Talk:List of liberal theorists

message: Overall, a List of Liberal Theorists is helpful to anyone seeking information on Liberalism and political philosophy. We should also see comparable lists for Conservative Theorists, Socialist Theorists, and Fascist Theorists. I know, I know, if I think there should be one, then I am free to create one! But at this time, I think I'll just urge that someone else with more time and energy to take on the chore. If someone does I promise to commend him/her for their efforts and then offer constructive criticism ;-) LAWinans (talk) 20:06, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lists 

message: It is misleading, and perhaps disingenuous, to identify Libertarians such as Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand, Murray Rothbard, and Herbert Spencer, as Liberals alongside with T H Green, Lester Frank Ward and John Dewey, who believed in regulated markets, managed trade and an affirmative government. While Adam Smith may have been a “liberal” in the 18th century, in contemporary nomenclature he is a libertarian. It leaves the impression that these individuals share a common philosophy which is demonstrably untrue. LAWinans (talk) 20:06, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liberal? 

message: Some top liberals are missing: William Godwin, Thomas Szasz, Ayn Rand. and greeks like Pericles  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.24.26 (talk) 06:06, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  missing 

message: Given that there are people on this page that I have never even heard of, and that it is inevitable that people will keep adding more and more obscure philosophers that others don't know much about, I think it is about time to develop a few criteria by which to judge the thinkers included on this page. I propose:
* The theorist must have had a demonstrably international impact. People who promoted the cause of liberalism or a particular liberal party in some particular country but are not read elsewhere should not be included.
* The theorist's work must have been at least translated into English. This is both a crude measure of notability and at the same time a practical consideration, for people reading the English Wikipedia are unlikely to be much helped by references to theorists they cannot read.
* The theorist must be a theorist, not just a politician or political strategist. This is most easily measured by finding out if the theorist is cited by other theorists. Theorists may be economists, philosophers, lawyers, sociologists, or even poets, but they must have expressed themselves by way of substantial writing.
* The theorist may have a classical liberal or a more egalitarian concept of liberty — but they must be concerned with the promotion of some form of liberty. Nozick and Rawls and Popper and Hayek all qualify, because they were all deeply concerned with liberty in one form or another.
* A summary of their contribution, what is liberal about it, and how it fits in with the rest is required. 
If people agree on these criteria, then there will be a basis from which to have a discussion when some random comes in and adds their favorite local celebrity populist-socialist-conservative-and-generally-unprincipled pamphleteer to the list. We can then point to these criteria and have a real argument, rather than pointing fingers. What do you say?Sjeng (talk) 14:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed criteria for including people on this page 

message: "It is intended to be suggestive rather than exhaustive."
Suggestive in whose opinion? User:MPS
:What do you mean> --Gangulf 20:59, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: SO why should Amartya Sen not to be included? --Gangulf 09:52, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: He's a socialist economist. Okay, he might have a tangential relationship with liberalism -- perhaps he's moved closer to liberals in recent years, I haven't been following his career that closely -- but it seems to me this list includes socialists, right-libertarians,  centrists, left-anarchists (witness Chomsky and Zinn), absolutely everybody. Who do we expect to exclude from the category of "liberalism"? QuartierLatin1968 18:57, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not agree with the remark on Sen. As far as I know he is not socialist at all. Other socialists are not included and you might read my remark on Chomsky, Stiglitz and Zinn below (I would delete them from the list. People who contribute to the development of the tehory of liberalism should be included. --Gangulf 09:08, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  You guys have no idea what you are talking about 1- Sen explicitly denies that he is a socialist or "communitarian" thinker. I asked him about it, personally. His work on allocation of goods and "development is freedom" is extremely influential, and not to socialists. Stiglitz a socialist? Again, not even close. He states that there are goods which the market does not produce because of assmetry of information, and therefore the way to correct this is not by having state run industries, but having a public good to produce the information. The smallest, not the largest possible change. The purpose of such a list is to be as broad as possible, to encompass the entire range of thought which has been incorporated into liberalism - not to promote one specific vision of it. That a good deal of previous work was trashed - without discussion is a bad sign. That the personal party affiliation or vague charges of someone being a "socialist" is being used to compile the list is, quite frankly, illiberal. Today's radicals are often tomorrows respected thinkers, and often thinkers begin adhering to radical groups, simply because they cannot get their ideas heard in any other venue. But the list should be deriven by the work and its results not membership in some clubl. Stirling Newberry 16:40, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: There are only a few libertarians listed and a lot of left wing liberals, like Dahrendorf, like Rawls, like Keynes etc. As a left-wing liberal (in the European sense of the word) I think that is important. But what did Zinn, Chomsky and Stiglitz contribute to liberal theory and why are they liberals? As far as I can guess, most people outside the US would consider them socialists. --Gangulf 18:53, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Chomsky's work on linguistics (remember this) comes up repeatedly in liberal circles particularly through the work of George Lakoff and is part of the response to post-structuralism. Manufacturing consent isn't socialist, it is, however, consumerist. Stirling Newberry 16:51, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: You are welcome to expand the article. --Gangulf 07:04, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

text: OK, I understand the point. When I have the time I will start adding remarks. In the meantime, everybody is welcome to add this kund of info. --Gangulf 21:05, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Stirling Newberry re-added Chomsky, Stiglitz and Wells without explaining why they should be added and without a reaction on the question asked before (12 october). I still doubt they should be included, So I would like to hear an argument to add them. I do not like the word vandalism in this context. I created the list and am open for additions. The list is pluriform with philosophers I wouldn't consider liberals (like Nozick), but others would argue why they should be added. I didn't find the argument on Chomsky, Stiglitz and Wells, so I am waiting for that. BTW I restored the list to a version in which Chomsky, Stiglitz are included, but with additions made on countries and years by some other people. Gangulf 21:34, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: By all means add Ayn Rand. Though I would argue objectivism violates the separation of church and state. Stirling Newberry 16:51, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Liberalism is certainly not the same thing as left wing, but it is not the same thing as "anti-socialist, anti-welfare economics, anti-tax, anti-Democratic Party USA" either. Liberalism is a broad river in thinking - if Keynes can read, and praise The Road to Serfdom - then there is certainly room for a wide spectrum of reading. Stirling Newberry 19:18, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Please visit the page Liberalism for a discussion on liberalism. On the text there seems to be a broad consensus. Gangulf 19:12, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see a consensus at all. It appears that defining a liberal has turned into a political game.  Certainly a lot of politicians have claimed to be liberal that weren't for freedom at all.  Maybe we should limit the list of liberal theorists to those who lived prior to the 20th century? --MeUser42 (talk) 11:45, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

text: I would not disagree. Lets name the new page Contributions to liberal theory. --Gangulf 18:07, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: There are too many right-wing libertarians and not enough left-wing people. Remember, Wikipedia is not "THE TRUTH AS REPORTED BY LIBERTARIANS"--right-wingers are NOT the only recipient of the liberal tradition, though they love to think that they are. By all means, add Keynes and Chomsky. They count.69.91.153.121 (talk) 17:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV?

message: There is a claim that the group of philosophers represented reveal an international liberal tradition, which is laughable. The number of Indian subcontintental, Middle Eastern, East Asian, African, and Latin American philosophers, political scientists and moralists is completely and utterly dwarfed by the number of Euro-Americans. This is not, for the skeptical, a reflection of any real dearth of liberal (or otherwise) thinkers in the rest of the world, but rather evidence of a complete lack of knowledge on the part of the collective of writers of this article. I cannot write for Wikipedia right now (I used to, but right now I'm off on a trip), but I wanted to alert anyone coming to this page that claims of the international character of the list presented are laughable at best, and anyone wishing to improve this article could either excise that 'international' claim or start earnestly researching major thinkers of liberal stances who came well before Descartes or were contemporary to earlymodern and modern European philosophers but unfortunately happened to be doing their thing outside of the Euro-American miliue. Remember all those Arabian philosophers, mostly quite liberal, who transmitted Aristotle and co. to Europe? Ever bothered finding out about the droves of Indian philosophers who, consistently from BCE to the time of the British Raj, upheld what might be considered liberal ideals such as anti-casteism and equality of sexes, even animal rights? This page has been found wanting. --68.173.46.79 15:30, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If the anonymous user 68.173.46.79 had spent as much time improving the article as complaining (or laughing) about it, we would all be better off.  Please be more positive and help us out. --Blainster 00:05, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

text: Liberalism as ideology, is born in Europe, and first spread in America. It has just relatively recently spread outside Europe and America, and we have listed those liberal theorists outside these continents which we are aware of, some of them haven't perhaps even been that influential to the liberal theory, but we have listed them because we have tried to make the list geographically representative. (Likewise you would probably find more Chinese Confusian or Taoist philosophers than European ones.) If you are aware of some non-European or non-American liberal theorists, which aren't already listed, please go ahead, and add them. We have done our best.--213.243.155.252 14:46, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: International

message: Could the introduction of this article be written without mentioning the names? Now those names mentioned in the introduction are actually listed three times in this article, which is unnecessary.213.243.155.252 14:40, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction

message: I think that listing Chomsky in "Contributions to liberal theory" is a bit too much. Of course there has been some influences between different thinkers and traditions of thought, but if Chomsky is listed as a "liberal", then Karl Marx should be listed, as well. --213.243.157.134 10:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Chomsky

message: Someone's made this page uneditable via a spam link.  If anyone knows how to get around this, could they please fix this truly bizarre misspelling, which occurs in this article? Michael Hardy 02:30, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like you fixed it already.  No evidence of a problem now. --Blainster 19:26, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "theorum [sic]"

message: I don't quite understand the differences between American Liberalism and Modern (new, social, welfare) Liberalism. There seems to be some blind acceptance of Europeans using "liberalism" in the classical sense, which isn't accurate. Both of the forms of liberalism exist in Europe with a number of political parties supporting modern liberalism. It's also incorrect to think that modern liberalism started in the US. Slizor 15:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  International/American Liberalism? 

message: I feel that Aristotle should be added to the beginning of this list. If you read his "Politics", you will see that in the end he adovacted the form of government known as "Polity," or a democracy headed by elected representatives. This seems liberal enough to me.
What do other people think?
--User:Zaorish
: Seconded! Politics has been a source of inspiration for liberal/would-have-been-liberal-if-they-were-born-in-the-right-era thinkers throughout the ages.  --(Mingus ah um 19:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why is Aristotle among the list of liberal thinkers?  Liberalism is a product of modernity, mainly egalitarianism, which Aristotle didn't support.  Hence, an aristocracy, according to him, is the best or ideal regime.RetroLady64 (talk) 22:09, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

text: According to the introduction, liberalism is a product of the enlightenment.  So, by definition we need to remove Aristotle and any other ancient on the list.  Just because their was overlap (i.e. support for private property) doesn't mean someone was a liberal thinker.  RetroLady64 (talk) 15:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aristotle 

message: Ayn Rand (Russia/Usa, 1905-1983), was a Russian-born American libertarian and philosopher best known for developing Objectivism. Widely regarded by serious philosophers and writers as a joke, she has a cult following for her books, particularly on the internet. 	 
*Some literature: 	 
**The Fountainhead 	 
**Atlas Shrugged 	 
**We the Living 	 
**Anthem
We have had a mini-edit-war going on over the inclusion/exclusion of Ayn Rand, so let's talk it out. By what reasoning are folks contesting or supporting her inclusion? DickClarkMises 20:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the Ayn Rand entry the first time, because she is generally regarded as a libertarian (as the entry states), rather than a contributor to liberal theory.  When it was restored, another editor added disparaging comments about her. Because WP does not condone personal attacks, I felt it was better to remove the entry again, rather than have it remain as "flame bait".  As you suggested, the term "liberal" has been used in widely varying ways, and this variance in use and understanding is probably the root of the problem here. --Blainster 23:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I would note that Hayek, Nozick, and (obviously) Rothbard are also often referred to as libertarians, as are at least several others on the list. Worth noting too is that Rand herself hated the term "libertarian" and refused to apply it to herself, although that isn't really that important for our purposes here. Now, I personally don't much care for Rand, but there are some serious scholars who have argued the merits of her contributions to liberal theory, including Roderick Long here. I would also note that the "Liberalism" infobox lists libertarianism as a school of liberalism. DickClarkMises 19:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that the broader the list becomes, the less useful it is. Perhaps the others you mentioned should be removed as well.  But if other editors agree with your assessment of the scope of liberal theory, I will not further contest the addition. I hope you are committed to defending it from the inevitable vandal attacks.  --Blainster 09:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

text: As the original liberalism of Adam Smith & co was much like libertarianism of today, IMHO practically every libertarian thinker contributes to the "liberal theory". It is questionable however, if Ayn Rand was primarily a liberal theorist or rather an advocate. She did of course start her own branch of modern liberal thinking (objectivism) but most of her works were either inspiring fiction or more like philosophical pondering on free market rather than actual scientific theories or works of political philosophy. Since the list is already so long, I guess that more "academic" theorists of the libertarian branch of liberalism such as Rothbard, Hayek and Mises are enough. Anyways, funny that Joe Stiglitz made it to the list. Although he isn't easily classified, some of his thoughts are rather keynesian and he doesn't seem to be concerned on social liberties that much. JJohannes (talk) 19:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Ayn Rand

message: Hm... Andrzej Frycz Modrzewski (1503-1572): religious tolerance, separation of church from state, equality of all against the law,
Wawrzyniec Grzymała Goślicki (1530-1607) whose works were widely read (i.e by Thomas Jefferson), and were so radical that they were at the time banned in England: that monarch can only rule with consent of the nation, and the law is above the rulers. Polish brethren: religious tolerance, and  separation of the state and church (they were read by almost everyone in Europe, i.e Locke had a lot of their works). What do you think? Szopen 08:33, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposals 

message: :Image:John kenneth galbraith.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 21:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:John kenneth galbraith.jpg

message: This list is a joke.  It includes everything from classical liberals (Locke) to proponents of natural order (Rothbard) to democratic socialism (Rawls, Schlesinger Jr.) to totalitarians and supporters total war (Lincoln).  Almost everyone on this list would vehemently disagree with a good number of the others on this list, and would classify some of them as evil.  Whatever liberalism means, it cannot be an all-encompassing term, for then it would mean nothing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.160.53.245 (talk) 21:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree as well, and would challenge inclusion of Rand and Milton Friedman as well. These kinds of lists are always fraught with people who insist on pushing their point of view, but there are really a few square pegs jammed into round holes in this one and it should be pruned and weeded. Calicocat (talk) 00:39, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Absurdly liberal scope of what liberalism means. 

message: He is in the column on the right, but not in the article. Where is he ? He was much more important than many thinkers seen on this list. Besides, Hayek has been a famous Hume reader. --82.237.174.28 (talk) 13:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is David Hume ? 

message: Instead of brief summaries, most of which need a immense amount of work, we should just create a bullet point list of liberal thinkers with links to their individual articles.RetroLady64 (talk) 22:14, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  reorganizing the page 

message: No
:I recall that he calls himself a classical liberal. We need a third-party reliable source to confirm. In the modern world, Peterson would be lumped together with conservatives. WIKINIGHTS talk 22:29, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could Dr Jordan Peterson be considered a modern classical liberal? 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests February 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 19:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Thomas Hobbes (portrait).jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of liberal theorists. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040604213518/http://www.ne.jp/asahi/moriyuki/abukuma/weber/world/ethic/pro_eth_frame.html to http://www.ne.jp/asahi/moriyuki/abukuma/weber/world/ethic/pro_eth_frame.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on List of liberal theorists. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090201094804/http://eserver.org/philosophy/kant/critique-of-practical-reaso.txt to http://eserver.org/philosophy/kant/critique-of-practical-reaso.txt
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030603170946/http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/henry.html to http://www.law.ou.edu/hist/henry.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:32, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of liberal theorists. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170705210354/http://alsun.asu.edu.eg//english/article.php?action=show&id=7586 to http://alsun.asu.edu.eg//english/article.php?action=show&id=7586
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:19, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Shouldn't there be a section on John Milton? His work Areopagitica is one of the most famous publications in favour of freedom of speech/expression/press.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.187.122 (talk) 20:14, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Milton 

message: The section on Laozi (Lao Tzu) is uselessly short. It does not really explain any connection to humanism.--Kelvinnkat (talk) 08:14, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Laozi under-documentation 

message: Hi everyone, Keohane and Nye are the two contemporary giants of (neo)liberalism and should really be listed here. Hopefully someone will have the time to add them. Cheers 88.12.178.3 (talk) 09:08, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keohane and Nye?