Talk:Classical liberalism/Archive 1

message: Here's the list of unresolved dispute(s) preventing the removal of the  from the article.  Once a dispute is resolved, it is crossed off the list.  (66.167.137.237 21:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputes

message: 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)
thread_title: Merge

message: 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)
thread_title: Leave Classic Liberalism alone

message: 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)
thread_title:  School of Salamanca 

message: 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)
thread_title: Economic Liberalism proposed merge

message: 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 Wikipedia 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)
thread_title: Article needs rework for NPOV

message: ----
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)
thread_title: How the CATO Institute defines itself (removed)

message: 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)
thread_title:  Merger of classic liberalism and classical liberalism 

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
thread_title:  Let's focus on the '''''classical''''' figures and ideas 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Discusion on Tags

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  evolution versus immediate change 

message: 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)
thread_title: Slizor's edit

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

text: "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)
thread_title:  It is disputed 

message: In the section, (Classical) Liberalism and the great depression,  "Some economists since Milton Friedman have continued to argue that the causes of this great depression have been erased by populist myths from Keynesians and leftists in an attempt to legitimize their own economic prefrences at the expense of the truth." Obviously, not NPOV. Perhaps if the people editing this article weren't so concerned with getting their message across and defending themselves against the capitalists or the leftists or the socialists, then this article would be in better shape. 71.241.239.133 18:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fixed NPOV 

message: I think work needs to be done on the newly created Libertarian bit and some work on the modern Liberalism bit. Also, philosophy requires attention. Slizor 18:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Positive Additions 

message: Slizor, add your edits with your refrenced material in a section.  Title it something. For example "ALternative Understanding" or something.  You cannot delete all the cited material that contradicts your own beliefs!  (Gibby 01:42, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes

message: italics are quotes made by Slizor taken from the talk page on libertarianism
No, I do not think Classical Liberalism can be classified as against welfare and public ownership. Look at Adam Smith, biggest Classical Liberal economist, he thought that some utilities should be under public control.
::An incorrect interpretation, Smith wrote of 3 things the government could do, protect citizens from other states, protect citizens from harm by each other (both are protection of citizens from coercsion) and the provision of public goods.  Your interpretation demonstrates a lack of understanding on the economic definition of public good.  Essentially, Smith argues it is ok for governments to correct market externalities but he does NOT condone the creation of government monopolies for the permanent control over these externalities.  I believe this incorrect interpretation has lead you far astray.
My criteria of Classcal Liberals having standing is if they were famous during their life time of shortly after their death - Bastiat was not, he was just dredged up by Libertarians so they can claim that Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism are the same.
The difference between Classical Liberals and Libertarians is that Libertarians view lassiez-faire economics as an end in itself - they think of it as "econmonic freedom". Classical Liberals argued for it because they thought it worked (Mill based his defence of free trade on utilitarian grounds) although they also limited where it should extend to. I also doubt that Mill (the foremost Classical Liberal thinker on social freedom) would support unrestrained use of drugs.
::You don't seem to realize that All libertarians are Classical Liberals but not all Classical Liberals are Libertarians.  You also seem to conflate all libertarians into one political ideology, as well as conflate capitalism with free markets and free markets with anarchy...and libertarianism with anarchy.  All are incorrect and fallacious.  Free markets are not anarchical nor do most classical liberals or libertarians advocate that.  Even anarcho-capitalists advocate some form of authority (corporate authority as opposed to a tradition government).  Which brings me to the next point, not all libertarians believe in anarcho-capitalism!
::On John Stuart Mill, we I don't know where he would stand but I do have a quote from him: "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant" - John Stuart Mill.  If he is logically consistant we can conclude that the government has no true reason to prevent the use of drugs.
::And by the way your poor interpretations lead to other insights on your own studies and beliefs...as you fail to realize that many classical liberals saw that Capitalism and economic freedom could bring about a reduction in poverty, equality, protection of civil and political freedom, and an end to war (or at least a reduction to violent conflict).  This from Adam Smith to Joeseph Shumpeter.  So, yes classical liberals did focus on economic freedom.
  
Essentially, Classical Liberals focused on social freedom - they were concerned with people being free from the "tyranny of the majority". Libertarians are focused on Economic "freedom" (in the Freedom = Slavery sense of the word.) Slizor 14:47, 2004 Jun 24 (UTC)
::Again, they did focus on economic freedom.  Adam smith understood that economics played a major role in the governments ability to maintain control and retain tyrany over the people, to make arbitrary wars, and pick winners and losers in society.
Your use of the word freedom seems to imply that you believe freedom = anarchy. Most classical liberals hard argued that freedom ment a freedom from coersion, thus it meant you were free in so far as you retained no freedom to coerse others.  They like many modern libertarians see government playing a role in protecting citizens from coersions.
My compromise of your addition is suffecient, though I think your sources are largely incorrect in their assumptions (as you are).  Though because they are properly cited they shall stay, in its own section, but shall not be the main focus of the article (especially since the rest of the article is already so heavily cited against your thesis).  (Gibby 12:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a lot of quotes from academics.....certain kind of academics who espouse certain views. I have removed large amounts of text whose inclusion is premised on something that is contested (i.e. the text is POV.) The current article is my proposal for the start of a more accurate and NPOV article. Slizor 18:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still trying to figure out the source of the debate here. Is there a dispute about whether "Classical liberalism" and "liberalism" are the same thing? Or whether the quotes from the academics should be included? Fagstein 19:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Slizor has an understanding that libertarians are nothing like classical liberals and share nothing in common. He also tends to think that modern leftwing liberals share more in common with classical liberals than libertarians and that classical liberals did favor a good deal of state intervention for the public good which he defines as more than just correcting market externalities.  The article is NPOV already, it reports the views of respectable sources who all happen to disagree with Slizor and his 2 quotes.  He delets them anyway.  I tried a compromise by including a section with his thesis in it, which is his main complaint against libertarianism sharing classical liberalism as the basis for their philosophy (as a matter of fact, Slizor thinks it a conspiracy they have taken classical liberalism as their heritage...but doesnt seem to have a problem with modern liberals, especially in America which favor serious intervention as stealing the original name for themselves. (Gibby 20:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Not me that was someone elses edit who argued that Classical Liberalism was something that occured pre 1850 and never returned.  (Gibby 20:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I can tell, that seems to be what's causing the problem. Some of these people think Classical liberalism is confined to a certain time period, and they want to exclude everyone that wasnt around pre-1850. RJII 20:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps this is why Slizor has a problem with von Mises, von Hayek, Friedman, Shumpeter, the Cato Institute and calls them all neoliberals.  Though he does make an exception for Mill who was post 1850, but most likely that is because Mill became increasingly favorable for some state intervention for the provision of the poor, thus he thinks he has proof for modern welfare states as being the inheritors of liberalism rather than neoliberals or libertarians (i'm guessing). (Gibby 20:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: no yoru not your saying it you havnt cited it  Furthermore, scholars like Friedman and Hayek have demonstrated the logical disconnect between classical liberals and modern social liberals, including a disconnect between liberalism and Keynesian economics.  (Gibby 05:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: This isnt original research this is preciesly what many liberal scholars point out. I have the quotes in here, they are cited, have you missed them?  (Obviously you have)  I'm afraid you are the one who is dillusional.  I'm amazed at how much you've missed. 1. You fail to realize that economics and politics were once one in the same.  When liberalism was born they were totally related and inseperable.  Liberals wrote entirely of economic freedom and of political freedom, your missing it because you seperate the economics from the politics. and you shouldnt do that.  Futhremore my definition fits the claim because it is the definition. 
You've totally misread all liberal text. (Gibby 05:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Here we start again. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 14:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Here is where you are messing up

message: I'm not an expert here, so someone has to explain it to me: Why is this text being removed? What is the disagreement that is causing this edit war? Fagstein 18:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a lot of quotes from academics.....certain kind of academics who espouse certain views. I have removed large amounts of text whose inclusion is premised on something that is contested (i.e. the text is POV.) The current article is my proposal for the start of a more accurate and NPOV article. Slizor 18:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still trying to figure out the source of the debate here. Is there a dispute about whether "Classical liberalism" and "liberalism" are the same thing? Or whether the quotes from the academics should be included? Fagstein 19:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Slizor has an understanding that libertarians are nothing like classical liberals and share nothing in common. He also tends to think that modern leftwing liberals share more in common with classical liberals than libertarians and that classical liberals did favor a good deal of state intervention for the public good which he defines as more than just correcting market externalities.  The article is NPOV already, it reports the views of respectable sources who all happen to disagree with Slizor and his 2 quotes.  He delets them anyway.  I tried a compromise by including a section with his thesis in it, which is his main complaint against libertarianism sharing classical liberalism as the basis for their philosophy (as a matter of fact, Slizor thinks it a conspiracy they have taken classical liberalism as their heritage...but doesnt seem to have a problem with modern liberals, especially in America which favor serious intervention as stealing the original name for themselves. (Gibby 20:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Not me that was someone elses edit who argued that Classical Liberalism was something that occured pre 1850 and never returned.  (Gibby 20:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I can tell, that seems to be what's causing the problem. Some of these people think Classical liberalism is confined to a certain time period, and they want to exclude everyone that wasnt around pre-1850. RJII 20:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps this is why Slizor has a problem with von Mises, von Hayek, Friedman, Shumpeter, the Cato Institute and calls them all neoliberals.  Though he does make an exception for Mill who was post 1850, but most likely that is because Mill became increasingly favorable for some state intervention for the provision of the poor, thus he thinks he has proof for modern welfare states as being the inheritors of liberalism rather than neoliberals or libertarians (i'm guessing). (Gibby 20:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

text: no yoru not your saying it you havnt cited it  Furthermore, scholars like Friedman and Hayek have demonstrated the logical disconnect between classical liberals and modern social liberals, including a disconnect between liberalism and Keynesian economics.  (Gibby 05:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: This isnt original research this is preciesly what many liberal scholars point out. I have the quotes in here, they are cited, have you missed them?  (Obviously you have)  I'm afraid you are the one who is dillusional.  I'm amazed at how much you've missed. 1. You fail to realize that economics and politics were once one in the same.  When liberalism was born they were totally related and inseperable.  Liberals wrote entirely of economic freedom and of political freedom, your missing it because you seperate the economics from the politics. and you shouldnt do that.  Futhremore my definition fits the claim because it is the definition. 
You've totally misread all liberal text. (Gibby 05:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Here we start again. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 14:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: From [[WP:3o]]

message: Are consistant with Wikipedia policy. Citations which were relevant to the article (and did not break NPOV by unbalancing) were kept, others (including several very vague references) were dispensed with. Large amounts of text whose right to be in the article was contested by the article itself were removed (with some bits just moved.) I think we need to standardise the Modern Liberalism bit and expand the first few sections (including working on the area "Classical liberalism and freedom".) I'm also not so sure how relevant the Great Depression is to Classical Liberalism. Slizor 22:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think is is going to help. I would think you'd be hard-pressed to find a source saying that, for example, Milton Friedman is not a classical liberal. RJII 16:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My Edits 

message: I've been patient and I've provided numerous sources, can I please make this article reflect that? Or do we have to continue under the tyranny of the original page? Slizor 13:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mind. The article is not owned by anyone, not even by KDRGibby. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 20:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And neither is it owned by marxist minority viewpoints. THe fact is, which Slizor fails to get time and time again, is that Classical Liberals view themselves as the one and only true liberals.  The fact is libertarians believe they are classical liberals.  And he's merely supply a fact that people dispute this. THe article should not reflect the dispute ONLY but it should include it.  Slizor wants to delete the very reason why we even have to use classical liberal today and replace it with the dispute as the legitimate belief.  (Gibby 14:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: the article is more than just the usage of the term, as is Liberalism, Marxism, Communism...etc etc etc.  And decent to you is a neo-marxist view point and that simply is not acceptable for defining liberalism let alone classical liberalism. (Gibby 14:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

text: This is not an article about the contemporary classical liberal/libertarian view on classical liberalism. So it should be open to contributions of people who do not consider themselves classical liberals in the KDRGIbby sense. So Slizor, I do not know if yoa are a neo-marxist, it is not relevant. Please contribute to the article. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 20:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we finally fairly edit this article? 

message: Surely we're not just ignoring the talk page now, are we? Slizor 13:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Come along, come along 

message: Yesterday Graham Watson, leader of the ALDE group in the European Parliament, held a speech at the 30th aniversary of the ELDR Party. I was there. He spoke about the three traditions in liberalism, united in European liberalism. These traditions are classical liberalism, economic liberalism and social liberalism. Classical liberalism in his view is not the free market apsect, but is the individual liberty aspect. That is the way I have learned it too. It was the struggle against despotism, absolute monarchy and the complete lack of individual liberty in that time. Classical liberalism goes about political liberty, human rights and rechtsstaat (rule of law). Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 17:58, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd consider that certainly a reasonable take on the matter. - Jmabel | Talk 19:03, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  If you can cite it, we can include it. One thing this page needs is a better emphasis on the philosophy of classical liberalism. Slizor 10:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Graham Watson 

message: It seems to me that the label "classical liberalism" is frequently applied to proponents of the Liberal theory of economics such as Thatcher whose basic interest is in free trade and minimal state intervention in business, but who of course also proclaim their support for individual freedom and apple pie. At the same time the label is claimed by modern Liberals who consider their social liberal approach to be closer to the founders of liberalism. Stating this in the intro, and moving detail about the free trade lot to the stub "Liberal theory of economics" would help to balance both articles. ...dave souza, talk 10:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is exactly my point. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 10:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: But, that's not true that "the label is claimed by modern Liberals who consider their social liberal approach to be closer to the founders of liberalism," is it? I haven't seen any social liberal claim that label, and certainly not in any scholarly source. RJII 16:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: My view is that "classical liberalism" is before the split between forms of liberalism and contains elements of both. No classical liberals claim the name because they're all dead. Slizor 17:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're making a fundamental error. Classical liberals are not all dead. They exist today. You're assumption that classical liberalism died a long time ago is what's causing a lot of problems with this article. It's not the case --classical liberalism is alive and well. Classical liberalism isn't confined to a certain time period in the past --it's a philosophy.  If you accept that philosophy, you're a classical liberal. RJII 17:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For a modern social (democratic) Liberal claiming that the label supports his position, see #Graham Watson above and check out Graham Watson. Phrase intro to suit. ..dave souza, talk 17:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So far, this is hearsay. I'd like to see a quote where Watson calls himself a "classical liberal." RJII 18:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not denying that classical liberalism influenced social liberalsm --at all. Of course it has. I'm saying that social liberalism is not classical liberalism, and classical liberalism exists today as distinct from social liberalism. (About Sturgis, what does it matter? She's a PhD in intellectual history and has a well sourced article. Until anyone can find a more credible source for a defintion, that will have to do.) 18:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not "my" definition. It's a sourced definition, and generally the same definition I've seen everywhere. Bentham and Rousseau influenced liberalism, of course, but not classical liberalism. They're not classical liberals. They may have influenced some classical liberals, of course, causing them to steer away from classical liberalism and into social liberalism. But, they're not classical liberals. Classical liberalism is an individualist philosophy that advocates protections of individuals from the state and the will of the community. RJII 18:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: My political affiliation is clear, I am a liberal democrat, member of the Dutch social liberal party and a bureau member of the ELDR. (The last is the reason not to edit the entry on ELDR). My ideology is a combination of the classical liberal vision on individual liberty and rule of law, the economic liberal vison of a free market economy, the social liberal vision of community responsibility to ensure that everybody can be free. I agree with the Dutch euthanasia law, since it is completely voluntary, I am strongly in favour of gun control, since the availabilty of guns limits my freedom. Violence is a state monopoly to defend its citizens. I am strongly in favour of European integration to enable Europe to be an open and free market. etc. etc. My philop[sophy is influenced by Montesquieu, Kant, Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, but even more strongly by John Rawls. I am against economic liberals/libertarians monopolizing classical liberalis. I am a classical liberal too !!! Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 12:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems quite odd and awkward for anybody modern to be claiming the rights to something classical. It seems that if we take into account everybody's POV, "classical liberalism" becomes just the same as "liberalism". That being the case, we should probably make this a short article ruminating briefly on how the term "classical liberalism" is used, then direct people to more information on the history of liberalism at liberalism, as well as linking to libertarianism. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 03:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was how it was originally before KDRGibby restarted this page. Slizor 18:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, let's move back towards that. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 19:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I think at least one person here (it appears to be slizor) thinks that classical liberalism and social liberalism are the same thing. Why else would he deleted the statement that "classical liberalism is distinct from social liberalism"? RJII 20:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Classical liberalism" usage for Liberal theory of economics

message: This article is horribly slanted in favour of economic factors. There's almost nothing on stuff like the rule of law or democracy. In fact, the article suggests that democracy is incompatible with classical liberalism , suggesting that a 'constitutional republic' is more in line with the classical liberal way of thinking, supplying some quotes and sources from certain thinkers outlining their dislike of democracy. This strikes me as more of the same libertarian POV which dominates the article. They don't like democracy, after all. Are the quotes really representative of classical liberalism as a whole, or have they just selective POV pushing? The article seems to suddenly jump to democracy being a classical liberal idea later on.
I've removed an erroneous link - the Federalist Papers link led to a site praising Ronald Reagan.--Nydas 11:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Classical liberalism and democracy

message: I think we need to take out the Samuel Freeman quote claiming that libertarianism is not classical liberalism. The quote says: "that libertarianism’s resemblance to liberalism is superficial; in the end, libertarians reject essential liberal institutions." Notice that the quote doesn't say anything about classical liberalism. RJII 04:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Samuel Freeman quote

message: Slizor, it's really interesting that you removed the note that "Classical liberalism is distinct from socialism, although it has influenced the latter."  Can you explain why you removed that?  Your position is not that social liberalism and classical liberalism are the same philosophy is it? RJII 17:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it needs to be in the intro. Apparently, there are some people that don't realize that classical liberalism is its own philosophy. Apparently, some try to equate it with social liberalism when it's not the same thing. RJII 17:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Firstly, who does that? Secondly, some people think that classical liberalism is an ahistoric ideology with the end result something like neo-classical economics or libertarianism when it is clearly not. SHould that be included at the start? Slizor 18:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Apparently, you. What source do you have the claim classical liberalism only applied to a specific time period? You're still not understanding that classical liberalism is its own philosophy. You can be a classical liberal today. RJII 18:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For reasons relating to my mental health and my 56k modem I will provide you with similar evidence to that which you have provided me with, namely - . Stop asking for more than you give. BTW, as I have said numerous times before I understand your argument, I just disagree with it. There is no blinding truth to your view, it is simply an opinion (actually, more like a belief.) Slizor 18:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: slizor removed note that classical liberalism is not social liberalism

message: I thought I might suggest that editors of classical liberalism might be interested in this article by Roderick Long, originally a speech given at the Mises Institute, in which he discusses essays by Herbert Spenser and Murray Rothbard on the historical relationship of liberalism and what we now call libertarianism. Of course, this is from a libertarian perspective, and it does argue that classical liberalism was essentially a libertarian ideology, but it also seems quite compatible with the idea that liberalism simply changed, rather some more intemperate idea that it was deliberately betrayed or hijacked or somesuch. Anyway, I don't know that this can be incorporated directly into the classical liberalism article (which I still think should be basically a dab), but it contains some interesting ideas which might inspire future improvements. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 23:12, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Roderick Long article

message: It's not a subject I know much about - actually, I'm not sure what the subject is - but I wondered what criteria were used to decide on 'Key Thinkers'? And why those above, for example, aren't included. Thanks. 165.165.209.213 23:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They're probably not sufficiently popular with libertarians. This article is written by libertarians, for libertarians, in libertarian language. Crucial things like opposition to monarchy and seperation of church and state aren't even mentioned.--Nydas 07:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

text: It's POV either way to say that "classical liberalism" is or isn't essentially the same thing as libertarianism. Hence, it would be best to make this article something sort like a disambiguation. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 23:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  From a formal Poly-Sci persepctive there is a great difference between Liberalism and Libertariansim. To say that they are the same is either dismissive or ignorant of the anarchist influences on Libertarian thought. TrulyTory 16:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Key thinkers: Montesquieu, Wollstonecraft, Condorcet, Voltaire, Diderot...? 

message: The anti-democratic slant of this article is getting ridiculous. I find it hard to believe that the liberal revolutions of 1848 (and the tens of thousands who perished in them) were motivated by the desire for a 'constitutional republic'.--Nydas 08:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Classical liberalism opposes monarchy. That makes it republican. In a republic, the head of state is elected rather than a permanent ficture that is there by heredity. Contrast with constitutional monarchy. Both a constitutional republic and a constitutional monarchy can be a liberal democracy (if the monarchy has an elected parliament), but only the former type of liberal democracy is consistent with classical liberalism. Constititional liberalism is indeed liberal democracy, but a specific kind. But, it's certainly not pure democracy, which classical liberals strongly oppose. Pure democracy is where the popular vote makes law. Classical liberals feel this endangers individual liberty ("tyranny of the majority"), so they favor voting merely for electing representatives who then govern according to limits of constitutional law that protects individual liberty from the majority. RJII 15:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The idea that constitutional monarchy is incompatible with classical liberalism makes no sense. Unless you think that the 19th century Liberal party in the UK wasn't classically liberal.--Nydas 09:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Did Adam Smith, John Locke, Kant etc. all argue against a monarchy? Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 10:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

text: OK, Heywood might be wrong about that. Was your hero Adam Smith a republican. Did John Locke favour a republic? Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 16:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it's my mistake - I added Divine right, hereditary status and established religion to that sentence a couple of days ago (copied from Liberalism). The reference does NOT refer to them. -- Nydas 18:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classical liberalism and democracy 

message: I've put a POV tag on the article. Kitteneatkitten has claimed in the article that "classical liberalism" is a "libertarian" term. But, it's a very common term in political philosophy that not only libertarians use. RJII 20:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POV tag

message: According to WP:NPOV all majority and significant minor points of view should be in the article. The content should be based on verifiable, reliable sources. 
Are all major and significant minor views, supported by reliable sources, present in the article? FloNight talk 06:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hahaha, oh please. Go read MacCallum and possibly consider the idea that other people do not agree with your idea of private property and people's rights to it, then come back and talk to me about liberty. Right-wingers always seem to assume they are correct. Slizor 23:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Hello :) I'm going to read through the article and talk page history, then make some comments. I'm still optimistic	that this content dispute can be resolved here if we use Wikipedia policy as our guide. FloNight talk 14:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia:Arbitration policy#Scope says The Arbitrators will primarily investigate interpersonal disputes. This seems to be a content dispute. Let's focus on consensus editing. We need to be specific about what is being contested and look for specific ways to reach agreement. FloNight talk 17:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing suggestions

message: Could the regular editors of this article help me out by stating 2 or 3 specific parts of the article that are the source of this conflict. Then we can work on each of them. --FloNight talk 17:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's more about the ariticle as a whole. Kitteneatkitten claims that "classical liberalism" is a "libertarian" term. But, the sources in the article (except for the libertarianism section), that use the term and define it, are not "libertarians" are far as I know. I've been adding sources to the article. It's not like I'm looking for "libertarians." I'm just coming across the term in articles and books about political philosophy. I was even taught about "classical liberalism" in Political Philosophy 101 by a self-described "communist" professor. The term to describe the philosophy is very common in political philosophy --it has nothing to do with being a libertarian. We all agree, correct? It seems Kitteneatkitten is the only one who thinks it's not a real term/philosophy. This is what he's doing to the article:  RJII 17:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

text: LOL. Good luck. RJII 06:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

text: You really need to present evidence that the sources are libertarians. You're the one making the claim of this, so the burden is on you to show that they're "libertarians." RJII 06:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, please provide a source for your claim that "classical liberalism" means libertarianism.  I disagree with that. RJII 07:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Of course the articles shouldn't be merged. "Classical liberalism" is a real term, used in mainstream political philosophy to describe the laissez-faire philosophy talked about in the article. I can't even believe you're suggesting this. RJII 07:03, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I didn't delete a source. I deleted this:  A google search is not a credible source in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Please see our  [Wikipedia:Reliable_sources] policy. RJII 07:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

text: You're the one that deletes sources. I delete non-credible sources. You delete credible sources. You should learn our policy about what constitutes a credible source. A google search just doesn't cut it. And, no, the burden is on YOU to show that support of public education is part of classical liberalism since you're the one making the claim. RJII 08:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The views of an individual classical liberal or the classical liberls as a group are not ignored if there is a reliable source that links the classical liberals ideas with classical liberalism (or any other ideology of course). We can not make the link ourself. If we take the ideas of people and use them in an article to link it to an ideology, we are doing original research. That is the reason that we must use secondary sources instead of primary sources to make these points. It matters less whether the analysis is right or wrong, than if it is published in a reliable source. FloNight talk 13:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Precisely. All we need to do is follow Wikipedia policy and source our material, instead of engaging in useless warring over each other's original research. RJII 15:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: RJII, you have made it perfectly clear in the past that any source that disagrees with your viewpoint is in the minority (despite the majority of reliable sources supporting my viewpoint.) Why is it that you now decide that sources are something to be valued? Slizor 16:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, why are you getting nasty with me? I've never said anything of the sort. Accept the Wikipedia policy on sourcing and "original research." Don't take it out on me. RJII 16:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nasty? This is not nasty. What is nasty is that the page is a bloody mess and you are trying to defend a unsourced view against other sources, i.e. the wealth of sources I have already provided. Slizor 12:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Libertarianism is not identical to classical liberalism, but it's similar. Who can deny that this is the definition of libertarianism: "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’, because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." -Thomas Jefferson. Or, "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" -Marquis de La Fayette, 1789 By the way, it's common knowledge that the meaning of "liberal" evolved. RJII 15:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Specific concerns 

message: I feel that ome of the sources on this page are not up to scratch. Certainly Amy H. Sturgis should be removed as it was written by someone who only had a basic undergraduate degree. And the Cubeddeua thing links to nothing. I have just changed what a source says because it was actually misquoted, I replaced it with quotes that actually make sense. Slizor 12:38, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources 

message: The page at the moment is an absolute bloody mess. There is no  even vague idea of structure and pretty much everything contradicts itself. We need to start from the start and do this again, if this should even be done. Slizor 12:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It needs a top to bottom rewrite based on verifiable reliable sources, making sure that the majority and significant minority views are represented. It does not need to be done in that order but the introduction is a logical place to start. :-) IMO, the rewrite needs to be done on this talk page so all interested editors can give their opinion. Who wants to help? FloNight talk 00:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it needs a major revert. Look at the version before people screwed it up:  RJII 00:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that is the libertarian version of the article. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 07:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The libertarian version? Like it or not, classical liberalism is very similar to libertarianism. There's no way to get around that. "Libertarian" is broader term that includes even philosophy that oppose the state altogether (also includes left libertarianism). But, I think classical liberalism is a form of libertarianism. RJII 15:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

text: that is because some of you messed up this page with poor interpretations and understandings of the meaning, economics, politics, and philosophy behind liberalism.  And no, that is the correct version of it, not your modern revisionist version. (Gibby 11:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Go away Gibby. We have an article to write and have no time for your childish antics. Slizor 14:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we actually stop editing this article? 

message: Slizor, you deleted something I added and accused me of a "misquote"  You're right, it was a misquote. I misread it as saying "a closely related but not identical ideology" but it said "a closely related but not indentical divide." I just want to point out that it was unintentional. I'm glad you caught that. RJII 16:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: response to accusal by Slizor

message: I went ahead and added Hayek as part of classical liberalism in the intro, since there are sources for it (e.g. "Classical liberalism is associated with John Locke, Adam Smith, Alexis de Tocqueville, and Friedrich von Hayek, Ryan). I haven't seen any source saying that classical liberalism only includes "early" liberals. If anyone wants to continue to make the claim that one defintion of classical liberalism refers only to "early liberals" then please provide a source. Also, Electionworld had a problem with the term "anti-statist." Being against statism doesn't necessarily mean being an anarchist. Statism is defined in Merriam-Webster as " concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government"  I thought it was more precise than "minimal state" but I could take either one. RJII 16:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See my remarks on April 6. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 19:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, and I don't see anything relevant there. You said something about Encylclopedia not having an entry on classical liberalism. But, what does that matter? Wikipedia has 10 times as many articles as that Encyclopedia. I gave you a credible source above for Hayek being included in classical liberalism but you deleted it. Why? RJII 19:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I meant this remark: I just took the book "Filosofen van het klassieke liberalisme" from my bookshelf. This book gives short biographies of classical liberals, which ends with WW I. It includes Spinoza, Bernard Mandeville, Jeremy Bentham, Hegel etc. I would day classical liberalism means here early liberalism. Most sources identifing libertarianism with classical liberalism have a libertarian or present-day classical liberal background. I am proud on my classical liberal roots, but I am a social liberal. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 20:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That can just mean that's the theorists the book wanted to discuss. I've never seen a source that says classical liberalism ONLY applies to pre-20th century classical liberals. There are sources that do include Hayek. By the way, why are you delineating Hayek as a "libertarian"? Does he support drug legalization, etc? Here's what Encyclopedia Britannic says: " Later in the 1970s Hayek's monograph The Denationalization of Money was published by the Institute of Economic Affairs in London, one of the many classical liberal think tanks that Hayek, directly or indirectly, had a hand in establishing. And, " Hayek was endorsing free market economics and classical liberal political doctrines when many intellectuals regarded socialist and welfare state policies as providing the “middle way” between totalitarianism (especially in its communist or fascist forms) and the perceived failures of unfettered capitalism (particularly in the aftermath of the Great Depression)." I think the idea that classical liberalism just applies to a particular time period is very uncommon, indeed if it's even an idea published anywhere. RJII 19:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I am not delineating Hayek as a libertarian, i wrote e.g. the ideas of Friedrich von Hayek and libertarianism. Furthermore I am not saying that Hauek isn't a classical liberal, but early liberalism and modern laissez-faire liberalism are not completely identical. BTW, the book Filosofen van het hedendaags liberalisme list as contemporary liberals Hayek and Nozick. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 20:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well of course "modern laissez-faire liberalism" isn't identical. But, neither are the philosophies of early classical liberals identical among themselves. Like any political philosophy, it's a bit amorphous but with a few common themes uniting the philosophies of various theorists, and those common themes constitute classical liberalism. And, of course social liberalism overlaps in areas with classical liberalism and is itself amorphous with no two social liberals having identical philosophies. But, the philosophies themselves are ahistorical --they're merely a theme. About your book saying Hayek is a contemporary liberal, I can only assume that they mean he's a contemporary classical liberal. RJII 00:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But that is exactly the point. Not for all early liberals/classical liberals the free market was of the upmost importance. I think you should try to find a copy of the books I mentioned (can you read Dutch). One is about classical liberals, the other is about contemporary liberals. The books use the first meaning of the term classical liberals. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 16:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I understand that, but "classical liberalism" is a philosophy. And, various early liberals can have some ideas that are not consistent with the philosophy called classical liberalism. Scholars have defined the philosophy by picking out a general consensus of viewpoints of theorists, and those secondary sources who define classical liberalism are what we have to reference. And, no I can't read Dutch. RJII 17:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: We are getting closer. Those early liberals that have some ideas that are not consistent with the philosophy you call classical liberalism are still considered classical liberals in the first measning of the word. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 21:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, but the article is "classical liberalism," not "classical liberals." RJII 21:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: But the ideas of these classical liberals are part of classical liberalism. I refer to my earlier remarks on the statements of Graham Watson. Do not monopolize classical liberalism as pure and solely laissez-faire liberalism. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 21:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, all the ideas of classical liberals are not classical liberalism. That's the point I'm trying to make. Any particular "classical liberal" may say something that is out of whack with classical liberalism. It's up to secondary sources to tell us what views of theirs are consistent with "classical liberalism." Classical liberalism is its own philosophy. Any particular "early liberal" may embrace that philosophy in whole or in part. We can't do original research here by picking out ideas from early liberals and saying it is part of classical liberalism. We can only rely on sources to tell us how classical liberalism is defined. RJII 02:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes "early liberalism" is classical liberalism. If social liberalism existed at that time then we wouldn't call it classical liberalism because it wouldn't correspond with the definition of classical liberalism. Various early liberals had various positions, and I'm sure some of them contradicted each other. But, we we can't take those contradictions and say that that is classical liberalism. And, we can't take unusual positions that a few of them might of had and say that that is part of classical liberalism. You have to look at the positions that the early liberals had a consensus on. (not us, but the secondary sources, because original research is not allowed) That consensus of ideas would be classical liberalism. RJII 15:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: intro

message: Since this entry is essentially about laissez-faire liberalism, what is the difference with economic liberalism. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 12:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Economic liberalism just applies to economic laissez-faire, whereas classical liberalism is more encompassing. Besides laissez-faire economic policy, it believes individual autonomy is a natural right and, as a result, supports a governmental system with a constitution that protects those individual rights from being violated by the other individuals and the State, including protection from pure democracy (mob rule) by a constitution that makes it difficult or impossible for the majority of the populace to infringe on the liberty of the individual (the smallest minority). It's all around individualism. RJII 15:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Economic liberalism 

message: Quoting the well-known works of the most prominant liberals of the Founding Era is not "original research." It is simply citing to original sources, and is clearly allowed. Citing to a Goodle search to establish usage is likewise not original research. If I were to post statisitics I generated from the results it would be, but that is not what I have done, I have simply shown the data, which anyone can verify for themselves. I suspect that you know that I am right and that you are wrong, or if you don't visiting the Google search link for "classical liberalism" shows that almost every use of it archived by Google is from a libertarian source.
So far the only other person besides us who has expressed an opinion of my citations on Jefferson and Paine's views has agreed with me that this is not original research. I note also that I think many sources in the article now, such as the citation to Amy H. Sturgis's college essay are far from ideal. In the spirit of compromise I have left this source be.Kitteneatkitten 05:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is indeed original research to pick out things that various liberals said and attribute that to being consistent with the definition of classical liberalism. What classical liberalism is, is not for you to decide but for secondary sources to define. And you're wrong to say that "the only other person besides us who has expressed an opinion of my citations on Jefferson and Paine's views has agreed with me that this is not original research." That person was Flonight and he agreed that it was original research: "The views of an individual classical liberal or the classical liberls as a group are not ignored if there is a reliable source that links the classical liberals ideas with classical liberalism (or any other ideology of course). We can not make the link ourself. If we take the ideas of people and use them in an article to link it to an ideology, we are doing original research. That is the reason that we must use secondary sources instead of primary sources to make these points. It matters less whether the analysis is right or wrong, than if it is published in a reliable source. FloNight talk 13:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC" He's making the same point I'm making. And, no a Google search is NOT a credible source. The compromise you want to make is to compromise the Wikipedia reliable sources and original research policies and that's not a compromise I'm willing to make. And, your removing the mention of natural rights makes no sense at all. Liberals do not think that government creates rights but that it serves to protect rights --rights pre-exist government. Otherwise they could not make a moral objection to any kind of harm a government chose to inflict on people --government could do anything it wanted because there would be no fundamental rights. RJII 05:47, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: This article has nothing to do with my "own views." I'm helping to present classical liberalism. I've provided sources that define classical liberalism. You've done nothing but sought to define classical liberalism yourself by picking out things that liberals have said and attributing it to being part of how classical liberalism is defined. That's original research. Just because Thomas Jefferson, for example, said something, it doesn't mean what he said is consistent with how classical liberalism is defined. Different liberals have said different things. Everything they said cannot be classical liberalism. It's not you to decide what part of what someone says is consistent with classical liberalism (as it is defined by secondary sources). Am I getting through? And, your claims that it's a term that primarily "libertarians" use is nonsense --very misleading to the reader. Libertarianism is not identical to classical liberalism, thought it's commonly said to be a form of classical liberalism. The term "classical liberalism" is widespread in political philosophy. A libertarian and a non-libertarian are equally prone to use the term. I will continue deleting your original research and misleading text about "libertarians." RJII 06:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: To answer your question, I do have an opinion of the Sturgis essay. I think it's an informative essay. RJII 01:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I certainly have. I supplied the sources in the section labeled "Introduction" that explicitly state the characteristics of classical liberalism. Note that one of those sources is even a dictionary definition. RJII 14:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: That's not true. I quoted Madison because his position is an example of secondary source's pointing out that classical liberalism is "not necessarily a democratic doctrine." I didn't add anything to the definition. It's simply an example.Classical liberalism are wary of majority rule, so they seek to temper it with constitutional protections for individual rights. Likewise for the Jefferson quote. It's just an example showing support for an inalienable right to individual liberty. RJII 15:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: The Introduction (lead paragraph) of this article is a good place to start building consensus about the content of this article. I removed  www.google.com/search classical+liberalism as a source and the text "primarily by libertarians" based on WP:NOR, WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. The whole section needs a rewrite to make it represent all significant points of view in a neutral way based on verifiable, reliable sources. FloNight talk 14:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great idea. That's what we did for the capitalism article by making an article on Wikiquote  and it worked out pretty well. Like capitalism, I don't think there is too much variation in the definitions of classical liberalism so I think it should work out. Excellent work you did on that subpage so far. RJII 18:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction (lead paragraph)

message: Given that there are many sources that say the terms are used interchangably, but that libertarian is a far more common term and a less controversial word, this page should be replaced by a redirect to libertarianism.
FloNight, thank you for your efforts to salvage this whole mess, but I do not think you understand how and why this phrase is used. It is a propaganda phrase, like partial-birth abortion, and merely having an article under the heading, just as having a "partial birth abortion" article, expresses a viewpoint that is biased.
Zigzogger 02:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, some use the terms interchangeably, but many don't think they are exactly the same thing. The most glaring reason is becuase libertarians include anarchists, whereas classical liberals don't. Also, Alan Ryan, professor of Politics at Princeton, says that "Contemporary Libertarians often claim that they are classical liberals. This is not wholly true." He points out that there is nothing in the philosophy of classical liberals regarding legalizing "prostitution, drug-taking, and unorthodox sexual activities." And also point out that libertarians view government as an "unnecessary evil", whereas liberals view government power as something to "be treated with caution." RJII
Many also don't think that anti-choice and pro-life are the same. Just as here, that doesn't mean a redirect is inappropriate. The main point is, it is a propaganda phrase and having any article about it fails the test of neutrality. Furthermore, there is no one accepted libertarian belief or set of beliefs Zigzogger 02:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

text: No, it's not a "propaganda phrase." Never taken Political Philosophy 101? Everybody learns about "classical liberalism" in basic political philosophy classes. Even Encyclopedia Britannica explains "classical liberalism" in their liberalism article. Classical liberalism is what was called "liberalism" before the name started being applied to the philosophy that supports a welfare state. RJII 02:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Though I don't like RJIII version, but I don't like a redirect without any discussion. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 10:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

text: For example, they called Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek "paleoliberals", someone who held on to the traditional liberal idea of laissez faire. Hayek and Mises of course went to the United States after WWII, where Roosevelt already used the word "liberal" to enact socialist policies. Intangible 03:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Replacing this article with a redirect to [[libertarianism]]

message: Leaving aside libertarianism, this article now begins:
:Classical liberalism is a term used to describe the following:
:* the philosophy developed by early liberals from the Enlightenment until John Stuart Mill
:* the philosophy developed by early liberals from the Age of Enlightenment until John Stuart Mill and then revived in the 20th century by Friedrich von Hayek and Milton Friedman.
…and cites Girvetz, Harry K. and Minogue Kenneth. Liberalism, Encyclopedia Britannica (online), p. 16.
However, Britannica says that classical liberalism split into two strands "the first a narrowly political doctrine emphasizing the importance of limited government, the other a philosophy of life emphasizing individual autonomy, imagination, and self-development." In other words, the two strands identified here do not correspond to the two strands mentioned in Britannica, and Britannica says nothing about the (to my thinking, dubious) claim that von Hayek and Friedman qualify as "reviving" classical liberalism (as against appropriating the term). Effectively, the authority of Britannica is being falsely claimed.
To tell you the truth, I didn't get any further than the lead: this was enough to tell me that I would not consider this article credible. - Jmabel | Talk 05:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well Hayek can be called a classical liberal, but with Friedman I definitely have my doubts. Intangible 06:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I just checked. It's definitely in the source. Here is a quote from the Encyclopedia Britannica Online article: " But modern liberalism was unprepared to cope with the slowing of economic growth that gripped most Western nations beginning in the mid 1970s. By the end of that decade economic stagnation, combined with the cost of maintaining the social benefits of the welfare state, pushed governments increasingly toward politically untenable levels of taxation as well as mounting debt...With modern liberalism seemingly powerless to boost stagnating living standards in mature industrial economies, 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. One of Hayek's greatest achievements was to demonstrate, on purely logical grounds, that a centrally planned economy is impossible. He also famously argued, in his work The Road to Serfdom (1944), that interventionist measures aimed at the redistribution of wealth lead inevitably to totalitarianism. Friedman, as one of the founders of the modern monetarist school of economics, held that the business cycle is determined mainly by the supply of money and by interest rates, rather than by government fiscal policy—contrary to the long-prevailing view of Keynes and his followers. These arguments were enthusiastically embraced by the major conservative political parties in Britain and the United States, which had never abandoned the classical liberal conviction that the free market, for all its faults, guides economic policy better than governments do. (It's on page 16)  Jmabel, please be more careful about what you claim. You didn't read the article so you didn't know what was in it. C-Liberal 12:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What the Encyclopedia Britannica claims here is incorrect. Ludwig von Mises already proved in 1920 that a socialist economy cannot calculate (economic calculation debate). If there is one person whose work can be used to base this article on it is von Mises. "These arguments were enthusiastically embraced by the major conservative political parties in Britain and the United States, which had never abandoned the classical liberal conviction that the free market, for all its faults, guides economic policy better than governments do." This is incorrect, those conservative parties did find fault with the free market, but they did like to privatize national economies. I suggest finding a different reference than the Encyclopedia Britannica one. Intangible 12:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Encyclopedia Britannica is a good mainstream reference. It's about as NPOV as you're going to get. And even if you disagree with a credible source it's still a source. Are you telling me Ronald Reagan found fault with the free market? He engaged in massive deregulation and reduction of taxes, and extolled the virtues of laissez-faire. Check out this internview with Reagan where he answers the question "REASON: Are there any particular books or authors or economists that have been influential in terms of your intellectual development?" with "REAGAN: Oh, it would be hard for me to pinpoint anything in that category. I’m an inveterate reader. Bastiat and von Mises, and Hayek and Hazlitt–I’m one for the classical economists"    C-Liberal 12:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No budgets were cut, deficits were created, debt skyrocketed, Social Security was fiscalized (a huge tax increase).  That goes against everything Bastiat, Mises, Hayek or Hazlitt have ever written. Intangible 12:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But look at what that debt was spent on. It was spent on defense. Taxation and debt for defense is consistent with classical liberalism. Defense is a legitimate function of government, for classical liberals. If it were spent on increasing welfare, it would be a different story. Reagan cut welfare programs. By the way, if you read on in the Britannica article it does not say that conservatives and classical liberals are exactly the same. It says there were different than classical liberals, but influenced by them in opposing the welfare state and supporting deregulation of the market. C-Liberal 12:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Classical liberalism might imply spending money on defense, however spending on defense does not imply a form of classical liberalism. Intangible 13:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. But, nobody is claiming that conservativism is a form of classical liberalism but that their economic policy is influenced by classical liberalism. That's hard to deny in my opinion. C-Liberal 13:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, it seems to me that Reagan was engaged far more in military Keynesianism than classical liberal "defense", a "spend-up", rather than a "build-up". - Jmabel | Talk 22:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weak opening, not borne out by citation 

message: "We were now much less democrats than I had been, because so long as education continues to be so wretchedly imperfect, we dreaded the ignorance and especially the selfishness and brutality of the mass: but our ideal of ultimate improvement went far beyond Democracy, and would class us decidedly under the general designation of Socialists. While we repudiated with the greatest energy that tyranny of society over the individual which most Socialistic systems are supposed to involve, we yet looked forward to a time when society will no longer be divided into the idle and the industrious" (autobiography) He seems rather collectivist here, so it seems that Mill should be removed from this article. Intangible 21:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not expert here, but I think most scholars would agree (give or take the question of whether von Mises and Hayek should be counted as a "revival") that somewhere within the life and work of J.S. Mill is the end of the classical liberal philosophical tradition. That is to say, Mill started out as a classical liberal, but he increasingly came to doubt whether classical liberalism was sufficient. He started to draw upon utilitarian and even social democratic thought, and evolved what has come to be the other strain of "liberalism": "social liberalism", more or less. You can't leave Mill out of this history, but certainly, as time went on, he became a "social" rather than a "classical" liberal in economic matters. Still, I've never heard anyone seriously question that Mill's general conception of human liberty was deeply rooted in classical liberalism. - Jmabel | Talk 22:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  JS Mill 

message: It did read: "the philosophy developed by early liberals from the Age of Enlightenment until John Stuart Mill from the Age of Enlightenment until John Stuart Mill and then revived in the 20th century by Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman"
This does not make sense. If I knew nothing about the subject I would think from reading this that Bentham and Mill developed an abstract philosophy which eventually died out only to be revived by Hayek and Friedman. Kitteneatkitten 02:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: definition #2 deleted

message: In the paragraph that begins "In some european countries…" (lack of capitalization in the article, BTW), what, if anything does "e.a." stand for? Can someone who believes they understand this please clean it up? Thanks. - Jmabel | Talk 05:23, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like they meant "i.e." C-Liberal 16:00, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:   e.a.? 

message: Even if we can't agree what Classical Liberalism is, we can at least work on the parts of the page that don't require us to. I really don't think the thing at the top is helping. Slizor 12:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This again shows while this entire article should be merged with "libertarianism." Since the phrase "classical liberal" has become a bit of libertarian cant, the libertarians will not tolerate figures from history who were regarded widely regarded as liberals in their time, but were clearly not libertarians. I am thinking Burke, Marx, Malthus, Keynes, Bentham, Dewey, Roussau, Teddy Roosevelt, Russell, Marat, etc.
Furthermore, Bastiat's writings, in his own era, were considered reactionary, not liberal. His attacks on Montesqueue and his call for the abolition of public education are examples. He also attacked the July Revolution, which was considered to be a liberal revolution.
The only reason to include Bastiat on this list is if we are simply going back in time and looking for libertarian-sounding writers. If we want a lot of liberal thinkers in history, then Bastiat is out, and Malthus, Bentham, Marx, and Dewey are in.
Once again, I would like to ask people here if they would support merging this article with "libertarianism." Kitteneatkitten 05:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with some of that, certainly on Bastiat. Marx, on the other hand, was as far as I know never considered a liberal, nor did he consider himself one. And Teddy Roosevelt is also a dubious inclusion: the words "liberal" and "liberalism" didn't have a lot of currency in that period of U.S. politics; he was a Progressive, a tradition to which modern American liberalism owes quite a bit, but I doubt any commentator at the time would have called him a "liberal". (He was also about the most imperialist president the U.S. ever had, but that's neither here nor there.) Also, arguably Rousseau is a bit of a stretch, more an ancestor of liberalism than a liberaly (similarly, someone your didn't mention, Hobbes). - Jmabel | Talk 05:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did some work on the thinkers 

message: The two definitions at the top of the page make no mention of Libertarianism. If this is the case and people accept these views can we please purge the Libertarian POV from the page? Slizor 12:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What libertarian POV? C-Liberal 15:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You haven't noticed? Libertarian and Libertarianism has 18 uses on a page that is apparently not about it. Slizor 12:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You will never be able to get rid of the libertarian POV, because the mere existence of this article presumes that the libertarian claim there was ever some "tragic break" in the history of liberal thought, in which modern liberals departed from the views of so-called "classical liberals. Kitteneatkitten 05:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But there was such a break. It's commonly accepted among scholars. The meaning of the term was redefined (at least in America). Read this article by an expert on the history of liberalism, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. (who is hardly a libertarian) in Liberalism in America: A Note for Europeans from The Politics of Hope, Riverside Press, Boston, 1962. He says, "When a laissez-faire policy seemed best calculated to achieve the liberal objective of equality of opportunity for all -- as it did in the time of Jefferson -- liberals believed, in the Jeffersonian phrase, that that government is best which governs least. But, when the growing complexity of industrial conditions required increasing government intervention in order to assure more equal opportunities, the liberal tradition, faithful to the goal rather than to the dogma, altered its view of the state. The process of redefining liberalism in terms of the social needs of the 20th century was conducted by Theodore Roosevelt and his New Nationalism, Woodrow Wilson and his New Freedom, and Franklin D. Roosevelt and his New Deal. Out of these three great reform periods there emerged the conception of a social welfare state, in which the national government had the express obligation to maintain high levels of employment in the economy, to supervise standards of life and labor, to regulate the methods of business competition, and to establish comprehensive patterns of social security..."  Or, here is another example from William J. Novak.....The Not-So-Strange Birth of the Modern American State: A Comment on James A. Henretta's "Charles Evans Hughes and the Strange Death of Liberal America", Law and History Review, Volume 24, Number 1, Spring 2006): "What explains the dramatic transformation in liberal ideology and governance between 1877 and 1937 that carried the United States from laissez-faire constitutionalism to New Deal statism, from classical liberalism to democratic social-welfarism? That question has preoccupied legions of historians, political-economists, and legal scholars..." C-Liberal 05:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Into socialism maybe. See the 1927(!) book by Ludwig von Mises, Liberalism . Intangible 22:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Mises writes: "John Stuart Mill is an epigone of classical liberalism and, especially in his later years, under the inﬂuence of his wife, full of feeble compromises. He slips slowly into socialism and is the originator of the thoughtless confounding of liberal and socialist ideas that led to the decline of English liberalism...In reading the more recent political literature in English, one must not ignore the fact that in England today the word “liberalism” is frequently understood as denoting a moderate socialism." Intangible 22:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Very funny. Well whatever you want to call it, the meaning of liberalism changed. C-Liberal 05:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The reference I just added make the same claim: "We may sympathize with these disinguished contemporary laissez-faire economists [i.e. Friedman et al], because the "liberal" designation belonged to their predecessors, the laissez-faire economists of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Nevertheless, their attempt to reclaim the "liberal" appellation is to be deplored, because it adds more confusion to a terminology which is already very confused. Words such as "liberal" always lack precision; these words become useless when they are given meanings diametrically opposed to the meanings they have assumed in common usage. When "liberal" may refer either to Alvin H. Hansen and John K. Galbraith or the Henry C. Simons and Milton Friedman—when "liberalism" may refer either to governmental intervention in economic affairs or to laissez faire, then these words have become meaningless and, therefore, useless...The liberalism of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries can be conveniently labeled "classical liberalism," because it is closely related to the principles of classical economics...Twentieth-century liberalism can be conveniently designated as "welfare liberalism" because it calls for positive effors to augment the public welfare. Most welfare liberals follow John R. Commons' usage to distinguish between the negative removal of outside restraints, which Commons called "liberty," and the positive provision of accessible alternatives, which he called "freedom." Note that this is written by a welfare liberal ("Welfare liberalism is much more inclusive than non-Marxian socialism. Most non-Marxian socialists are welfare liberals, but most welfare liberals, including this writer, are not socialists") not a neoliberal or libertarian. Intangible 01:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  With regards to the bit at the top. 

message: "The qualification "classical" was added to distinguish this early conception of liberalism from the modern American/progressive interpretation. This article's purpose is to educate the reader on the distinction not to dictate which definition of the word Liberal is correct. The terminology is most applicable in the United States, since in much of Europe, "liberalism" does not refer to the modern American social welfare variant."
Can you please source this? Hopefully from some European source. I would say that it is called classical liberalism because it is how Liberalism was and no longer is. Slizor 11:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The first sentence is just common sense, but I don't think it would be too hard to find a source for that. About the European usage of the term. Here are sources: According to Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. (writing in 1962), "Liberalism in the American usage has little in common with the word as used in the politics of any European country, save possibly Britain."  (Schlesinger, Arthur Jr, Liberalism in America: A Note for Europeans from The Politics of Hope, Riverside Press, Boston). According to Girvetz and Minogue writing in Encyclopædia Britannica, "contemporary liberalism has come to represent different things to Americans and Europeans: In the United States it is associated with the welfare-state policies of the New Deal program of Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt, whereas in Europe liberals are more commonly conservative in their political and economic outlook." (Girvetz, Harry K. and Minogue Kenneth. Liberalism, Encyclopædia Britannica (online), p. 1, retrieved June 19,2006) C-Liberal 23:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Where is it "argued repeatedly" that classical liberalism has "died out"? I haven't seen a source say that anywere. I can attest that it hasn't died out. I'm a classical liberal. C-Liberal 16:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classical Liberalism and Modern Liberalism 

message: From the article: "This article's purpose is to educate the reader on the distinction not to dictate which definition of the word Liberal is correct." As against other Wikpedia articles whose purpose is to bludgeon the reader into accepting a particular way of seeing things? - Jmabel | Talk 21:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed it. — goethean ॐ 21:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odd remark 

message: The two sources used consisted of:
1. A college student's essay posted to the web (now a dead link)
2. A definition by an ideologue who writes for the biased Cato Institute. The other problem with this citation is that it is very obscure and not available on the Internet.
I removed these and would like to see a better source for the definition the entry uses (which I have not changed). Kitteneatkitten 23:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those sources are fine, so I restored them. Just because an essay is written by a college student, it doesn't make it illegitimate, so long it was published. It was published by Locksmith Institute. I did some checking and it has been cited in other published works (such as in Legal Aspects of Privatisation, Universal Publishers), so it's fine. The other source is one I put in. There is no problem with it. It's published by a reputable publisher. Just because it's not on the internet, it doesn't make it illegitimate. Go to the library if you need to check up on it. If we wrote articles only using sources that were on the internet, they would be some pretty bad articles. There is very little information on the internet. That's what Wikipedia is for...to bring information forth. C-Liberal 03:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My problem with the citations is that they are of dubious value. Amy Sturgis's undergraduate essay, as far as I can tell, was not published except to the extent that her undergraduate college put it up on their website (and it doesn't appear to be there anymore. Kitteneatkitten 01:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: "Not on the Internet" should not be a problem. But weak citation from dubiously reliable sources should be. - Jmabel | Talk 04:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think what has not been dealt with on this page is that people, including the sources, have different views on what classical liberalism is - it is an essentially contested phrase. The arguments CAN NOT be resolved by a source war (which, I admit, I started (anyone who was editing this page while Gibby was on it I am sure, will forgive me.)) We should stop attempting to resolve this conflict (or paper over the conflict by insisting on one version) and start representing the conflict. If we start with what we agree on we can properly represent the areas of conflict. Slizor 13:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition of Classical Liberalism

message: I propose that this article be merged with Libertarianism. "Classical liberal" is nothing more than a propaganda word that libertarians use to claim some of the greatest thinkers in West for themselves by calling both these figures and themselves "classical liberal."
If the two are not the same, as I say they are, I would like someone to post or link to a source that distinguishes them. Kitteneatkitten 00:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you read the "Classical liberalism and libertarianism" section? There is a source that says they're different: "Alan Ryan, professor of Politics at Princeton, argues that the claim from "contemporary libertarians...that they are classical liberals...is not wholly true. There is at least one strain of libertarian thought represented by Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State and Utopia that advocates the decriminalization of 'victimless crimes' such as prostitution, drug-taking and unorthodox sexual activities. There is nothing of that in John Locke or Adam Smith." C-Liberal 03:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I can probably find some more sources that say they're different, but are you going to delete them because they're not on the internet (like you did above)? C-Liberal 03:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Lots of non-internet sources are fine, but the one I deleted was very obscure and by a suspect (as in paid by Cato) author. Kitteneatkitten 01:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The view that classical liberalism actually existed is held by non-libertarians, too. In Andrew Heywood's Political Ideologies (2003) it states (p. 91): Libertarianism is sometimes distinguished from liberalism on the ground that the latter, even in classical form, refuses to give priority to liberty over order. Also, Roger Scruton's A Dictionary of Political Thought (1996) states (p. 315): It [Libertarianism] should be distinguished from classical liberalism, which merely emphasizes rights and liberties against the sovereign power and defends the free market only as part of the right of private property and not as the ruling principle of all social order.--Johnbull 03:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Johnbull, do you feel that this article as it stands observes that distinction? Because I see it as trying to have this both ways. - Jmabel | Talk 04:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the section "Classical Liberalism" and Libertarianism provides the two view points that there are people who believe they are the same thing and people who believe they are separate, although I don't think the section as it is details the distinctions between the two ideologies sufficiently.--Johnbull 04:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think there's a consensus either way. So it's probably just going to have to show arguments from both sides in that section. The rest of the article is sourced not according to what "libertarianism" is, but what "classical liberalism" is. That is, the sources are explicitly referring to "classical liberalism." C-Liberal 04:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Honestly, what I think happened is that when the meaning of "liberalism" changed in the U.S. and started referring to welfare-state policies, some of the old liberals chose to call themselves "classical liberals" and others chose to call themselves "libertarians." I think it's a simple as that. Here is a traditional liberal in 1955 pondering on what to call himself: "Many of us call ourselves "liberals," And it is true that the word "liberal" once described persons who respected the individual and feared the use of mass compulsions. But the leftists have now corrupted that once-proud term to identify themselves and their program of more government ownership of property and more controls over persons. As a result, those of us who believe in freedom must explain that when we call ourselves liberals, we mean liberals in the uncorrupted classical sense. At best, this is awkard, subject to misunderstanding. Here is a suggestion: Let those of us who love liberty trademark and reserve for our own use the good and honorable word "libertarian." (Dean Russell Who is a Libertarian?, Ideas on Liberty, May 1955) That article may in fact be the origin of the word libertarian being applied to traditional (classical) liberalism. And it looks like the term "classical liberalism" wasn't invented yet, or it was still to new for him to know about it. But, this is all original research, so don't mind me. C-Liberal 04:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, but you cannot edit this article from the American perspective all the time! The Classical liberal tradition essentially originated in Great Britain, and has been a major political force historically in France, Italy, Switzerland and Germany. In the European tradition, Libertarianism has anarchist roots that are NOT part of the liberal tradition. In Canada, Political Scientists make the distinction on this issue as between "business liberals" and "welfare liberals." TrulyTory 12:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kitteneatkitten has a point of view and refuses to part with it. Kitteneatkitten must bear the burden of finding sources that support his claim "that there is no such thing as classical liberalism". Are there any souorces for your claim that meet your standards of objectivity? (answer is no its kitteneatkitten's POV) so respect this encyclopedic synopsis of research into classical liberalism and perhaps dispute points but stop trying to delete the article. Mrdthree 17:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: More precisely, libertarians (in the sense of the word that originated in the U.S. and has been spreading) are minarchists, which is quite a different tradition from anarchism, even if they have some premises and conclusions in common. And their intense minarchism is exactly what seems to me to make them distinct from even pre-J.S. Mill liberals, the ones that we can all agree to call "classical". My question (and I apologize if this was said and I missed it, there has been a lot of discussion here): who exactly would be post-1930 examples of people who have been described as "classical liberals" but are not libertarians? - Jmabel | Talk 03:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger with Libertarianism