Talk:Liberalism/Archive 2

message: Recently added to the article: "Later under the leadership of Robespierre, a totalitarian, almost proto-socialist fraction took power." In what sense was Robespierre a "proto-socialist"? Jacques Hébert could probably be called a proto-socialist, but Robespierre had him killed! -- Jmabel | Talk 05:45, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
:Good question. I do not know if Robespierre was a proto-socialist, but he sure was illiberal and totalitarian. Electionworld 06:36, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Robespierre 

message: In the past we tried to make an article on liberalism outside and inside the USA. Much of the discussion focuses on American liberalism and is really not about liberalism outside the USA. Though I wrote a lot in this article in an attempt to make one article, I would now suggest to make a clearer distinction and focus in this article on Liberalism in its international dimensions. The American stuff would then belong in the article Liberalism in the United States. I have made a 
small introduction. Electionworld 06:51, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This is an excellent idea. Liberalism has developed independently in each country and means different things to different people. luketh 21:55, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Wonderful. There is an enormous amount of work to be done with respect to disambiguation for this term, since a bunch of WP articles are rendered meaningless because the label has opposite semantics on each side of the pond. Please continue this effort. (Liberalism in the United States is now at American Lilberalism, by the way. (Should that really be capitalised?)) Arbor 11:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liberalism in and outside the USA 

message: I agree with the above. I think that it would be particularly useful to have an article on Liberalism in South Africa. The Liberal Party was very influentual in the setting up of the Freedom Charter and much that came afterwards. It was involved in activism and banned. Liberal thought is still alive and important in South African debate even if it isn't always recognised as such.
:There is allready an entry Liberalism in South Africa. Electionworld 19:16, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liberalism in South Africa 

message: 165.230.209.234 is me, sorry. I wanted to make the point that minarchists (as explained on the Minarchism page)
do not necessarily believe in complete and absolute economic economic deregulation. Allens 06:13, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Libertarianism and classical liberalism 

message: Within the Etymology section, there are a number of side comments, e.g. "All liberals present themselves as friends of freedom." which have absolutely nothing to do with Etymology.  Would anyone like to volunteer to shorten and clean up this section so it is all Etymology? Rick Norwood 21:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Etymology 

message: What is the claim for the Levellers as an origin of liberalism (at a distance of some 200 years)? They are clearly part of the origin of European republicanism, but they didn't exactly believe in the free market, which was a touchstone of early liberalism. Unless someone has a good citation for this, it should be removed. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Jmabel is right; the Levellers fit more neatly into the category of populism.Grant65 (Talk) 15:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Levellers? 

message: I rewrote the intro to describe the general characteristics of liberal societies, as advocated by the ideology of liberalism. Liberalism is a major ideology, of great historical influence, and it is insufficient to simply state the etymology or to say that it 'supports freedom'. Classifying it as a pro-rights ideology is also insufficient, that does not describe the kind of society liberalism advocates. In particular the free market is more than simply 'property rights' although they are an essential component.
In error I deleted the disclaimer about usage, and I reinserted it with a slight chnage, that the article is about a major historical ideology. It determined the form of western societies, so it would be innaccurate to limit this article to Anglophone Liberal parties and their current policies.Ruzmanci 10:31, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New intro 

message: Though I am an administrator I am not allowed to protect this page. I would like to see the page as it stands now to be protected. One contributor tries to impose an intro with which most other editors do not agree. I reverted the last version off Ruzmanci to the last version before him and tagged it with the two versions template. I did this because it seems the majority agrees with the non-Ruzamci version. Electionworld 12:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection needed 

message: I can't believe we are starting this whole dispute all over again.  Please, can we discuss this instead of just changing it! Rick Norwood 17:41, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Discussions have so far been fruitless. Ruz is not listening or offering genuine replies. His suggestions run headlong into pretty basic Wiki conventions: first introduce concept, then critique. Also, problems with argument based on facts, logic. Pointed out misreadings of other editors' texts. Etc. Lucidish 18:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  deja view all over again 

message: Both versions quoted seem to me to present extremes in which liberalism is primarily about economics.  Both sides in this feud seem determined to remove any suggestion that liberalism is primarily about freedom.  
Also, clearly a vote is not the answer.  First, because we are only going to get a dozen or so votes, at most.  Second, because if a million voters voted that 2 + 2 = 5, that wouldn't make it so.
I thought we were in good shape before Derksen's rewrite, but after castigating me for making changes without discussion, he has made changes without discussion.
Please, let us have an article that presents the historical mainstream of liberalism first, and modern extremes of liberalism further down the page.
Rick Norwood 20:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  two versions or three? 

message: I gave the example of the obligation on unemployed women to work as a prostitute, as an example of what freedom actually means to liberals. Of course it is an extreme example, but it is a characteristic of a free market in labour, that some people end up doing jobs that they do not want. The liberal position, in general and in specific policies of European Liberal parties, is that state should not provide them with an income so that they don’t have to do the unpleasant work. Unless a rich benefactor is available, that means that they will in fact have to do something they do not want to do, in other words act against their own will. The liberal position is that they are nevertheless ‘free’.
Of course no person is under an absolute compulsion in this sense. They could simply do without an income, and this liberal concept of freedom was parodied in the derisory slogan “Freedom to Starve”.
Wilfried Derksen has queried the claim that a regulation exists which would oblige unemployed women to work as prostitutes, and demanded a source. It is difficult to believe that Derksen is acting in good faith here, since not only is there a regulation, it was introduced by a coalition government including his own party. The issue has been covered widely in the media in Germany and Holland, and the obligation to accept work as a prostitute was officially confirmed in a letter to Parliament by the Dutch Minister for Social Affairs. Derksen must know this. See these Dutch media reports at Elsevier  and Intermediar and Planet . For the German obligation to work, which is supported by the FDP, see this English language report in the Telegraph  and the apparently original source in the taz .
The non-liberal position on this issue, or at least one of the non-liberal positions, is that the state should indeed provide an income to people who are doing work they don’t like, so that they can stop working - or create a tax-funded pleasant job for them. If they like collecting stamps, for instance, then the state should pay them to collect stamps, instead of working long hours for low pay at Walmart or Lidl.
I know that would enrage many liberals, but that is the whole point. The article should, in effect, say that they are enraged. More formally, that liberalism rejects the idea that ‘personal freedom’ means a personal choice for what you like (or prefer).Ruzmanci 11:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not liberal, but "classic liberal" or "libertarian". The distinction -- which is well known in political science, across the world -- has been pointed out to you over and over again many times in this thread. Social liberalism advocates welfare / workfare. This is well known. Please read. Lucidish 21:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

text: I know social-liberals support workfare. That is one reason why so many people in Europe dislike them, and the term.Ruzmanci 18:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then surely you don't mean what you say. "The liberal position, in general and in specific policies of European Liberal parties, is that state should not provide them with an income so that they don’t have to do the unpleasant work." This is the opposite of workfare. Lucidish 16:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Dropping in briefly, since I was looking at the talk page - "German law forces women to work as prostitutes or lose benefits" as discussed in the Telegraph article is an urban legend; it's a sensationalised reporting of a rather innocuous German article, which explicitly noted that no woman could be forced into prostitution. Snopes has a quick summary; throwing the taz article into a machine translator, for those who nicht sprechen deutsche, may be informative (though garbled). Shimgray | talk | 14:41, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Don't give up too soon.  After all, there were a couple of places above where you and Ruzmanci actually agreed!  I think Ruzmanci has suffered from a particularly bad variation on the liberal theme, and is having a lot of trouble realizing that many liberals are not like that. Rick Norwood 22:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I won't give up editing the article. But if a person thinks I am not acting oud of good faith, I won't bother to react to his arguments. Electionworld 23:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obligation to prostitution and liberal 'freedom' 

message: I do not like the way Ruzmanci attacked my integrity for the second time. (not believing i was acting in good faith). I wasn't aware of the articles in the Dutch web sites. To make it clear. I am not a politician, not a member of parliamen nor working for any politician. I am an elected member of the ELDR party bureau. I do not know all policies of the Dutch government and am not responsible for anything Dutch government says. The articles are about a discussion in Dutch parliament between the christian democratic minister of social affairs and the parliament. The last article clearly states that pressure and sanctions by the autorities are not allowed (on the request of the VVD party) in the case of jobs in the sex industry. So these sources do not prove that there is any official regulation in the Netherlands of this kind.
Furthermore, since the way Ruzamnci discusses with me, I decided to stop reacting on his interventions in this talk page. It just dosn't make sense, we'll never agree. Sorry, I hoped it to be otherwise. - Electionworld 12:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't give up too soon.  After all, there were a couple of places above where you and Ruzmanci actually agreed!  I think Ruzmanci has suffered from a particularly bad variation on the liberal theme, and is having a lot of trouble realizing that many liberals are not like that. Rick Norwood 22:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I won't give up editing the article. But if a person thinks I am not acting oud of good faith, I won't bother to react to his arguments. Electionworld 23:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reaction

message: I think it is time to incorporate some of the things we have discussed here in the article itself, because while we are discussing, others are rewriting.  I will try to do so with an even hand. Rick Norwood 21:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I wish you good luck in this. Electionworld 23:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think that it is time 

message: The recent improvements in the section "liberal violence" are certainly welcome, but the entire tone of the section seems to be to blame modern liberals for things that happend two hundred years ago.  The revolutionry nature of early liberal movements is certainly an important part of the history section.  The American Civil War was another use of violence in a liberal cause: the end of slavery.  But the connection between those violent acts and modern liberalism seems spurious to me.  In recent history it has been the anti-liberal forces, especially the Islamic anti-liberal forces, who have most often resorted to violence. Rick Norwood 23:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: This was about the intro. I was not aware of that meaning, so i restored 'deprived of life', but at the same time added the opposition to the death penalty. Electionworld 07:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

text: In addition to Jmabel: Though the French revolution started with liberal roots, soon it developed into a illiberal terror of the jacobins and montagnards. Most liberals wouldn't consider them as being liberals. I would also be proud of the use of violence to end the Nazi occupation of and crimes agains humanity in Europe. Electionworld 07:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  liberal violence 

message: I propose to add to the section on liberal violence, the support of laissez-faire liberals for extreme repressive measures against early trade unions, including the death penalty in the Seditious Assemblies Act 1795.
:...remain or continue together by the Space of one hour after such Command or Request made by Proclamation, that then such continuing together to the Number of twelve or more, after such Command or Request made by Proclamation, shall be adjudged Felony without Benefit of Clergy, and the Offenders therein shall be adjudged Felons, and shall suffer Death, as in the case of Felony without Benefit of Clergy.
Ruzmanci 11:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liberal support for the death penalty 

message: I propose to add to the section on present-day liberal politics, the almost uniform opposition of the Liberal Parties to immigration, their support for restrictions on immigration, their almost uniform demand to limit the right of asylum, and their support in some cases for abrogation of international human rights law in order to limit immigration (for instance by barring children of non-EU citizens, from joining their families in an EU country). Outside of Britain, everyone in the EU recognises that the Liberal parties are anti-immigration parties, and that they align with the nationalist-populist parties on this issue.Ruzmanci 11:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liberal xenophobia 

message: The edit on Ayaan Hirsi Ali receiving death threats is correct, but does not give the full picture. I propose to cover the controversy in more detail, since it illistrates several aspects of modern liberalism in Europe. First, the bitter (mutual) hostilty between liberalism and religious radicals. Second, the neo-Jacobin and crusading nature of some liberalism. Third, that this is within mainstream liberalism: Hirsi Ali is a member of parliament for a large Liberal party. Fourth, the idea that free speech is not accepted as an undisputed benefit, and that others may wholly reject the principle on religious grounds. (The fact that not everyone sees liberalism as a 'list of good things' is largely unrecognised in the article).
The murder of Theo van Gogh (film director) for directing a film with her anti-Koranic script, and Hirsi Ali's statement that Mohammed was a paedophile, made after the murder, illustrate both the liberal absolutism as regards free speeech, and the violent reaction it provokes. Her party did not approve the statement, but did not disapprove it either. Supporters of Theo van Gogh and Ayaan Hirsi Ali did engage in violence after the murder, attacking mosques and Islamic schools.
I think this sort of reality is a necessary addition to the article, which originally gave the impression of a mild-mannered debate on various forms of liberty.Ruzmanci 11:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you talking about? How is any of this relevant? Lucidish 19:06, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mohammed a paedophile? Violence and free speech. 

message: I have just read through the entire article and I think it is now in excellent shape.  However there is one passage in the section Liberalism vs. social democracy that I do not understand.  Maybe it should be rewritten in order to make its point clearer. Rick Norwood 13:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. Social liberals advocate both negative and positive rights, and they do it in the name of freedom, so that's a crazy formulation of the difference. If there's a difference, to my mind, it lies in the difference between free trade and fair trade. Social democrats will advocate fair trade as a rule, whatever that entails, while social liberals will demand that borders be kept open as a rule except in dire circumstances. Lucidish 16:01, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  confusing passage 

message: Well, everyone is getting their say, which I guess is a good thing, but the article is now twice as long as the recommended 32K.  I don't know enough about Liberal party politics in Europe to comment on the recent lengthy additions, and so I will just ask the authors -- can any of these be given more briefly in the main article with a link to a new article, such as "European liberalism"?  Just asking. Rick Norwood 22:44, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No idea why that section is there. There's already a blurb on Euro politics. So I agree. There's an American Liberalism page that's independent of this one, so it would make good sense to make a European liberalism one. Lucidish 23:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I read your comments and I shortened that section, since it was not NPOV, but a rather personal selection of sources and information from these sources. I do not believe it belongs in this article. Furthermore I do not think one can make a page on European liberalism, since it is very pluriform. WOuld one describe the liberalism of Det Radikale Venstre or of the Estonian Reform Party, would one describe the immigaration policy of Venstre or of Det Radikale Venstre. I can agree with a deletion of the whole section. That the article exceeds the 32K, is not really a problem, it might be very difficult to break up the page. It would lead to a head article, with summaries of the sub-articles, and those summaries would lead to the same discussions we had here. - Electionworld 09:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

text: An article doesn't have to be entirely homogeneous. If you have a European article, then you can split it according to locale. Lucidish 15:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  long article 

message: Here is the first sentence of the current introduction.
"Liberalism is an ideology, or current of political thought, defines itself as striving after maximisation of individual liberty through a democratic system of rights under law, in a system where the form of society is determined by the outcome of open competitive process, generally including economic competition, free exchange of ideas, and political expression within a defined framework."
It's too long.
Also, if you parse it, it says, "Liberalism is defines itself..." 
I would like to do a rewrite, without changing the meaning of any sentence, but using shorter words and shorter sentences. Rick Norwood 13:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, edit away. Lucidish 16:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shorter words, shorter sentences. 

message: It seems to me that those institutions operate from a very liberal principle, that of free trade, except that their structural adjustment programs end up creating a relationship of dominion. To say they're not liberal isn't quite right, but to say they are is not quite right either. Lucidish 16:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think an encyclopedia article should focus on the mainstream of any subject, rather than on extreme views -- there are just too many extreme views, and they really are not of interest.  There is, for example, in the United States, a popular radio program hosted by Rush Limbaugh, who constantly says things such as: All liberals want to force everyone to become a homosexual.  All liberals want to ban Christianity.  All liberals love criminals.  And so on.  These viewpoints are simply not worth reporting. Rick Norwood 16:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, but we're not talking about extreme views by idiots, we're talking about established institutions and the extent to which liberalism as an ideology can be said to support them. I would be a liar if I said I felt that liberalism was anti-IMF, anti-World Bank, even if only because they have a smattering of internationalism in their intent, if not their practices; and profess to be development-centered, even though they are arguably dependency- and globalization-centered. Lucidish 19:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Clearly, this is something you know a lot more about than I do.  I defer to your greater expertise. Rick Norwood 20:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I would say that the fit in the neoliberal trend of the last decennia and that many liberals support these institutions, but that doesn't mean that they are liberal institutions.  We wouldn't say that the European Union is a liberal organization. Electionworld 20:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  It deserves a section, with all the necessary caveats. Foreign policy is very hard to fit liberalism into. Lucidish 01:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  IMF / WTO and liberalism 

message: Substituted at 20:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment