as practiced in America" section, but I tried to clean those up. Technogeek 02:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

How the CATO Institute defines itself (removed)

Today, those who subscribe to the principles of the American Revolution--individual liberty, limited government, the free market, and the rule of law--call themselves by a variety of terms, including conservative, libertarian, classical liberal, and liberal. We see problems with all of those terms. "Conservative" smacks of an unwillingness to change, of a desire to preserve the status quo. Only in America do people seem to refer to free-market capitalism--the most progressive, dynamic, and ever-changing system the world has ever known--as conservative. Additionally, many contemporary American conservatives favor state intervention in some areas, most notably in trade and into our private lives.

"Classical liberal" is a bit closer to the mark, but the word "classical" connotes a backward-looking philosophy. Finally, "liberal" may well be the perfect word in most of the world--the liberals in societies from China to Iran to South Africa to Argentina are supporters of human rights and free markets--but its meaning has clearly been corrupted by contemporary American liberals. The Jeffersonian philosophy that animates Cato's work has increasingly come to be called "libertarianism" or "market liberalism." It combines an appreciation for entrepreneurship, the market process, and lower taxes with strict respect for civil liberties and skepticism about the benefits of both the welfare state and foreign military adventurism.

(From their website: http://cato.org/about/about.html)

Sincerely, JDR 16:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Merger of classic liberalism and classical liberalism

I suggest to delete the page classic liberalism and redirect it to classical liberalism. As far as I understand both articles classic liberalism and classical liberalism are one and the same. The content is largely identical. The reason for the creation of the page was: "I'm leaving Classic Liberalism seperate just in case the socialists try and destroy Classical liberalism like they did the liberalism page. - Gibby —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KDRGibby (talk • contribs) 3 Dec 2005.". I do not think that is a good reason to have a separate article about the same subject. Furthermore, nobody can claim a page. Electionworld 22:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect. This is essentially the definition of a POV fork. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Let's focus on the classical figures and ideas

This article currently focuses on Hayek, Friedman, and such modern organizations as the Heritage Foundation and CATO Institute. I thought it was supposed to be about classical liberalism. It should focus mainly on pre-20th century figures like Smith, Ricardo and Bastiat. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 17:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Concur. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Classical liberalism isn't confined to those older philosophers. Hayek and Friedman are classical liberals as well --private property, free markets, and individual liberty. As far as who to focus on, I don't know --but I don't think it is an "npov" problem. I think you should remove the tag. RJII 00:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

If private property, free markets, and individual liberty were all there is to classical liberalism, this article would have to be merged with libertarianism. But that is not the case. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 01:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Libertarianism is classical liberalism. Classical liberalism isn't confined to a certain time period. You've got it all wrong if you think that. "Classical liberalism" just means "liberalism" (unless you're talking about the leftist philosophy that's called "liberal"). The term "classical liberal" was coined to distinguish from the leftist movement. Libertarianism is liberalism --classical liberalism. This is from Encyclopedia Britannica: "As liberalism became increasingly associated with government intervention in the economy and social-welfare programs, some classical liberals abandoned the old term and began to call themselves “libertarians.”" The "classical" in classical liberal is just wording to make sure we're talking about the negative rights, individualism, private property "liberalism." RJII 01:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to redirecting this page to libertarianism. But, from the discussion above, it seems others would... -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 01:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I see two options here:

1. Classical liberalism and libertarianism are the same. In that case there's no point in having two articles, and this one should be a redirect or a brief summary explaining why the same thing goes by two different names.
2. Classical liberalism and libertarianism are different things. In that case their respective articles should talk about different things and different people.

I'd be willing to support either one of those ideas. But either way, it makes no sense to keep the present form of this article. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 01:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

To be precise, minarchist libertarianism is classical liberalism. I'm not sure if you could include radical libertarianism (individualist anarchism, anarcho-capitalism, etc) in "classical liberalism." So, that may be what would prevent libertarianism and classical liberalism being the same article . RJII 01:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, then classical liberalism and minarchism would be the same article... If classical liberalism and X are the same thing, then classical liberalism and X should be the same article. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 01:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good. Delete minarchism. RJII 04:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

there should be two seperate articles because people understand two different words. Libertian had to come about because the word liberal had been perverted. just check out the liberal page for more info...aka the example of perversion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.97.49.51 (talk • contribs) 31 Dec 2005.

All of this tried to be on the liberalism page but people who believe in the perverted understanding of liberalism refused to allow it...later allowing bits. There is a very wide understanding that classical liberalism is an appropriate term because of the perversion. If you remove the classical liberalism article you will remove the ability of people to search and discover this contradiction from the American understanding of liberalism. I assume this is what you want. Leave the two articles alone (Gibby 07:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC))

There should be to separate articles. I am not convinced that libertarianism and classical liberalism or minarchism and classical liberalism are the same. BTW, I think that also classical liberalism goes further than econonomy, e.g. also includes the rule of law. Electionworld 13:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Rephrasing pointL Libertarianism is a philisophy of political party that uses the economics and philosphy of classical liberalism to achieve its means. They are similar, but require seperate pages. Besides, few use the word libertarianism to describe liberalism.

Discusion on Tags

tags have been on since December 4. I deleted them because there was no discussion on January 3rd. Someone put them back up with no discussion. These tags will be deleted within 48 hours if no further discussion insues and I will continue to delete them thereafter. You cannot put up tags with no legitmate complaints, no discussion, and no recomendations on how to improve. (Gibby 07:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC))

I've briefly stated my dispute below. I intend to overhaul the article, but I simply don't have the time for it right now... -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 00:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Overhaul the article, I reject that. Based on your previous communist leaning editorials, you will seriously screw this up. (Gibby 04:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC))

It is already screwed up by your own libertarian POV, and needs significant "un-screwing", so to speak. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 15:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Dispute

Nikodemos, you placed the {{totallydisputed}} tag on the article. What, precisely, do you think is factually incorrect? -- Jmabel | Talk 00:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Factual dispute: The inclusion of 20th century libertarians in an article about classical liberalism. The relationship between classical liberalism and libertarianism is controversial, and this article gives the impression that the two terms are synonyms. The only citations provided are from libertarian authors. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 00:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

NPOV dispute: The article is slanted in favor of the aforementioned libertarians. It deals more with them than with 19th century classical liberals, and often presents their views as factual truth. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 00:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Libertarians are the political inheritors of classical liberalism. Your dispute is largely bogus. Their inclussion, while minor, is valid. The tags have been up for more than 30 days and you have done no work and made very little discussion on cleaning it up. Please copy and paste specific sections for your complaints so we can see how to work with you or possibly determine if your complaint is ideologically driven (a valid concern, no offense) I dont find your complaints to be suffecient enough to place a totally disputed tag on the article.

1. Libertarians are basically given 3 sentences. This is NOT more than the discussion on classical liberalism. Classical liberalism, I should remind you, is more than 19th century economics. It was not called classical liberalism then, but liberalism, and only has to call itself classical liberalism now because of the American perversion of the word to mean something that is its exact opposite. Libertarian is a short way of saying classic liberal (though with a stigma of drug legalization rather than free market economics).

2. Check out the history of libertarians, they are a political party birthed by liberal (classic) economic and political thought. Trying to delete one or the other is insuffecient a reason to place these tags and complain. Makes me wonder...

3. I dont find this article to be "in favor" with libertarians. Simply stating the fact that they are a political party more in tune with classical liberalism (aka just plain old liberalism) doesnt mean they are "favored". You're going to have to prove this one to me, right now it seems to be a tenuous claim.

(Gibby 06:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC))

Nikodemos: I am very interested in hearing your arguments. On the basis of these arguments we can see what to do. Gibby: nobody has to prove anything to you, the page is not yours. Electionworld 07:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Your right it is not, but he does have to prove his point, he did make the accusation! The totally disputed tag needs to go, the 3 sentences regarding liberatarianism and classical liberalism are properly refrenced. His complaint is likely one of an ideological POV, upset that the article provides evidence counter to what he or she has learned...then again I'm speculating but I've delt with enough people to notice patterns and trends...(Gibby 07:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC))

Minhea seems to think that "classical liberalism" means the philosophy of liberalis restricted to only those prior to the 20th century, which is not true. Look at the words of classical liberal Marquis de La Fayette, in 1789, for example "Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights." Now if someone said those words today, you would be correct in calling him a libertarian or a classical liberal. And, you would be correct in calling La Fayette a libertarian. Or how about Thomas Jefferson: ""rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others." The word "classical" was tagged to "liberal" just to make it clear one is not talking about Welfare Liberalism. Another example. Milton Friedman is a libertarian, is he not? The Encyclopedia Britannica calls him a classical liberal: "...the more energetic response to the problem turned out to be a revival of classical liberalism. The intellectual foundations of this revival were primarily the work of the Austrian-born British economist Friedrich von Hayek and the American economist Milton Friedman." The only difference between the terms classical liberal and libertarian that I can see is that libertarianism can also include anarchists (which most people who refer to themselves as libertarians are not). But, certainly all libertarians who support minimized governmental intervention in civil and economic affairs are liberals (classical ones, that is). RJII 15:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

That is right, but I think Minhea and someone else have infected their dispute upon the libertarian page making a section that claims they classic liberalism and libertarianism are different with classical liberalism being restricted to the 19th century. (Gibby 16:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC))

As I stated further above, if classical liberalism and libertarianism are the same then there should be only ONE, not two, articles. Personally, I do agree that libertarianism is a continuation of classical liberalism (and I certainly agree that the term "liberal" is misused in the United States), but I would not say that classical liberalism and libertarianism are one and the same. I would say that the term classical liberalism should refer to pre-20th century liberals (hence "classical"), while libertarianism should refer to 20th century continuators - or rather, radical continuators - of classical liberalism. Please note that classical liberals were more centrist than modern libertarians. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 21:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, whether classical liberalism should only refer to pre-20th century thinkers, in your eyes, is not really relevant. The fact is that people such as Hayek and Friedman are considered to be classical liberals (and widely so).RJII 21:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Classical was an addition to the term liberal after that term change meanings. It is also used to refrence modern people as RJII stated. You can be a classical liberal in the modern times. CATO Institute discuses this and it is cited. They do not like the term classical because it makes it seem backwards looking rather than progressive. They prefer the term Liberal but that confuses Americans, so they settle on Libertarian. THis is all documented in the article. I still do not see this as a legit complaint of yours.(Gibby 21:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC))

What I want is simple: More discussion of 19th century liberals in this article, an explanation on the dispute between social liberals and libertarians in the 20th century, and a NPOV-ing (and possible merger) of the three sections on the 20th century that are currently examples of slavish praise for libertarian authors. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 21:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Then add more about 19th century classical liberals (They do get mentioned and they all have links). No merger with libertarianism is necessary as libertarianism is already merged with Libertarian (aka the political party). More mergers would be highly destructive to our body of knowlege, though I think this is what you want. (Gibby)

Niko, you have 48 hours to explain how 3 sentences with citation on libertarians equals slanting in favor of libertarians in regards to classical liberalism which libertarians are... (Gibby 21:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC))

Oh, and I also want you to stop giving ultimatums like you own this article. If classical liberalism = libertarianism, then this article should redirect to libertarianism (which is fine by me). -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 21:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand how an NPOV tag would apply to this. It looks like a factual dispute to me. Maybe you need to change the tag. RJII 21:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

No I'm trying to keep bogus anti classical liberal pov's off the page...much like yours. They get two seperate pages. And it stays that way. Deal with it. By the way, this is not a suffecient excuse to put a tag. DELETED! (Gibby 21:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC))

Again, please stop acting like you own wikipedia. NPOV is achieved by discussing all views related to a certain subject; thus, this article should discuss both liberal and anti-liberal views (though obviously the latter should be given less space than the former). -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 22:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

As I explained to you before, not all libertarians are classical liberals. Some libertarians are anarchists. But, all classical liberals are libertarians. So you need two articles. RJII 21:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

On the libertarianism Talk page you said that all libertarians are classical liberals. How can you expect anyone to agree with you when you can't even agree with yourself? -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 22:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

No I didn't. I said that the Encyclopedia Britannica said that libertarians are classical liberals. (I would assume they're talking about non-anarchist libertarians) RJII 16:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The Liberal Democratic Party of Australia often describes its philosophy as libertarian (there's no question they're libertarian --legalized drugs and all). Classical liberalism, liberalism, and libertarianism can all be used interchangeably to refer to minimized goverment interventionism and maximized protection of individual liberty in person and property. We use the term "classical liberalism" in the U.S., and a few other places, because interventionists started using the term "liberal" --that's why the liberalism article has to talk about both definitions. A lot of liberals choose the term "libertarian" to totally distances themselves from welfare liberalism. RJII 18:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

That is a good point some libertarians are anarcho-capitalists. But not all classical liberals are anarcho capitalists. (Gibby 21:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC))

All I am asking from you is that you make up your mind regarding the relationship between classical liberalism and libertarianism. I'm not trying to push my own opinion, I'm just trying to figure out what your opinion is. Pick one idea and stick with it; then we can work from there. Logically speaking, we have five possibilities in total:

1. Classical liberalism and libertarianism are distinct ideologies and have nothing in common.
2. Classical liberalism and libertarianism are distinct ideologies and have something in common.
3. Classical liberalism and libertarianism are the same thing; they have everything in common.
4. Classical liberalism is a subset of libertarianism.
5. Libertarianism is a subset of classical liberalism.

Which of those do you believe to be true? Right now you seem to be saying that libertarianism = classical liberalism + anarcho-capitalism, which implies option 4. Is that the one you want to go with? -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 22:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that #5 is correct - libertarianism is the modern form of classical liberalism. Hogeye 18:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

---

You are trying to make a merger with libertarianism. As stated before Libertarianism was a merger with libertarian thus reflecting a political party nature. Libertarians subsribe to the ideals of liberalism, now known as classical liberalism as to avoid confusion (not sure if you really get this yet), but as RJII said, not all liberals (again classic for to reduce modern confusion) are libertarians. No merger is necessary unless you want to reduce the availability of information to the public.

Your concerns are largely bogus (Gibby 07:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC))

My patience is running thin. I am not trying to make a merger with libertarianism (all I've said is that I wouldn't oppose a merger, but that doesn't mean I want one). Now answer my concerns above, regarding your preferred definition of classical liberalism and libertarianism. If you refuse reasonable discussion and keep throwing accusations at me, I will consider you a vandal and treat you as such. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 13:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

What is factually inaccurate, maybe we can work on fixing it? (Gibby 21:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC))

See above. There is also a POV dispute, regarding biased statements such as:

• "FA Hayek and Milton Friedman have both observed that economic freedom is a necessary condition for the creation and sustainability of civil and political freedoms. This has been observed through history over the last century; easily seen by the atrocities committed by the least economically free countries in the world which include Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Communist China, Khmer Rouge Cambodia..."

That is why I originally added the totallydisputed tag. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 22:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

FA Hayek and Friedman did observe this. And events through history have shown that the less economic freedom there is the more violations of civil and political freedom occur. Studies have been done at Heritage and the Fraiser Institute to name a few. There is nothing wrong with mentioning that these observations are supported with historical evidence.. No point here (Gibby 07:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC))

That is libertarian POV. Libertarians (Hayek, Friedman, the Heritage Foundation and the Fraiser Institute) believe that "economic freedom is a necessary condition for the creation and sustainability of civil and political freedoms", and their studies support their beliefs (go figure). I suggest you learn the fact that not everyone agrees with your interpretation of history. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 13:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Those libertarians are liberals (classical liberals), meaning they believe in minimized government that serves only to protect individual rights and private property. RJII 16:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

it is, no matter what niko says, factual, and not in violation of the npov policy given that it is a well researched, documented, and published subject (by 2 nobel prize winners no less.) (Gibby 17:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC))

THey, and others, have done emperical studies to prove that. If you have a problem with your studies then you also have a problem with mathematics. The correct answer supported through historical evidence is economic freedom = civil and political freedom. Also, and I know you will hate this, the more economic freedom the less poverty there is and more wealth there is created. Contrary to ignorant historical revisionism, the 19th century was not a time of labor exploitation and robber barons it was a period of explosive economic growth that drew millions of millions of people out of poverty. (Gibby 15:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC))

Read WP:NPOV and stop wasting my time. You are essentially saying "the article must support my POV, because my POV is The Truth!". That's called POV-pushing. I also happen to think your POV, like libertarianism in general, is bullshit, by I'm not under any illusion that explaining things to you will accomplish anything. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 23:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

No, that is what I said you were doing. I'm saying, which is actually fact, that the NPOV policy requires us editors to not take a pov in our writing but to cite sources by reporting them. If sources have a pov, that is not a violation of the NPOV rule. Nice try.

I find your complaints to be extremely petty. Libertarianism is the adopted modern form of liberalism. Liberalism is now called classical liberalism, and libertarians call themselves libertarian not classic liberal or liberal to avoid confusion. Just get over it and stop trying to destroy history through your own revisionism. Liberalism means= Free Markets, limited government, individual freedom. Not your beleoved socialist bull. (Gibby 17:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC))

Let no one ever accuse Gibby of including in his liberalism the Learned Hand's notion that "the spirit of liberty is the spirit that's not too sure of itself." Apparently, the Liberals in the UK have been misusing the term for over a century, the liberals in the US have been doing the same, and Gibby has the True Meaning, which in no way could be considered a mere viewpoint on a disputed matter. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

evolution versus immediate change

That's quite a bold statement to say it was an immediate change, especially since the concept of liberalism through socialism had been implemented in many other countries slowly over the years. I think Derksen's revision is better. Elle vécut heureusement _{toujours dorénavant} (Be eudaimonic!) 09:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

It was an evolution, but not through socialism, in many countries. Let's name some examples: The Dutch liberal statesman Samuel van Houten was responsible for enacting social legislation (banning child labour). The introduction of social legislation was part of the liberal agenda in diverse countries at the end of the nineteenth century and the start of the twentieth century. It is a misunderstanding that European liberals are (all) classical liberals. Most of them accept (and proposed) social legislation, the same goes for health regulation. The idea was that in this way more people could be free (poverty and freedom are incompatible). It is not right to say that modern liberalism is less liberal then classical liberalism. I will revert to the old version. Electionworld 12:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

THere is a difference between the philosophy of liberalism and politicians doing whatever is necessary to get elected (populism). So long as people stay uninformed they dont know the difference. And that is what has happend. I disagree with the term evolution. It was not an evolution it was more like a robbery and a hold up. Furthermore, its more speculation and original research to state that it was an evolution rather than just leaving hte accepted fact that the definition changed and took on an oppisite meaning. (Gibby 16:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC))

Gibby, I think the point is that the definition didn't simply change overnight. Someone didn't just wake up one day and said "from now on we'll use a different definition of liberalism", to which everyone else said "okay". Rather, there was a slow transition - an evolution - from one definition to another. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 23:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

By the way, please note that you can't simply "rob" an ideology of its name. The change in definition didn't happen because a bunch of non-liberals walked up to a bunch of liberals and somehow "stole" their name. Rather, it happened because most liberals changed their views, while keeping the name "liberal" for themselves. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 23:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't describe it like that. I don't think liberals changed their views. I think it's just that people with other views started calling themselves liberals. Those who still hold liberal views have to call themselves "classical liberals" and "libertarians" to avoid confusion. RJII 04:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I wouldnt even worry about even talking about evolution or immediate change, or populist change. the fact is, it changed and took on an opposite meaning. We should leave that out and avoid original research speculation. (Gibby 06:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC))

It didn't take the opposite meaning. A fact is that allready in the nineteenth century many liberals in a lot of European countries evolved in their apporach of liberalism. It is not the opposite, since the inspiration, Locke, Smith, the French enlightenment etc. is the same. This entry is not about classical liberalism in the US. The usage opposite is not neutral, different is neutral. Electionworld 15:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Then you are saying the opposite meaning is within the United States (And a few others) but elsewhere the meaning is an evolution from the origin? And given that this article is not about the United States (or those other few countries with the opposite meaning) then we must have the evolution interpretation? This implies that this article is about classical liberalism in those countries who retained the original meaning but simply "evolved". This means you have no reason for deleting the word opposite in refrence to the United States and other english speaking countries because you have allowed "evolved" for the same reason you wish to delete opposite. (Gibby 15:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC))

The text of this paragraph as it stands now is neutral. BTW, Rawls, part of American liberalism, fits in the liberal tradition that started with Locke. Electionworld 16:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you brought up Rawls...because Rawls is wrong on his theory of fairness as justice. His conclusion is based off of fallacious reasoning given his own criteria for a just society. But this is my own original research so it cant be included. The appropriate answer he should have arrived at was Free Markets...not social welfare. (Gibby 16:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC))

If modern liberalism were "the opposite" of classical liberalism, that would mean that modern liberals disagree with classical liberals on every single issue, which is obviously false. Modern and classical liberals agree on freedom of speech, drug legalization, etc. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 02:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem is modern "liberals" believe in the outcomes of the core beliefs of (classical)liberals. Free speech and all that jazz is the result of free economics and a means to achieving free economics. Modern liberals want the political freedom without the economic freedom which brought it...they are in fact, opposite! (Gibby 02:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC))

I agree it's not the opposite. It's more like a "third way" between liberalism and a communism. RJII 02:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

It is not the opposite nor a third way between liberalism and communism. Social democracy is a third way, but modern liberalism (read e.g. the electoral programme of the European Liberal Democrats) favour economic freedom, but not an absolute form of it. I am not aware of any (liberal) party in Europe with parliamentary representation that wants abolute economic freedom. Who does? Please get out of the US centric view. Electionworld 10:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

When I said "liberalism" I was talking about classical liberalism. So-called "modern liberalism" is like a third way between classical liberalism and communism -a heavy emphasis on altruism and welfare statism. Anyway, there are classical liberal parties in Europe that have parlimentary representation such as the United Civil Party of Belarus. Please get out the "Old Europe"-centric view. RJII 15:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Gents: I thought I would jump in here. Classical liberalism and libertarianism are distinct ideologies and "have something in common," but Libertarianism is more derivative of anarchist thought. John Locke is a (actually "the" ...) classic liberal; Robert Nozick is a libertartian. Classic liberals did not have a problem with state religion (as in Great Britain in the 19th century, although they did advocate tolerance of non-conformists. A libertarian would generally advocate a true and clear separation of Church and State. The US Republican Party is a classically liberal political party, but there are thinkers in the party who are libertarian - and both factions tend to diverge heavily over the idea of social policies, such as contraception, abortion, and even at times, civil rights. This is a good contemporary distinction between liberalism and libertarianism. Libertarianism should be a separate article altogether. TrulyTory 01:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Libertarianism is not a straightforward derivative of anarchist thought. But, it had a lot of influence, sure --specifically the anarchist thought of the American individualist anarchists (they used to be called libertarians, actually). But, those anarchists were in turn influenced by classical liberalism --they were a radicalized form of classical liberalism. So, I think what you could say is that the anarchist form of libertarianism (anarcho-capitalism) is influenced by liberal anarchism, and the minarchist form by the original liberals. Libertarians include both anarchists and minarchists (classical liberals), and so I agree with you that they need to be seperate articles. RJII 03:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Slizor's edit

I'm not sure if you guys have carefully discussed this, so I thought it would be a good idea to let you know that Slizor just took off much of the page. You can view these edits here. Rory096 00:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It is disputed

That Libertarians are Classical Liberals is disputed and so the HUGE amount of text I cut out is simply POV (you should note that not all of it was removed.) Please refrain from sticking Hayek and Friedman in every paragraph. To be honest, I know I'll be ignored and people will just revert but it is very important that this blantant POV abuse is highlighted. Slizor 00:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Milton Friedman has never described himself as a libetarian, neither has Hayek...heck John Stossel even hates the term... you don't know what your talking about Slizzy... Its also not pov to say they are classical liberals when each of them prefers to use the term liberal except that modern American liberals have perverted the term so they've come to accept classic liberal instead...and have published these remarks. Try reading some books...like the ones they've written. (Gibby 06:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC))

It started again. Electionworld 07:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

• Yawn* Then it is disputed that Milton Friedman, Hayek, etc were Classical Liberals. They may choose to define themselves that way and maybe that should be noted in the article, but that does not make them classical liberals. Slizor 13:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

"were"? Friedman is still very much alive. And where is it disputed? If it's you that's disputing it, it's irrelevant. Do you have sources that dispute it? I'm curious though --what about their philosophy is not classical liberalism? RJII 14:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I want to hear what you think a classic liberal, or better yet, a liberal is? (Gibby 15:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC))

"Liberal" is a catch-all phrase that describes a number of ideologies. In Britain if you say "Liberal" you are more or less going to be refering to Social Liberalism, however, I am not blinded by requiring a single definition.

A Classical Liberal is someone who believes (quite broadly) in the freedom of the individual in regards to religion, assembly, speech, etc, etc. It was largely a political project but married itself to early theories of lassiez-faire capitalism due to its support for private property. In Classical Liberalism the most important thing was the freedom of the individual, which Classical Liberals thought could be facilitated through the market. This is not the case with Hayek, Friedman, etc. They extol the free market and theirs is an economic project with politics vaguely attached. Slizor 14:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

If this is your definition, and you do not extend this umbrella to Hayek and Friedman than I can say you have obviously not read their work.

Liberals argued for social equality by arguing for economic eqaulity...that is the only way to get social eqaulity as they understand it (And I think they remain correct to this day as you cannot create wealth from wealth redistrobution). Hayek and Friedman wrote quite extensivly on the role of economic freedom and civil and political freedoms and agreed that they were so highly correlated that without economic freedoms you would lose civil and political freedoms but with economic freedom you would gain civil and political freedom.

Other than this you are operating on a perverted definition of liberalism and classical liberalism in such a way as to define out economic opponents from an ideology that exposes freedom and equality...aka you're hijacking the definition for your own purposes (not just you but everyone in the past who has done so as well). (Gibby 15:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC))

I have no purposes with the definition of Classical Liberalism, I am not a Liberal. You are hijacking the term - distorting it and twisting it so Classical Liberalism is nothing more than the economics it (reservedly) espoused. As I have already said in regards to Hayek and Friedman writing on civil and political freedoms being related to economic freedom - theirs is an economic project with politics vaguely attached.

I am not a liberal and I'm not a libertarian. I have no interest in this other than an academic one, don't you accuse me of intellectually dishonest hijacking. Slizor 13:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Quite Frankly this can't continue

A number of people have disputed whether Libertarianism and Classical Liberalism are the same, clearly there is disagreement over the usage. To reflect this disagreement we should minimise the extent to which Hayek, Friedman and others are mentioned in the main part of the article and include the debate in its own section. Currently the extent of the inclusion of Libertarian thought is purely POV pushing. If Libertarians want to claim the ideological inheritance of Classical Liberalism (using Berlin's formulations of freedom as evidence) then fine, they are allowed to claim that. It doesn't make other claims (for example Modern Liberalism using McCallum's unitary theory of freedom) any less valid or theirs any more important. Slizor 16:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to add that the article is inconsistant - first it says that "some historians consider Libertarianism a revival of the ideas" then it says libertarians are classical liberals and it even says that Adam Smith (ONLY) closely resembled a classical liberal. This is utter bollocks and WILL NOT continue. I will not sit back with the occassional edit that gets reverted - sort it out. Slizor 17:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I doubt very much that Adam Smith and the Scots - who first articulated liberalism - and the Physiocracts in France who took the lead would consider liberalism and libertarianism the same thing. Classic Liberals believed in religious toleration to be sure, but were not as agnostic, anarchistic, and nihilistic as libertarian thought typically denotes. Remember that liberalism is not JUST an economic doctrine, it is also a moral construct, which really was Smith's point after-all. TrulyTory 22:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Niether of you really know what you are talking about. Both are merely attempts to deleted cited and refrenced material on the subject. It is a fact taht Friedman and Hayek considered themselves liberals and only classical liberals because people like Slizor and TrulyTory have perverted the definition. We have quoted Cato and given their knowlege on the subject that libertarian is and or shares much in the same with classic liberals or liberals, though they prefer to use the term liberal it, like i've said, has been perverted.

And TT, not all libertarians are agnostic, anarchists. You are conflating issues something horribly.

I, like the Cato institute prefer to call myself a Liberal, but because there are alot of ignorant people we have to call ourselves Classical Liberal (Which still requires explination thanks to the perversion) or libertarian, which we both prefer less than liberal.

Sorry you dont understand but your criticisms are bogus. (Gibby 23:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC))

We have to remember that according to Gibby only his definition is true: all others perverted the word liberalism. Debate doesn't make sense, since he is not open to debate. Electionworld 23:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes and Hayek, and Friedman, and Brink Lindsey, and about everyone at Cato... but whatever. (Gibby 23:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC))

I have not disputed what Friedman and Hayek called themselves, or what the CATO institute calls itself. However, the only thing they possess is an ideological claim - nothing more, nothing less. That you wholeheartedly believe this, Gibby, does not make it any more accurate or correct (or make our understanding any less.) Slizor 23:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Interesting since their ideological claim matches up with both the economic and historical evidence. If one is a classical liberal they are a liberal, but do not have to be a libertarian. The closest thing to classical liberalism today is libertarianism and some libertarians do refer to themselves as classical liberals. All classical liberals understand themselves to be the only true inheritors of liberalism. Sorry you don't notice it and don't understand. (Gibby 00:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC))

Yawn. The ideological claims of Hayek and Friedman do not "match up" with the historical evidence. There is certainly some level of agreement, however, as Classical Liberalism was a political project concerned with the freedom of the individual I doubt (very much) whether they would have taken their views on economics (which WAS NOT linked with freedom according to them) to the extent where it restrains the individual.

As I have said before your view of the "closest thing to" classical liberalism requires Berlinist premises in the understanding of freedom....which a large number of people reject.

However, you have quite succinctly summed up my argument - it is libertarians who understand themselves to be the only true inheritors of liberalism. We don't understand it that way, which you seem unable to understand, I don't give a crap what the CATO institute thinks of itself.

Let's be honest here guys, Gibby has made these edits without anyone challenging him and has filled this page up with rhetoric and crap. It is high time that we changed this to reflect a more accurate depiction of Classical Liberals and of what Classical Liberalism is. Gibby, if you refuse to be reasonable I will be forced to launch an edit war (my first, I admit.) Your POV is not gospel truth. Slizor 00:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC) I think we should make Gibby's name redirect to Bollocks. Slizor 00:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I did my degree in Modern Greats and I have to say that Gibby has the most ethereal conception of this topic I have yet seen. It is also typically American in its assumption of a monolithic and universal POV. TrulyTory 02:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I really don't care what you have to say, "modern greats" wtf is that...seriously that does not give you much credibility here. Anyway, you seem to believe that allowing tariffs improves the welfare of society...you don't know what you are talking about. (Gibby 04:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC))

Another blanket condemnation from the ideologue of Wikiland. Surprise. Do a serach on Modern Greats in Misplaced Pages and please keep the vulgarities to a minimum. TrulyTory 14:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Classical liberalism is a broader term than some are trying to make it who are trying to exclude people today that are referred to as classical liberals. To be a classical liberal, you don't have to adhere to every belief to which the original liberals did. They originals didn't agree with each other on everything either. If someone today says "Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights" you would call him a libertarian wouldn't you? Well, guess who said it? Marquis de La Fayette in 1789,in the French Declaration of the Rights of Man of 1789. Or how about "rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others"? That's Thomas Jefferson. Or, "every man has freedom to do all that he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man" --Herbert Spencer The minarchist laissez-faire philosophies of today and yesterday both generally fall under classical liberalism or libertarianism interchangeably. The only significant difference between the two terms is that libertarianism also includes individualist anarchism (anarcho-capitalism) (which was derived by radicalizing classical liberalism). RJII 15:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else. I agree that rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. Yet I am not a libertarian - indeed, I am not even a liberal! Your mistake, RJII, consists in your belief that only libertarians support the statements you quoted. In reality, just about everyone supports them; people merely have different interpretations of what it means to "injure someone else", or what the "equal rights of others" are. One may believe, for example, that capitalism allows some people to injure others, or that everyone should have an equal right to health care. Please note that no ideology wants to restrict liberty for no reason. All those who advocate some restriction on some liberty believe that their restriction would prevent some people from harming others. Thus, like I said above, just about everyone would agree that you should have the freedom to do whatever you want as long as you do not harm anyone else. -- Nikodemos 19:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course only libertarians support the statements I quoted. If you support those statements, you are by definition a libertarian. And, no everyone would not agree with everyone should have the freedom to do whatever they want as long as they don't harm anyone else. Many people think that people are morally obligated to help others in need, or serve others, and that therefore they should be forced to do it through taxation, or involuntarily recruited into the military to serve others. If you believe the that, then you cannot simultaneously believe that people should have the right to be left alone. RJII 03:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

On another note, I wish to offer my help to Slizor and TrulyTory in revamping this article and removing the pervasive libertarian POV. -- Nikodemos 19:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Complainers, please define

I would like the complainers of this page to please define the following for me.

Classical Liberal:

Liberal:

Libertarian:

Thank you. (Gibby 04:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC))

Short concise attempt to clarify:

Classical Liberal: An ideology that has at its core the maximisation of Individual Contract Rights within a Civil Polity that it typically Representative and politically Democractic. Someone who accepts the primacy of the market as the primary price mechanism and distribution system of goods and services. Liberals accept government as the guarantor of contractual and civil rights, and as means of maintaining social order. As in Adam Smith, most CL's believe that man's tendency to violence and disorder can be modified by channeling energies into Commerce. Liberalism is not necessarily hostile to Imperialism, and has historically seen Imperialism as a means of securing natural resources for Commercial Firms. The one tenet of Liberalism that is universal is a belief in Free-Trade Economics and a low, or non-existent tarrif on goods exchanged between the firms of various nation-states. Liberals believe in limited natural rights a la John Locke (Life, Liberty, and Property ...) as the means of asserting order within a social order that tends toward either despotism or anarchy. Liberals believe in a punitive Justice system that is used to maintain social order and protect the civil order, as opposed to a rehabilitation-based justice system. They prefer to avoid foreign entanglements, and prefer to run economies within the Military spending portfolio of the Nation. The tendency is to prefer that which is local and based on the idea of free-exchange without government intervention. Welfare is provided, but only to the poorest of the poor (as in the Workhouses of England during the early Victorian Age) and based on an idea of "Workfare". On Civil Rights matters, they support limited Contractual Rights and trust that human interaction will abate most social ills. Collectivities and Diversity is accepted and acknowledged (such as linguistic, ethnic, and religious groups) as long as them keep their practices and beliefs within the private sphere, and do not try to impose their values on the majority (usually a Protestant Majority). Separation of Church and State is not necessary, or prohibited, but the religious belief of the majority will prevail as the norm. Noted Classical Liberals include John Locke, Adam Smith, James Mill, Jeremy Bentham, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Keith Joseph, Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan.

Modern or Welfare Liberal:

In the modern parlance (post 1932) this has come to mean someone who subscribes to much of Classic Liberal thought, but has accepted the primacy of the Welfare State and the extension of broader Civil Rights under the Law. In most other Countries this type is known as a Liberal-Democrat, or a Social Democrat. Modern Liberals generally support free-trade policies, but are also concerned with ameliorating the ill-effects of such polices on particular groups, sectors, or industries via either the mild use of tarrifs, embargoes, and transfers of wealth via subsidies and allowances. What really divides them from CLs is their tendency to prefer manipulating Demand via Interest Rates and other mechanism in order to maintain a vibrant Consumer base for Firms in the national economy. These Liberals tend to favour social interventions (as in Abortion and Women's rights ...) in the interests of maximising individual liberty for the greatest number of citizens. These liberals also accept Cultural and Sexual Diversity within broad limits, as a further extension of individual liberty. Separation of Church and State is Firm and mandated by law. Noted Modern Liberals include John Maynard Keynes, David Lloyd George, Franklin Roosevelt, Lester Pearson, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson Pierre Trudeau, John Turner, and William Clinton. Note that most of these are Americans with some Canadians and Britons, as this modern strain has been a successful feature of life in those three Anglo democracies. In most European Countries, this ideology would be considered "Social Democracy" - which marries Democratic and Capitalist policies to some Socialist aims, such as Coporatism, full employment, a form of GAI, and the provision of welfare benefits to all, in some form.

I still see a general misunderstanding about what modern liberalism in many countries includes. European liberalism is not the same as the form of liberalism American libertarians favour. My experience with modern liberalism in Europe, being rather active in international liberal politics, that most have a position between economic liberalism and social democracy. It fits into the definition given by TrulyTory, though they generally oppose corporatism. An important difference between modern European liberalism and social democracy is the onus on the individual. Social democrats, rooted in socialist ideology, don't put the onus on the individual. I understand that some Social Democrats nowadays embraced parts of the liberal ideology, which could imply that they are not social democrats anymore. But striving after welfare benefits etc. is not per se socialist, but can be (Gibby, I know you won't agree) defended from the perspective of individual liberty: One is not free if one is starving. 159.46.248.230 08:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC) = Electionworld

Libertarian:

An ideology that arose in response to what some considered the excesses of the Welfare-State in Capitalist Countries during the 1960's and 1970's. Because of the inflation and rising taxation levels and consumption taxes that had risen to finance the extension of Social Welfare policies, some thinkers embraced a return to the idealistic notions of "laissez-faire" economics that were once the feature of American Life. Derived largely from Anarchist traditions, Libertarians seek to maximise liberty for all individuals by opposing any idea or conception of a collective. In a perfect Libertarian State, there would be no government; in a realistic State, government would be relegated to providing Law & Order and National Defence. Libertarians desire a society of individuals free from any sort of coercion from government regulation. They concurrently would support Free-Trade, Market-Economics, and the unregulated right of individuals to do with their Life, Liberty, and Property as they wish. They support personal euthanasia, abortion, firearms ownership, sexual freedom and pornography NOT because these are to all tastes, but rather because they are individual decisions best left to the individual with no reference to the collective or society in general. In this ideology, the INDIVIDUAL is Supreme and a very limited state only exists to maintain order in a very limited scope. In this model there is not only a very strict separation of Church and State, there is a very strict separation of any imposition of Values on any one or individual. Various social and commercial Exchange Mechanisms will eventually decide what is acceptable social behaviour and what is not. Notable Libertarians include Robert Nozick, Milton Friedman, Alan Ginsberg, Ayn Rand, Hunter S. Thompson, Barry Goldwater (socially anyway ...). Note the absence of notable Libertarians outside of the USA; for in the rest of the Western World, such ideologues are very much outside the mainstream of public life, and are often referred to as "Anarchists". TrulyTory 14:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Wait...how can the creators of Liberalism be called classical liberals, if Liberal means something different than its classic form? Furthermore, how can something be classic when it was once origina. Don't you see that Liberalism had to become classic liberalism because many people strayed from its beliefs by changing its core values and meanings? Thus, I do not see a problem with mentioning how classical liberals believe themselves to be the true liberals and that "modern welfare statist liberals" have perverted the meaning.

Libertarians are a reaction from the virtual elimination of liberals/classical liberals from the political scene as both Democrats and Republicans continued to abandon their beliefs on freer markets and limited government. Thats it. There are various levels of libertarians and free market advocates, and only a few of them advocate anarchism. I think you conflate free market with anarchy. Furthermore, I think you've failed to realize that Milton Friedman considers himself a liberal while being a member of the REPUBLICAN PARTY!!!!

Another supposed noted American libertarian is John Stossle, and he hates the term libertarian, he prefers to call himself a liberal but the meaning is something different from what it once was so he reluctantly refers to himself as a classical liberal for the less informed, or a libertarian for the most ignorant.

Furthermore, there has never been a laissez-faire American life. This is bogus leftist/tory propoganda. (Gibby 17:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC))

I wouldn't mind a sentence saying Present-day classical liberals claim themselves to be the true liberals and beleive that "modern welfare liberals" have perverted the meaning. I would strongly object with a sentence that classical liberals are the true liberals and that modern welfare liberals perverted the meaning. I cannot mind a claim, but I do not agree totally with the claim, since modern classical liberals/libertarians focus on economic freedom, but the original liberal thinkers focused in my understanding on political liberty. 159.46.248.231 08:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC) = Electionworld

NO, the original liberals did focus on economic freedom, they just never gave it a name. Later liberals, what we now call Classical liberals, thanks to the perversion, were able to draw a connection between limited government, freer market capitalism, and political freedom.

(Gibby 09:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC))

I do not think we will agree on this. It might be right for the Anglophone liberal thinkers, I doubt it with Kant and Montesquieu and I am sure about Thorbecke. This might have been the result of the furthergowing political liberty at that time in the UK. But if one reads the article on Adam Smith, one can also read Smith believed that while human motives are often selfish and greedy, the competition in the free market would tend to benefit society as a whole by keeping prices low, while still building in an incentive for a wide variety of goods and services. Nevertheless, he was wary of businessmen and argued against the formation of monopolies. and However, it must be remembered that Smith advocated for a Government that was active in sectors other than the ecnomy: he advocated for public education of poor adults; for institutional systems that were not profitable for private industries; for a judiciary; and for a standing army.). 159.46.248.231 11:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC) = Electionworld

You are correct. Smith thought that Capitalism was a reforming system but was wary (as all good liberals are) about an overconcentration of power in the hands of the few. A point lost on the hapless Gibby. In Smith's time, Capitalism was the movement of the Middle and Lower Classes to "earn" their way out of such social position. In the context of the times, this was radical and liberal. TrulyTory 13:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

NEITHER OF YOU HAVE SAID ANYTHING CONTRARY...omg. Smith, wrote of economics. Kant wrote of how this economic system could bring peace. Liberalism is about free market limited government. Smith saw that people were selfish and greedy but understood that free market capitalism will align selfish and greedy interests as the interest of other people. It is economics, politics, sociology, philosophy all rolled into one. Classical Liberalism is about free market limited government and takes the name classical ONLY BECAUSE MODERN LIBERALS PERVERTED THAT MEANING!

And TT, the point is lost on you. I'm the one whose been talking about liberal beliefs that free markets help lead to limited government, a protection of human rights, and increases in civil and political freedom. My god, pay attention.(Gibby 17:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC))

Gibby is raving. I think a good starting place for the article would be before it was merged with Liberalism and then include anything relevant added since then and a section discussing the "perversion" of the term by Libertarians. Slizor 19:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

He seems quite unbalanced I must say, but that is nothing new. We need to rework the ENTIRE article. Having said that, I am not really a liberal, but we non-liberals seem to understand it better than the ideologues who focus too much on the free-market and forget about the moral imperative and contract rights inherent in Smith's and Others work and that of the Scottish & Manchester Schools. Cheers TrulyTory 22:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I am a liberal, so please do not generalize. Electionworld 22:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I think by making this article reflect a keynesian "liberal" view point you ruin the very purpose of this article...which is to provide information on a liberal view point that is at great odds with keynesian macroeconomics. (Gibby 08:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC))

Once again, you have missed the point. Classical Liberals diverge from Keynesians fundamentally over the issue of Demand Management. Outside of that, there is lots of convergence. Also and in fact, Keynes maintained that you must have supply-side interventions at times, usually during so-called "good-times." Keynes' theory becomes perverted by 1965 - because economics cannot assert primacy over politics. Happily so I might add. TrulyTory 14:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Keynes merged economics into politics and politicians abused it...unfortunatly economics does not rule politics. I do not believe anything Keynes wrote about can be considered liberal, period. He may of thought that but I think you should ask von Mises, Hayek, and Friedman about that. They would tell you that what Keynes wrote about smacked liberalism in the face. The only reason Keynes can be considered liberal is because populists, politicians, and the media have conflated them together...ignorance or practicality, I'm not deciding. But government interventions effecting supply and demand, prices etc, are not liberal economic policies. Thus not classical liberal.

and, get it straight, Keynes diverged from liberalism. (Gibby 19:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC))

He is not your kind of liberal, but he was an active meber of one of the leading liberal parties around the world, the Liberal Party in the UK. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 21:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

That doesnt mean anything. President George Bush is a Republican, of the same party as Reagan and is more of a "tory" than a believer in free markets. The Republican Party is also the party of Lincoln, aka the party of nationalism, and big government and Democrats used to be the limited government, free trading, slave ownership, states rights party but are now the labor/socialist/enviornmentally friendly party that wants big government and hardly any state powers.

So...your point...doesnt mean anything. Keynes economic policies were not liberal...only to populist and highly imaginiative folk. (Gibby 21:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC))

Neither the US Republicans or the US Democrats are generally (international) considered to be liberal parties. The Republicans aligned themselves with the worldwide conservative movement and the Democrats have contacts with the three other internationals.

Keynes was a well respected member of the Liberal Party, not only outside but also inside this party. Denying that he was a liberal doesn't anything in this debate. 159.46.248.229 09:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC) (=Electionworld)

I was not aware that liberal™ was a registered trademark of Von Mises, Hayek, Friedman and co. What gives them ultimate authority to decide who is or isn't liberal? -- Nikodemos 23:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you werent aware that sometimes words get a different meaning...sometimes on accident, sometimes on purpose, sometimes because of ignorance. But liberal's original meaning is something different than it represents today. Much in the same way words like "gay" and "fag" have different meanings. The problem is, liberal is a word people are trying to reclaim and dispute the modern usage. You are attempting to change the article in such away that it eliminates the factuality of this dispute. People who call themselves classical liberals do so because they are in dispute with modern liberals over the usage. By replacing this article with anything else, especially with Keynesian interpretations eliminates the very purpose of this article, which is to inform readers of the original and alternative meaning to a word that is hotly disputed. So far, you all have failed to understand this.(Gibby 23:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC))

My point is that both social liberals and free-market liberals in modern times have claimed to be the rightful heirs of classical liberalism. I see no reason why we should privilege the POV of one group over the other. The only undisputed classical liberals are the pre-1850 liberals. This article should begin by discussing them first, then go into a discussion around the modern (and disputed) use of the term. -- Nikodemos 05:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

What social liberal calls himself a classical liberal? RJII 05:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Social liberals claim to be the heirs of 19th century liberalism. If they are correct, then self-identified classical liberals are not "classical". -- Nikodemos 05:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

"Hiers"? As they were influenced by classical liberalism? Sure they were. But they don't regard themselves as classical liberals. Who in their right mind would equate classical liberalism with social liberalism? Social liberals don't call themselves classical liberals, and nobody calls them classical liberals. RJII 06:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Social liberals in general don't accept the existence of a "classical liberalism" separate from modern liberalism. They claim an unbroken line from the earliest liberals to themselves. Not in the sense that they believe exactly the same things as the early liberals, but in the sense that their views are the logical conclusion of early liberal thought. -- Nikodemos 06:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

They don't accept the existence of classical liberalism today? Do you have source saying that? Likewise for your claim that they say think that they are the logical conclusion of early classical liberal thought? The latter point might make sense to include in the article if you can find some saying that, but of course you couldn't claim that they're classical liberals --so, that would be kind of tangential. RJII 06:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

They believe that the "classical" liberalism of today is in fact a modern phenomenon that illegitimately claims the adjective "classical" for itself. How could I make this point clear? Suppose there was a group calling themselves "good liberals". Other liberals would oppose the use of the adjective "good" by this group, because of its implication that any other liberals are "bad". -- Nikodemos 06:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand what you're saying here. "They believe that the "classical" liberalism of today is in fact a modern phenomenon that illegitimately claims the adjective "classical" for itself." Here you're saying classical liberalism exists today, but at the same time it shouldn't called classical liberalism, right? That seems like a really odd position to hold. Why shouldn't a thing be called what it is? Do you have a source for anyone that says such a thing? It would be a purely semantical argument. Maybe you can find a source that says the term should not be ahistorical, but only apply to a specific time period? That's what you're arguing, right? RJII 15:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Nikodemos that modern liberals consider themselves to be heirs of original liberalism, though their present ideology evolved. This evolution doesn't make themselves less liberal then those whose ideology didn't evolve, but became intransigent. One has to read the classical liberal works in the time and context when they were written in resistance to a mercantilist society with no opportunities for citizens. This context completely changed: present-day society is completely different from the seventeenth and eighteenth century. A real free market nowadays is at least as much endangered by monopolies and cartels as by the moderate state intervention in western society. Moderate state intervention is and was necesary to create optimal freedom for as much as possible people. This started with the banning of child labour. This opinion doesn't make modern liberals socialists. There is a clear difference between modern liberalism and socialism or social democracy, and that is the onus on individual liberty and development instead of class and collectivity. So why not make a difference between classical liberals (from Locke to Mill), modern liberals and intransigent (market) liberals. 159.46.248.229 09:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC) = Electionworld

Libertarians consider themselves to be the heirs of original liberalism, though their present ideology evolved - let us not forget that. If Libertarians follow Classical Liberalism exactly as it was in the 19th Century then Hayek, Friedman, etc have said nothing new (and thus are of no importance and should not be included in the article.) And Gibby, as you have said, that there is a dispute. The article does not reflect that, it does not discuss it, what it does is repeat Libertarian dogma. What has been proposed is to include that dispute (in its own section) in an article based primarily on 18th-19th Century liberals. Slizor 15:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to follow the philosophy of the original liberals "exactly" to be a classical liberal. Classical liberalism is an ahistorical term for any philosophy that is similar to that philosophy. The original liberals didn't even agree with each other on a lot of things, so what would it mean to have the "exactly" the same philosophy? Classical liberalism is a "loose term." RJII 15:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

It is interesting to see someone demand that their own rigid definition of an amorphous concept is considered correct. As the original liberals didn't agree with each other on a lot of things (which brings in the question of "who was a liberal?") then pretty much all ideologies could claim to be like Classical Liberalism - it is dependant upon which particular elements of the "project" you choose to emphasize. Slizor 15:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

RJII: So why are present-day classical liberals more close to the old liberals than the modern liberals? 159.46.248.229 16:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC) = Electionworld

I think probably the most important is the focus of classical liberals on individual liberty (negative liberty) and the desire to see intervention by the state minimized (especially in the economic realm). "Modern liberals" are concerned with positive liberty and aren't advocating against state intervention --they want state intervention in order to promote equal opportunity. They think individual liberty isn't worth much if you don't have the means to enjoy it, so they tend to see a moral responsibility of "society" to provide a more level playing field --individual's don't have a right to be left alone, but have a responsibility to take care of others and the state should enforce that. On other other hand, classical liberals do not embrace ethical altruism --there is no moral responsibility to give to others, or if there is, it should be left to individual decision. RJII 00:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

No the original liberals didnt agree on a few things, but today these disagreements would be considered splitting hairs. Even Joseph Shumpeter recognizes that the enemies of private enterprise and the original liberalism have taken up the name of liberalism for themselves. Classical liberals are more close to the original liberals because of their believe in limited government, individual freedom, and economic freedom.

There was one basic thing that all liberals agreed on and that was human liberty. This was achieved by creating a limited government with few and defined powers (without getting into any economic arguement here) while modern liberals tend to favor big government centralization of power and collectivization of community interests rather than individual freedom. THIS IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF LIBERALISMS ORIGINAL INTENTIONS. Modern liberals seek to expand central authority which was the very reason why men were not free according to the original liberal understanding.

(Gibby 22:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC))

It is a general misunderstanding that modern liberals favour big government etc. See the electoral programs of most liberal parties around the world. Do not mix up American liberalism with modern liberalism, it is just one of the variants of modern liberalism. There is much liberalism between American liberalism and libertarianism. Most liberals favour limited but not minimal governments. Banning cartels and monopolies is government action to realize a free market. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 23:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)