Talk:Liberalism/Archive 6

message: Cut:
Both Pinochet and the Shah of Iran were installed as a result of American-organised coups, so cliams of neoliberal policy may be suspect.  True neoliberalism is primarily concentrated in the UK and the USA. 
#While the US doubtless approved of Pinochet's coup, there is no solid evidence that it was US-organized; see the relevant articles (Augusto Pinochet, Salvador Allende, 1973 coup in Chile
#"May be suspect" is pure POV. & I have no idea how the means of installation of a government would make claims about its economic policy suspect, neoliberalism being pretty much exclusively an economic matter.
#"True neoliberalism…": again, unattributed POV. 
Jmabel | Talk 20:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your cut.  Good work. Rick Norwood 00:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cut apparent non-sequitur 

message: For me the paragraph on Liberal internatonal relations theory. I would like to see references before we can keep this paragraph in the article. I am not yet convinced that this paragraph belongs in the article. Electionworld 22:43, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a problem for the moment, as the original article wasn't sourced.  I've been going through the international relations theory articles to try and compartmentalize and rationalize them, since the original international relations article was an absurd mess.  Liberalism in international relations is taught in every IR 101 course in college, alongside realism and marxism etc, so I have no doubt that it's relevant and belongs in any wider discussion of "liberalism."  But you are correct that it certainly needs rapid improvement.—thames 00:35, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Is it a typical American usage of the word? Electionworld 15:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: That's correct: there's not a firm correlation between domestic liberals and foreign policy liberals.  Old democrats such as Harry Truman, Dean Acheson, Woodrow Wilson, and John Foster Dulles could be considered foreign policy liberals, whereas today's democrats draw both from Liberal international relations theory and from Critical international relations theory.  Meanwhile, Republicans seem divided between Neoconservatism, Realism, and a few Isolationist holdovers.  As it is taught in an IR course, Liberalism is pretty distinct from the mixture that domestic Liberals usually hold on foreign policy issues.  I think a textbook reference should be easy to find--unfortunately I sold all my books back to the bookstore after finishing the course four years ago. —thames 18:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I find the IR taxonomy bizarre and ill-advised, so I have to abstain from commenting on this. I will point out, though, that what's sometimes known as internationalism was advocated by the Oxford Manifesto of '47. Lucidish 22:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liberal international relations theory 

message: I've restored the older version of the introduction, which has stood for a while now.  I understand that for libertarians, the only important freedoms are economic freedoms, but that view belongs in the article on libertarianism, not here.
It is also a quixotic battle, since there has never been freedom from taxes in any developed country, and it is unlikely that there ever will be freedom from taxes in the future.  In the US today we have an astonishing degree of economic freedom -- though the right to buy congressmen has been recently challenged.  Rick Norwood 15:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll check back later to do a more careful study, but a quick remark: in fairness, Locke thought that taxes could only be legitimately modified by referendum. The nature of taxation is of great importance to many aspects of the liberal tradition. It is the one aspect which, as a modern liberal, I feel most uncomfortable with. Lucidish 19:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ...and taxes 

message: Shorter titles are an improvement. Rick Norwood 13:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  new titles 

message: Seeing several errors in grammar and capitalization in a recent edit, I began to make corrections.  As I went on, I found more and more examples of repetition and long-windedness, where different people at different times had inserted ideas they considered important into the article in several different places.  I've tried not to leave anything out.  I've also tried to keep the article from saying the same thing twice. Rick Norwood 23:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edit 

message: "Social liberals such as John Dewey have argued that the industrial-scientific revolution remains a project in a state of stagnation, whose full promise remains far from fulfilled. Accordingly this stagnation is explained as the "rerouting of enlightment advancements for merely private pecuniary gain, for the inheritence and accumulation of private properties & private powers" which "drained and continues to drain liberalism of an otherwise promising career."[]"
I cut out the paragraph above, recently added to the article, for the following reasons.  The paragraph says that "John Dewey" ... "argued" (past tense) "that" ... "remains" (present tense).  What Dewey said may apply to the present day, but he cannot have said it about the present day.  Second, the quote is, presumably, by Dewey, but the paragraph does not really say this, and the footnote, instead of referencing the original source, references an article about that sourse in which the references are not in standard form, making it difficult to find the source of the quote.
I hope the author of the paragraph will try again. Rick Norwood 17:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Dewey is by no means an economic liberal -- he was something of a utopian.  But, if Friedman gets his say, then Dewey gets his (provided it is quoted correctly and referenced correctly, of course -- references should always be to primary sources, whenever possible). Rick Norwood 19:26, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dewey quote 

message: Apparently we are going to have an infinite (or at least unbounded) sequence of reverts between "a idiology" and "an idiology".  Well, at least it keeps them off the streets. Rick Norwood 15:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So would "a idiology" (or "an idiology") be an ideology held by an idiot? Or simply the study of selfhood? - Jmabel | Talk 16:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  a vs. an 

message: Good work, Electionworld. Rick Norwood 20:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electionworld's edit 

message: Liberalism does not imply democracy.  There are whole books written on the subject.  Majority rule can oppress minorities, is the basic arguement.  So democracy is not the best form of government for liberalism.  So can people please stop saying that it is!--harrismw 07:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Every present liberal party favours liberal democracy (I am not aware of any exception), so it is clear nowadays that liberalism implies liberal democracy (which is not the same as implying all forms of democracy). Do you know of any present liberal party that presents an alternative for liberal democracy? Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 11:08, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: May I refer to the Oxford Manifesto of 1947 of the Liberal International: 4. "These rights and conditions can be secured only by true democracy. True democracy is inseparable from political liberty and is based on the conscious, free and enlightened consent of the majority, expressed through a free and secret ballot, with due respect for the liberties and opinions of minorities."  Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 11:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Heinlein loved, in his fiction, to experiment with various forms of government, marriage, and other institutions, especially to try out forms greatly different from our own.  But I think he would have agreed with the oft quoted assertion that of all forms of government, democracy is the worst, except for all the others.  Rick Norwood 13:44, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liberalism and democracy 

message: Wilfried Derksen deleted the examples of a republic (France) and a constitutional monarchy (United Kingdom).  I think the examples should remain, therefore I am asking for other opinions on this subject. Rick Norwood 14:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I deleted the examples, since there are many states fulfilling these criteria. So why not adding Australia, Canada, Switzerland, the member states of the European Union, etc. etc. I think the sentence is clear enough without these examples. I would like to now what is the added value of these examples. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 14:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I live in the United States, a country which has, in the words of our own government, committed unilateral intellectual disarmament.  Few of my college students know what a republic or a constitutional monarchy is.  Hense the examples.  Any countries would do, but I chose two that are fairly well known. Rick Norwood 15:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I think we do not need the examples. There are many examples of liberal democracies (some are disputed) around the world. We just need to wikilink republic and constitutional monarchy.Typelighter 22:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about one example of each, chosen using a random number generator. Rick Norwood 23:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  examples 

message: Some sections here are somewhat too disproportionately heavy, such as "Revolutionary Liberalism", while the section on "Liberalism and Democracy", though dealing with a key aspect of the theory, is limited to one paragraph... E.Cogoy 23:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fix comparative size of sections? 

message: This article has already been split several times.  Liberalism in North America split off.  Then Liberalism in North America split into Liberialism in the United States and Liberalism in Canada.  Now we have a long list of various specialized articles on liberalism.  I'm not sure what further split is now being suggested. Rick Norwood 23:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a horrible suggestion, so long as it's done with a care for the content. Lucidish 02:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Note that many of these articles already exist.  That being the case, this article does not really need to be split.  Rather, material that is included in another article should be shortened here with a link there. Rick Norwood 15:26, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  split? 

message: This Wiki article badly needs a section on the harmful effects of Liberalism on society!  It is way too biased!  PaladinWriter 21:27, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a section on Comparative critiques. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 21:46, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Harmful Effects of Liberalism 

message: In these three countries liberal parties have a long history, going back to 1848 in Germany and a few centuries more in Switzerland. Most educated liberals here will uphold the name of Adam Smith, freedom from oppression by a  repressive government with high taxes and tariffs being their main political theme.
In recent times in all three countries liberals (mostly educated business people) have come to represent the extreme right of the democratic political spectrum in most regards, which is reflected in the actual sitting order in parliament. Here is to say that taxation and social welfare in Germany is not comparable with taxation and social welfare in the US, with the ministry of health and social services comprising more than 30% of the overall budget.
So while liberal parties in the German speaking countries are the only parties with a decided free market, pro-business and low taxation stance (including the so called Christian Conservatives that have just voted for the highest tax increase in post-war Germany), at the same time the head of the German liberal party is openly gay, posing with his "life-partner" for the cameras. The German liberals are definitely "pro-choice", anti-racist, pro gay-marriages, but they strongly resent "affirmative action", where they clash with the governing coalition.
Conclusion: Liberal in Europe seems to mean the near opposite of the meaning in the US! Wikipedia should at least  point to this as an "alternative usage" of the term, that seams to stem from a different history.Hirsch.im.wald 07:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Being pro free market doesn't mean extreme right. The FDP is not extreme rightwing in the German spectrum. it is one of the parties with a very good record on Rechtsstaat. The article itself gives a clear outline of trends within liberalism, inclusive of Wirtschaftsliberalismus (economic liberalism) which is high on the FDP-agenda, so this alternative usage is in the article. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 09:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Liberals" in Germany, Austria, Switzerland

message: I deleted the following text:
Communist theory--though not practice--has also been found to have some basis in the writings of Marcus Aurelius in his Meditations. According to Marx, the notion of equality of the whole would create a society with equal rights for the whole. Marx even regarded communism as “liberalism in its purest sense.” Lenin, and other Soviet leaders latched on to this notion during the Russian Revolution. However, practice has shown the governments to be far from liberal.
This section is unsourced, out of place (in the beginning of the article) and as far as I can not true and irrelevant. Communism and liberalism are antipodes, since communism starts with the collectivity, with class, and liberalism is based on the individual liberty. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 08:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Connections with communism 

message: This sentence: Broadly speaking, liberalism seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on power, especially of government and religion, the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports relatively free private enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of minorities are guaranteed.
covers a lot of ground.  Where is the proof of, in which the rights of minorities are guaranteed.
Prove it or lose it.  WP:OWN violation.  Scribner 23:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think a link to Martin Luther King's "I have a dream..." speech should do it. Rick Norwood 23:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: MLK was a christian socialist, not a liberal. Intangible 18:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I will come up with a reference in short time (not today), but for me it is clearly inherent to liberalism, which created liberal democracy, a model that protects minorities in society against majorities and implies the non-discrimination principle. In a liberal programma is doesn't matter if somebody is hetero or gay, white or yellow, catholic of jew etc. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 08:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I did it today and added three citations. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 08:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Especially see the Oxford Manifesto of 1947. Very succinct. Lucidish 17:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, excellent cites.  The word guaranteed prompted the tag.  Scribner 19:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cite required

message: Most readers needs are better met by around 3 concise paragraphs, compared to 9 paragraphs for that section.--Nectar 14:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That might be true, but there is allready a more comprehensive article on the issue and this section has allready been summarized. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 17:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summary style 

message: Shall the article titled Liberalism be changed into a disambiguation page that  references articles like Classical liberalism, Social liberalism, American liberalism, etc.?  Or should it be left as is (more or less)?
===Arguments in favor of a Liberalism disambiguation page===
#Please don't ignore the fact that possibly a majority of readers coming here are from the US, where the word Liberalism has a totally different (and often opposite!) meaning from the European one. It is not enough to account for all "forms" of liberalism, since the current American (that is, a major English-speaking) usage already has a tradition of its own, with only a thin connection to the European concept (notice that they are not two parts of a whole, but separate full-fledged ideologies). Ostensible disambiguation will make things clearer for everyone right from the start. Xemoi 00:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  We do have an issue in semantics, but it arises entirely out of your (forgive me) ignorance and misinterpretation. Historically, for those who actually advocate certain views and call themselves American liberals, they do not believe in merely "left wing stuff". That is a vulgar mischaracterization, and trying to make it is to propagate falsehood. This really is a case where you need to read some of the literature: even Hayek's "Road...", or the Oxford Manifesto of 1947, or read up on how the term became used as a means of differentiating American social democrats from the communists they disagreed with. Lucidish 18:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  On the one hand, Xemoi" you say "Nobody is saying that other political ideologies called liberalism are 'not true liberals' or 'illiberal'", and then you refer to "American so-called 'liberals'" and an "American euphemism". While I generally try to assume good faith, this strains at my ability to do so. - Jmabel | Talk 05:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: RN to Xemoi -- Russian conservatives, that is, hard core communists, are mentioned in the article on conservatism. Rick Norwood 13:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Xemoi, the fact that "liberalism" is not homogeneous but heterogeneous, and that it hasn't got the same sense in the US and in Europe, simply points out the needs to explain this in the main text of the article. As some have argued using the "animal" argumentation by absurdum, your scepticism on the legitimity to join together these various types of liberalism is, at the end of it, questionning the possibility and the legitimity of the claims that a "liberal tradition" as such exists. This may of course be questionned, and few will totally agree on which authors to include in this tradition and which parts represent the "true", liberal tradition. As Jmabel has pointed out, in this case we shouldn't include neoliberalism in the "liberalism" article, because 19th century liberals were not opposed to basic public, state interventions which are strongly opposed by Friedman, Nozick and others. In two words: you are right to discuss the legitimity of this concept and of this tradition, and it is actually an on-going debate which, by definition, will never find a conclusion (at least until Fukuyama's claims that "liberalism represents the only alternative" — that is that there is no alternative at all — are proven and enforced. Ironically, my own POV would call this annihilation of any alternative "totalitarianism", but hopefully liberals are diverse enough that even if this was the case, than further political distinctions would be made.). By definition, a concept abstracts heterogenous reality under a homogeneous term, which is thus always a "fictional operation". Should we stop talking simply because langage is fictional? Tazmaniacs 13:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Oppose. Shannonduck talk 06:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  PLEASE VOTE: Should the Liberalism article be a disambiguation page? 

message: #Please don't ignore the fact that possibly a majority of readers coming here are from the US, where the word Liberalism has a totally different (and often opposite!) meaning from the European one. It is not enough to account for all "forms" of liberalism, since the current American (that is, a major English-speaking) usage already has a tradition of its own, with only a thin connection to the European concept (notice that they are not two parts of a whole, but separate full-fledged ideologies). Ostensible disambiguation will make things clearer for everyone right from the start. Xemoi 00:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Arguments in favor of a '''Liberalism''' disambiguation page

message: #Liberalism is here used as a generic term to describe various forms of liberalism. A dab just doesn't allow for the same kind of detail the current page has. Intangible 22:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Arguments opposing a '''Liberalism''' disambiguation page

message: # I started this poll in order to resolve the issue and get rid of the tag one way or the other.  However, I have not voted yet, because I am conflicted, and find both arguments compelling.  I will continue to abstain for now and will instead reread the entire article, read any other arguments made here, and mull it over...  --Serge 01:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  We do have an issue in semantics, but it arises entirely out of your (forgive me) ignorance and misinterpretation. Historically, for those who actually advocate certain views and call themselves American liberals, they do not believe in merely "left wing stuff". That is a vulgar mischaracterization, and trying to make it is to propagate falsehood. This really is a case where you need to read some of the literature: even Hayek's "Road...", or the Oxford Manifesto of 1947, or read up on how the term became used as a means of differentiating American social democrats from the communists they disagreed with. Lucidish 18:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  On the one hand, Xemoi" you say "Nobody is saying that other political ideologies called liberalism are 'not true liberals' or 'illiberal'", and then you refer to "American so-called 'liberals'" and an "American euphemism". While I generally try to assume good faith, this strains at my ability to do so. - Jmabel | Talk 05:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: RN to Xemoi -- Russian conservatives, that is, hard core communists, are mentioned in the article on conservatism. Rick Norwood 13:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Xemoi, the fact that "liberalism" is not homogeneous but heterogeneous, and that it hasn't got the same sense in the US and in Europe, simply points out the needs to explain this in the main text of the article. As some have argued using the "animal" argumentation by absurdum, your scepticism on the legitimity to join together these various types of liberalism is, at the end of it, questionning the possibility and the legitimity of the claims that a "liberal tradition" as such exists. This may of course be questionned, and few will totally agree on which authors to include in this tradition and which parts represent the "true", liberal tradition. As Jmabel has pointed out, in this case we shouldn't include neoliberalism in the "liberalism" article, because 19th century liberals were not opposed to basic public, state interventions which are strongly opposed by Friedman, Nozick and others. In two words: you are right to discuss the legitimity of this concept and of this tradition, and it is actually an on-going debate which, by definition, will never find a conclusion (at least until Fukuyama's claims that "liberalism represents the only alternative" — that is that there is no alternative at all — are proven and enforced. Ironically, my own POV would call this annihilation of any alternative "totalitarianism", but hopefully liberals are diverse enough that even if this was the case, than further political distinctions would be made.). By definition, a concept abstracts heterogenous reality under a homogeneous term, which is thus always a "fictional operation". Should we stop talking simply because langage is fictional? Tazmaniacs 13:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: (Please vote/sign below with "# Support ~~~~" if you support a Liberalism disambiguation page, or with "# Oppose ~~~~" if you oppose it.
#Support. Xemoi 00:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose. Shannonduck talk 06:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Votes

message: The opening sentence of this article is:
: Liberalism is an ideology, philosophical view, and political tradition which holds that liberty is the primary political value.
This is true for Classical liberalism, but is it true for all the "liberalisms" covered in this article?  Consider the footnote/quote that is used as a reference: "'Liberalism' is defined as a social ethic that advocates liberty, and equality in general." (emphasis added).  Is liberty the primary political value of liberalism, or is equality just as important?  The answer is, I believe, it depends on what liberalism you're talking about.  And that's the problem.  Does it make sense to have an article about a concept for which we cannot even accurately describe in a general sense in a simple sentence?    Still mulling it over... --Serge 01:24, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It also depends on what "equality" you're talking about, is it equality before the law or equality in the sense of "having the same opportunity in life." Intangible 02:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, it is true for all the liberalisms in this article, at least according to their own views. Lucidish 04:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Their own views" is irrelevant.  Organized crime leaders may also believe they hold liberty as their primary value, at least according to their own views.  That does not make it so...  What we need to be guided by is the NPOV, not their views...  --Serge 07:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Afraid not, seeing as this is an article about ideology. Lucidish 03:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Does it make sense to have an article about a concept for which we cannot even accurately describe in a general sense in a simple sentence"? Do you mean that there is actually no reason to write whole essays on liberalism since we can't describe it in a sentence? In other words: the matter is too complex to be treated with five words, so we shouldn't talk about it? Doesn't this appears absurd to your own eyes? And, if contributors decided to follow your advice and include "equality" in your definition, do you think writing in one sentence that "liberalism is defined as a social ethics, policies etc. which has as values liberty & equality" would make it easier? I mean, what exactly does "liberty" and "equality" means? Are you refering to metaphysical liberty (stoicism: free in mind, although the body is in chains?)? "Political liberty"? But does this means, as the liberty introductory sentence bravely states: "Liberty is generally considered a concept of political philosophy and identifies the condition in which an individual has immunity from the arbitrary exercise of authority." Accepting this presupposition, what then defines "arbitrary exercice of authority"? What does "authority" means? Shouldn't we forget about the "liberty" article, because clearly it is unwise to reduce the definition of liberty to the above mentionned, definition (which remains meaningless until you have filled up the meanings of "arbitrary", "exercice" and "authority"). Why has Isaiah Berlin's definition being favored over any else (apart from it being common enough in Anglo-Saxon,liberal, circles)? This introductory sentence doesn't even mentions its main presupposition: that "liberty is the property of an individual". This philosophical assertion is clearly a founding block of "liberalism". If you were looking for a rigourous, meaningful definition of liberalism, I would actually humbly propose: "Liberalism is a philosophical and political tradition which asserts that liberty is the property of an individual and that has as main aims to protect the rights of this individual" (of which, first of all, private property). If you accepted (a second) this definition, than it would follow from it that the so-called conflict between "equality" and "liberty" (or balancing one with the other) is only, IMO, a false problem which derives from this restricted conception of liberty. If you considered liberty not as a private, personal property of an individual, but rather as (forget my imprecision) the living state of a collective group, or as the specific conditions of a living and autonomous (per opposition to heteronomeous) society, than liberty wouldn't necessarily be "opposed" to equality. Actually, as you know, in the eyes of many people, liberty without equality is simple oppression, and I don't know how you could call "free" the Athenian democracy in which a minority of citizens dominated a majority of slaves, on the grounds that these citizens enjoyed "political rights" and were thus "free" (the condition of their freedom being the enslavement of the rest of the population — being slaves, they were not "men", in Aristotle's words). I don't know either how you can call free a regime which gave voting rights only to the masculine population, while all women were deprived, just as children, from being political subjects, owners of political rights, of which the first one is today considered to be the "right to vote"? I mean, you could say "men were free", but the vast majority of "women" would certainly not agree with you in this definition of freedom... And can one really be said to be free if the condition of his freedom are founded on the oppression of others? Reread Hegel's dialectics of the slave and the master: the free man is not necessarily where you think he is... Tazmaniacs 13:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening sentence/overall problem? 

message: I voted oppose above, but now wonder if I should have. Since the word 'liberal' doesn't have any real meaning anymore, there is no way to start this article with one definition for liberalism. It starts out describing classical liberalism and goes straight into modern liberalism. The two are diametrically opposed in most ways. It makes the whole thing just an impossible task, because of the way this article is arranged. Shannonduck talk 06:38, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly. I'm beginning to see that this article is trying to describe two different concepts that appear to be similar yet are fundamentally different, and happen to be referred to using the same term.  --Serge 07:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nope. The purpose is to explain the whole tradition. That will include the differences internally, sure. It will also include the commonalities. As has been warned, one should refrain from making comments about the meaning of the term until they've understood its history. Wikipedia is not the place for the memory hole, no matter how confusing the present political climate is. Lucidish 03:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Irrelevant in this case, of course. Lucidish 03:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Troll. --Irgendwer 08:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please be respectful. Lucidish 16:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Shannon, you're apparently coming to see that defining liberalism is not a NPOV endeavourement, and thus that this article can't be NPOV. You are correct, but does this impossibility mean it shouldn't be written? Isn't Neutral point of view always doomed to failure, and be followed only as an ideal? The conflictual traditions inside liberalism should only be isolated and contrasted as such, but this is more a problem of article organization than of specific contents. If everything is well organized, than the needs for a DAB page fall down. Tazmaniacs 14:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: This debate

message: I just went over the article and can see that the entire thing needs rewriting. This article is not based on simple fact like an encyclopedia article should be. It is confusing and is actually downright propagandized with strong socialistic influence. I will try and find the time to work on it. But like I said, the whole thing needs to be written all over again. Shannonduck talk 16:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the term "liberalism" means so many things to so many people, and those specific things have changed over time and been assigned new names, this article might be best off as a summary of each with links to more detail.  "American liberalism" is unique from "Canadian liberalism," which is completely different from "Enlightment liberalism" which is distinct from "classic liberalism" which is not the same thing as "social liberalism," etc.  What do you all think of something like that?  The scope of a term like "liberalism" is like trying to write one article that fairly and accurately captures all of its facets is fairly ambitious and may even be impossible. Bjsiders 17:05, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sounds like a great idea to me.  How about voting in Support of such a disambiguation/summary page above? --Serge 18:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  Ling, it would help if you made specific comments, and not general assertions. BJ, that's a fairly specious argument; generality may be just as interesting and full of content as particularity. Lucidish 17:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: No, it isn't. What you just suggested was fragmented particular wikis, not a general wiki. Lucidish 01:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Are you suggesting, seriously suggesting, that the "gold standard", or "essential goodness of the human race", be used as a necessary condition for liberalism? Classical liberalism, maybe; but there are other conditions which have withstood the test of time, such as "free competition" and "autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties", and which modern liberals support in their revised way. Lucidish 01:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It seems to me that the article does a good job of covering the various types of liberalism.  As for splitting the article again, please look at the history of the article.  It has been split, and split again, and now the various subarticles are being split.  It's a big subject, and the most we can have here is a quick overview.  Rick Norwood 22:52, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article needs to be rewritten 

message: Rick, My changes were not an attempt to rewrite the article from Libertarian POV.  I'm trying to explain the differences in concepts of liberty, and, hence, liberalism - one of which happens to be shared by libertarians.  I'm not saying it didn't need some work, I know it did, but did you really have to revert the whole thing? --Serge 23:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well he should have put a POV banner on, and explain his reasoning here. Intangible 23:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine.  I might have slipped with respect to POV.  But I'm sure it can be fixed, rather than reverted entirely.  I've restored it.--Serge 00:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Looks good to me, Serge. Gets right to the heart of the debate. It may be a bit long, but content-wise, it may be a good thing that positive-negative rights and freedoms were established from the start. However, the lines which divide may not be especially clear, even now. Evidently Adam Smith believed in progressive taxation (I tracked down the footnote a while ago somewhere on this talk page). Lucidish 02:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text: For that to wash, you must assume that all liberals who do not declare themselves libertarians do so because they are aware of what libertarians believe and choose not to self-associate with that ideology on the grounds of principle.  I think this is a pretty bold and baseless assumption to make.  I can't tell you how many libertarians I know who voted for Senator Kerry because they were less concerned with principle than with getting President Bush out of office in 2004. Bjsiders 14:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

text: A definite improvement.  Thank you.  I like it.  --Serge 21:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  attempt to rewrite this article from a Libertarian POV? 

message: Rather than go around and around and get absolutely no where, let's have a poll.
Here's my suggestion. Who's in favor of an article that states the differences of the term 'liberalism', as opposed to confusing the different historical usages of the word 'liberalism' and making it appear to be the same thing?
Support
# ~~~~
#
Oppose
# ~~~~
#
Find question incoherent
# ~~~~
# Jmabel | Talk 16:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: enough!

message: Bjsiders said this:
"Since the term "liberalism" means so many things to so many people, and those specific things have changed over time and been assigned new names, this article might be best off as a summary of each with links to more detail. "American liberalism" is unique from "Canadian liberalism," which is completely different from "Enlightment liberalism" which is distinct from "classic liberalism" which is not the same thing as "social liberalism," etc. What do you all think of something like that? The scope of a term like "liberalism" is like trying to write one article that fairly and accurately captures all of its facets is fairly ambitious and may even be impossible."
I am saying the same thing that Bjsiders said. Different ideas exist about the term 'liberalism', by varying groups of people, in certain historical times. The article tries to combine all these different ideas and portay them as if they were one and the same thing. That's all I'm saying. Is that more comprehensible to you?
Who is in agreement with Bjsiders of rewriting the article as a summary of each concept of liberalism with links to more detail? Shannonduck talk 18:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent points... part of the problem is the regular disputes over the meaning of the term, and even over the scope of an "ideology". It would be best if we were to stick to a few scholarly texts and grow from there. Also, sure, certain figures will be important: Adam Smith, John Locke, JS Mill, LT Hobhouse, Lloyd George, Roosevelt, JM Keynes, F. Hayek, etc. Lucidish 17:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: rewording of poll

message: Actually that's not true. It's the corrupt rotten to core game in town that never worked, never will. Grassroots activism is the game in town that does work. The only one that ever did. Margaret Mead. Shannonduck talk 14:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: the only game in town

message: Your edit has greatly improved the article.  It flows much more smoothly, now.  Rick Norwood 12:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electionworld's edit 

message: How's that debate going? Has a consensus been reached? The Serbian version of this article became a Featured Article, why can't ours? Who knows somebody who knows how to read Serbian? Xaxafrad 03:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Electionworld's edit is a step in the right direction. Rick Norwood 12:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Serbia and more disambiguation comments 

message: Did classical liberalism really advocate free public education?  I know a few classical liberals, such as Benjamin Franklin, favored free publicn education, but was this belief generally held by classical liberals?
:The suggestion that classical liberals are propents of progressive taxation was even more strange . I have reverted those changes. Intangible 18:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well not exactly: "The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state." Intangible 18:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  classical or modern? 

message: To Intangible: Please read the article that you pointed me to in your last summary: Classical_liberalism
Classical liberalism is a political philosophy that supports individual rights as pre-existing the state, a government that exists to protect those moral rights, ensured by a constitution that protects individual autonomy from other individuals and governmental power, private property, and a laissez-faire economic policy.
When I type 'modern liberalism' into the search box it brings me to social liberalism
Social liberalism is a political philosophy that emphasizes mutual collaboration through liberal institutions. Social liberalism, as a branch of liberalism, contends that society must protect liberty and opportunity for all citizens. In the process, it accepts some restrictions in economic affairs, such as anti-trust laws to combat economic oligopolies, regulatory bodies or minimum wage laws, intending to secure economic opportunities for all. It also expects legitimate governments to provide a basic level of welfare or workfare, health and education, supported by taxation, intended to enable the best use of the talents of the population, prevent revolution, or simply for the perceived public good.
Modern liberals want lots of government control. classical liberals did and do not. Modern liberals tend to favor group rights, shown in their advocacy for special privleges for minority groups. Classical liberals advocate individual rights. This is rather well known and indisputable. What is your problem with my edits? OceanDepths 13:20, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: People who are not liberals love to tell liberals what they believe.  Wouldn't it be better to ask liberals what they believe, instead of telling them.  Presumably they know what they believe better than you do.  Rick Norwood 19:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: "Modern liberals tend to favor group rights, shown in their advocacy for special privleges for minority groups." Are you speaking of affirmative action, here? Because that's a controversial issue, not a defining one (on the world stage). Lucidish { Ben S. Nelson } 19:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: the debate between classical and modern liberalism

message: The way to settle edit wars is not by reverting, but by citing sources.
I've looked through a number of social science dictionaries, and do not find any that use the phrase "social liberalism", which is all over Wikipedia. When I google "social liberalism" the top two sites are both on Wikipedia, the third is on amazon.com for a book called "Porn Generation".
The standard term for this idiology seems to be "social democracy".  Let's use standard terms whereever possible. Rick Norwood 19:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Social liberalism and Social democracy have both differint historic backgrounds and seek both different political ends, roughly, the former wants individual emancipation, the latter wants social egalitarianism. This difference occurs only in nations with a multi-party system. American liberalism for example, encompasses both, but has some other specificities. Intangible 20:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree with Intangible. SOrry Rick, but your last edits were no improvement, you have to make a clear distinction between (social) liberalism and social democracy. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 21:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Rick, you are welcome to add your sources, but please to add social democracy as a form of liberalism. It ain't. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 21:16, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  edit wars 

message: Since when are "progressive taxes" a major tennent of liberalism?
Roughly, from the time they were introduced.  The argument in favor of a progressive tax was that without it the concentration of wealth produced an upper class that was hostile to the egalitarian liberal ideal.  For more information, see progressive tax. Rick Norwood 13:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't say it is necessarily fundamental, but it seems to me important -- and also the reason a lot of people switched from being liberals to being conservatives when they got rich.  Thomas Jefferson and Adam Smith both supported progressive taxation.  I don't know about John Locke.  It seems to be generally accepted now that tax rates of, say 70% to 90%, are a bad idea.  I think 70% was the highest the US got, but the UK was up to 95%, if the Beatles are to be trusted (19 for me and 1 for you).  On the other hand, it sickens me to see the super-rich screaming bloody murder and allowing the US to spiral ever deeper into unsupportable debt because they have to pay 35%.  Rick Norwood 14:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Progressive taxes are not a liberal issue, at least in the world wide original understanding of liberalism.  Progressive taxes were introduced by progressives and socialists, who in America renamed themselves liberals.  Liberals however did call for taxes which would be paid by everyone, whereas the old aristocracy Europe allowed the wealthy nobility to avoid taxes.  Liberals never would have called this "progressive" in the way it is used today.  As progressive tax today generally means, "lets make the rich pay a higher percent" which, technically is inequality before the law...but that is another debate.  BTW, the US government is going into debt not because the rich are not paying enough in taxes, the top 10% already pay the vast majority of taxes, the reason the government is going deep into debt, is because IT SPENDS TOO MUCH!!!(CosmopolitanCapitalist 14:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Progressive taxes doesn't belong in the text as something emphasized by liberals. The text as it is now with the remark that many liberals etc. (third paragraph I think) is enough. CosmopolitanCapitalist: In most countries liberals agreed with a progressive taxation system and only a few liberal parties argue in favour of a flat tax. Even in European countries were progressives and socialist never governed, there are progressive taxes. Electionworld (prev. :Wilfried) (talk 14:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Cosmo (may I call you Cosmo), see the article progressive tax for plenty of evidence that progressive taxes were not "introduced by progressives and socialists".  They were introduced and supported by the founders of liberalism, and for sound economic reasons, not out of "envy".  On the other hand, I agree with Electionworld's recent edit and comments.  Progressive taxation is not an essential part of liberalism. Rick Norwood 14:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Call me what you like, but the interpretation of Smith and Jefferson texts are poor at best.  In no way do they constitute progressive taxation in the modern sense.  In fact, a flat tax can be a progressive tax, if for example, you taxed income above a certain amount.  Such a tax is today argued for by libertarians.  Smiths regards on taxing transportation is NOT about making the rich pay more but making the transportation that damages the road more pay more. IE the heavier carriage is the rich carriage.  Jefferson was arguing against pure free market persons who would have argued that tariffs harm the poor by suggesting they only consume what they produce and thus are not harmed.  NOT PROGRESSIVE.  I believe your interpretation, and the interpretation on the progressive tax page are bad.  (CosmopolitanCapitalist 15:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: While it would be fun to discuss this, Wikipedia is not the place.  I'll only say that it is no fun to play Monopoly when one player owns all the property and has all the money. Rick Norwood 14:31, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: An aside, I hope an interesting one: The game of Monopoly derives from an earlier game invented by a Georgist and intended as a critique of landlordism. (See History of the board game Monopoly.) - Jmabel | Talk 21:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: taxes from introduction

message: Seems this article deals with the American form of Liberalism, in the main. --MacRusgail 14:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to me that this article deals more with the European form of Liberalism in the main than with the American form of Liberalism. Electionworld Talk? 16:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Global liberalism

message: How come?
:Quoting from The Concise Columbia Encyclopedia: "He acted quickly during the so-called Hundred Days to rush through Congress a flood of fiscal and social reform measures aimed at reviving the economy by a vast expenditure of public funds."
:This was the essential split between the so-called "Classical Liberals", who believe that economic freedom is paramount, and the so-called "Modern Liberals", who believe that people cannot be free when virtually all of the wealth is in the hands of a few.
:In the words of Allen Jay Lerner, "The money rings out like freedom!"
Rick Norwood 18:27, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ROOSEVELT???=

message: Most liberals now oppose multiculturalism, while preferring pluralism. While a liberal society tries to be neutral generally, not all cultures are equally meritorious or noble, nor are all cultural inheritances and practices acceptable in a liberal society. For example, while different ways of preparing food enriches diversity, likewise forms of entertainment, those cultures that mutilate human genitals in no way can be approved or tolerated. Likewise, cultures that devalue women are limited in their expression of this cultural value, as a pluralistic liberal society insists upon equal treatment of all genders, at least in the public square. Thus, a pluralistic liberal society fosters and relishes variable modes of life and different cultural expressions within a liberal democratic structure, provided these variations do not harm others. Conversely, multiculturalism espouses a basic indifference and relativism to all cultures, when, in fact, not all cultures are equally valuable or relatively equal.
Uncited and opinionated. I would appreciate if someone else would edit this. Otherwise, I will feel free to remove it pending replacement by something citable. My strongest objections are to the phrases "not all cultures are equally meritorious or noble" "not all cultures are equally valuable or relatively equal." Pure opinion, in Wikipedia's narrative voice. No doubt the writer intends this to be read as favoring European and North American civilization. After all, not Europeans ever tried to kill or oppress anyone on a racial or ethnic basis. That's why there are so many Jews in Central Europe and why all the African Americans are descendants of free immigrants. Uh-huh.
As for devaluing women: women were denied the vote in virtually every Western country 100 years ago. If this meant that a culture were incurably illiberal, how does one then account for the subsequent spread of liberal democracy?
By the way, cultures don't mutilate genitals. That may be a cultural practice but it is not a culture. It is an abhorrent practice but, again, the West is not incapable of abhorrent practices. 
Which really leads us to the point: there are illiberal practices, but it is very opionated to claim that there are inherently illiberal cultures. 50 or 60 years ago we in America were routinely being told that East Asians were incapable of democracy. Look at Japan, South Korea, and the Republic of China today. This claim about cultures, as against practices, is totally out of line.
I'll give at least 48 hours on this, probably more, but if someone doesn't turn this into something at least defensible, preferably something citable, I will feel very free simply to remove it. - Jmabel | Talk 03:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The paragraph is clearly an editorial, and needs to go. Rick Norwood 17:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rather appalling paragraph 

message: I've created a new article on the concept of liberal_neutrality as found in the works of Rawls and many other liberal philosophers, would be good if anyone could contribute to it as I feel this is a concept that needs an entry but currently lacks one.Cxk271 16:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liberal Neutrality 

message: It looks to me like this whole section should be deleted. It implies that liberal opposition to theocracy and religion-based violation of rights is new. In fact, liberalism has been opposed to religious authoritarianism from its inception. The section alleges "a conflict between cultural toleration and the individual rights." In fact, liberalism has never condoned the violation of rights. It has never tolerated such aggression - cultural toleration is about voluntary conduct and beliefs, not aggressive acts. Rather than any deviationism, the section merely gives the modern equivalent of the fight against witch-hunts and torturing heretics. Hogeye 01:55, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A deletion for this section may very well be in order. It violates NPOV at the very least. -- Cielomobile minor7♭5 01:57, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. it was unbalanced. Electionworld Talk? 08:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical political deviances 

message: This talk page is getting huge and it seems to me somebody should archive it, but I don't know how and when this is done. Grand Slam 7 00:38, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The info on how to archive a talk page is hard to find.  I've found it three times before, but I can't find it today.  Rick Norwood 13:30, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs Archiving