Talk:Liberalism/Archive 5

message: Lucidish-  Social liberals have a very good reason for using the word liberal.  The word liberal is, and for good reason, associated with civil rights, human rights, progressive change (aka progress not the perversion that progressive requires socialist lines of reasoning), liberty, freedom, democracy...the list goes on and on.  YOU WANT THAT ATTACHED TO YOU.
Look on the opposite sides.  Conservative gets the stigma of being "backward looking" or someone that wants to fight progress.  Also tends to be associated with war, violence, and racism.
Leftists, Socialists, and Communists in America were once associated with anarchy, violence, murder, bombings.  
So what title would you take?
You'd take LIBERAL and get to keep the freedom, civil rights, progressive change (whether or not you can provide progress or not is another story) etc. You get all these positive things (which you guys are getting hung up on) while you change the very basic function of the definition which is free markets, limited government, and individual rights...the MOST IMPORTANT things about liberalism.  Those are the very things that provided, created, and sustained, the freedoms civil rights, and progress we enjoy.  But thats ignored, tossed out, and now they have you all focusing on the results as part of the definition rather than what created those results.
Do you see my point?
- Gibby
---
: The word "conservative" has the connotations it does because of the direct meaning it has: to conserve what has happened in the past. Quite frankly the word is ideologically as meaningless to me in the same way that "radical" or "moderate" is meaningless. I would guess that others share this tendency, and that may be why it is difficult to convince people of more refined meanings of it up and beyond, as you put it, "backward-looking". It's simply in the etymology of the term.
: Socialism and communism, if I'm correct, are still pariah terms in America, frequently with rational justifications. On the other hand, "liberal" garners split opinions, even among those who have some idea of what they're talking about.
: Again, social liberals do support free markets as opposed to planned economies. They simply disagree that regulation or graduated taxation (for example) interfere with free markets. They also support individual rights: indeed, that is the entire basis for their support for social programs: that they are providing people with freedom from certain harm. "Limited government" is the only differentiating criterion here, which tends to clash the social liberal from the more laissez-faire liberal. And it is historically of great importance. But it seems to me that the idea of limited government is somewhat farther removed from the etymology of the word "liberal" than these other considerations. 
: That's where we part ways in our interpretation. Lucidish 21:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I don't think so, given the historical examples of classical liberals, and the formulation of social liberalism as congruent with liberalism on the whole, and etymology of the word liberalism (and how it emphasizes certain historical characteristics over others). In all three of these respects, the characteristics of the ideology as being "liberal" are pronounced, and it should be recognizable how social liberalism relates. Lucidish 18:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Yeah, yeah, right. But they ripped off the word "liberal" over 60 years ago, and you can't get it back.  It's a done deal.  What do you have against "libertarian?"  70.178.26.242 05:00, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Liberalisms fine meaning...explained...again

message: Why does free society link here? JDR 19:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably because the goal society envisioned by liberals is often referred to as a free society. E.g. "In a free society, there would be no victimless crime laws." An open society is something else, having to do with accessibility to government. Hogeye 22:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Free society?

message: What is the distinction between classic liberalism and classical liberalism? Electionworld 21:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: None - there is no difference in meaning.  I've always used "classical liberal," and it gets more google hits than "classic liberal." (293,000 to 82,200)  Classical liberal seems the more accepted term. Hogeye 22:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  Somebody came along and changed it.  I changed it back.  They added a link.  Sure, why not link to both. Rick Norwood 23:02, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I did we did it together with most of modern liberals around the world. I wonder, which poarty would fit into Gibby's definction of liberalismElectionworld 21:45, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Ooh, so the ELDR is not a liberal party? Electionworld 21:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distinction? 

message: "Hayek’s thesis in "The Road to Serfdom" was proven true rather quickly as Clement Atley’s Labour Party government instituted wage and price controls, seized private businesses and consolidated them into the hands of the government, and soon attempted to control British citizen’s freedom to work where and how they pleased. Hayek's prediction had come true. Many more examples proved Hayek's thesis over the years, the best of which was Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. Recently data has become available that demonstrates the relationship between economic freedom and civil and political freedom. Separate studies put out by the Frasier Institute and the Heritage Foundation measure the levels of economic freedom, and as both Hayek and Friedman predicted, where there is high levels of economic freedom there is also high levels of civil and political freedom. Conversely areas with high restrictions upon economic freedom also have very limited civil and political freedom."
This is largely true, but a bit weirdly expressed. I've changed it to make clear that Britain did not go totalitarian, because free elections survived and Attlee's reforms were moderated. 81.110.202.57 11:24, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Hayek

message: How did we go from a fairly correct article on Liberalism in October to this disaster by December?  This page was disputed and it seems those disputing it won.  I dont know if Electionwood and Norwood gave in to the uninformed like Ruzmanci, or if they were part of the problem. But I seriously dispute not only the validity of this page but neutrality as well!  _gibby
: As you might have seen we had to do a lot of discussion not to get one interpretation of liberalism dominant in this discussion. Therefore we had intensive debates with Ruzmanci. Now we have the same kinds of debates with Gibby. Hayek was a liberal, but not all liberals agree with Hayek. Rawls was a liberal, but not all liberals agree with Rawls. The page is quite neutral now, but wouldn't be neutral is we would lable social liberals as socialists. That would mean that European liberals  are socialists, since they all or most of them accepted some government regulation of the economy. Electionworld 12:26, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I stand with you in that I think Hayek is an important liberal theorist. However, he is currently featured a number of times in this article. Lucidish 19:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Hayek is an important liberal theorist. What I deleted was the paragraph where was said that he is right. That is not encyclopedic. As you might have noticed I kept his comment on Keynesian liberalism in. Furthermore, seeing the way Gibby, whom I treated with respect, is attacking and insulting me, makes it necesary not to discuss anymore his remarks. Liberalism implies respect for anothers opinion. That is what I miss in his comments. I will keep on editing this page to make it a well balanced article on the diverse forms of liberalism. Electionworld 21:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fair enough Lucidish 23:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

text: No comment (see above). Electionworld 07:54, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

text: No comment. Just three questions: 1. Where did I say the Green Party were liberals? 3. Where in the article did I claim that social liberalism is the only right version of liberalism? 2. Who deleted social liberalism as a form of liberalism? Electionworld 22:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

text: May I remind you of the following:
If being a supporter of the ideas of Goeman Borgesius, of Karl Hermann Flach, of Dahrendorf, of Rawls means that I am a socialist, If being a supporter of the principles of my party (see Democrats.nl) means I am a socialist, what can I say. BTW, I still cannot find the place in this article where I said that the Green Party (which Green Party, which country) was liberal. Electionworld 22:34, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: How did this page get this way?

message: I've done a little minor fixing.  Whoever is writing on Hayek needs to be aware of the apostrophe required in such constructions as "Hayek's book".  I also removed one sentence, even though I agree with it, because it was unsourced, and also because paragraphs should not argue against themselves, and articles should not argue back and forth.  The idea that free markets lead to less individual freedom has been argued sufficiently earlier.  Time to give Hayek his say. Rick Norwood 13:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor cleanup 

message: I've found out a little more about John Wesley.  He was a liberal in the sense of wanting to end slavery and ease the plight of the poor, but he attempted to do this not through government action, but through the church.  At the time, the church had the power to tithe, and the money taken from the rich by John Wesley's church was used to provide benefits for the poor.  This is probably what Ben Franklin was talking about in his letter in which he discussed the possibility that easing the plight of the poor might sap their industry.  This is, probably, the origin of that branch of liberalism that seeks to aleviate inequality between rich and poor.  It is still liberalism, though it is not political liberalism.  And while we recognize it as a form of liberalism today, it would not have fallen under the meaning of liberalism at the time, when the word meant something like "terrorist" and was usually applied to the French. Rick Norwood 13:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I tend to agree with Gibby on this point. It is not enough to be against slavery to be a liberal. The onus is individual liberty Electionworld 22:15, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Wesley 

message: I recommend exchanging paragraphs 1 and 2.  That is, I think we should say something about what liberalism is before we discuss divisions within that topic.  Rick Norwood 15:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you meanu with paragraph 1 the italic text (disclaimer) i agree. Electionworld 15:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction 

message: Electionwood, stop POVing.  The tax reform is titled the FAIRTAX.  that is why it is capitalized as FairTax.  We are not saying it is A fair tax... Do you understand?  leave it alone! 
:Dear anon (or is ith Gibby), Stop fighting, don't see everwhere PV's: I wasn't aware of a specific tax proposal in one of the countries around the world named FairTax. I cannot be aware of everything happening around the world. I made a liitle change to make more clear that is is a proposal in the US. VTW: I removed cf wikipedia standard your comments to the bottom. Electionworld 09:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair Tax

message: I'm sure you have been told that new posts go at the bottom of the page.  There is a reason for this.  People reading discussion pages look at the bottom of the page first.  If you want to add to an existing discussion, click on the last "edit" box on the discussion page.  If you want to crate a new topic, click on the plus sign next to the "edit this page" tab at the top of the page. Rick Norwood 21:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  A note to KDR Gibby 

message: I have the feeling that the article became in the last weeks too much US centric. It is much about the differences between American liberalism and (American) classical liberalism. European liberalism is generally somewhere in between. I thought Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia, not an American encyclopedia. Let's try not to make this article a battlefield between these two American forms of liberalism. Electionworld 22:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Having just read the article for the firt time I agree with Electionworld. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much US centric 

message: Just to announce: I am planning a section on the relation between liberalism and democracy. The article tends to focus too much on economics, but politics is about more than economy alone. Electionworld 22:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I look forward to your section on liberalism and democracy.  I also agree that the article has become too centered on the US and on economics.  I've stayed away from the article, because I did not want to get caught up in the big fight going on for the past week.  If things have calmed down, maybe a more balanced article can be achieved. Rick Norwood 22:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liberalism and Democracy 

message: I plan to go through the article a section at a time, working alongside Electionworld.  My goal is to restore balance, so that the article is not just about US liberalism (which has its own article) and not just about libertarianism (which also has its own article).  I'm going to start with the introduction.  My goal is to make it a little more objective, a little more organized, and to eliminate repetition. Rick Norwood 01:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Things seem to have quieted down a bit. 

message: I've filed a requests for comment against User:KDRGibby at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/KDRGibby. Interested users involved in the Liberalism article may wish to make a statement or insert or discuss evidence pertaining to the requests for comment. -- Natalinasmpf 05:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure this won't just stir things up now that they have finally quieted down? Rick Norwood 14:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC against KDRGibby 

message: :Forms and aspects of liberalism
:As in many debates, opposite sides use different words for the same beliefs, and sometimes use identical words for different beliefs. For the purposes of this article, we will use "political liberalism" for the support of (liberal) democracy (either in a republic or a constitutional monarchy), over against absolute monarchy or dictatorship; "economic liberalism" for the support of private property, over against government regulation; "social liberalism" for the support of equality, over against inequalities of opportunity; "cultural liberalism" for the support of individual liberty. By "modern liberalism" we mean the mixture of these forms of liberalism found in most First World countries today, over against any one of the pure forms listed below.
Any broad social ideology may seek to provide principled guidance within matters of a number of different areas in social life. Those subjects that an ideology does attempt to address are aspects of the ideology. Some aspects include: guidance on correct political institutions and its laws; on organization (or lack thereof) of the economy; on proper moral character and conduct of citizens; and on organization of social institutions, such as schools and communities. Any opinion upon some subject that holds constant across all forms of liberalism may be considered an aspect of liberalism.
* The political aspect of liberalism is the belief that individuals are the basis of law and society, and that society and its institutions exist to further the ends of individuals, without showing favor to those of higher social rank. The Magna Carta is an example of a political document that asserted the rights of individuals even above the prerogatives of monarchs. Political liberalism stresses the social contract, under which citizens make the laws and agree to abide by those laws. It is based on the belief that individuals know best what is best for them. Political liberalism includes the extension of the right to vote to women, non-whites, and those who do not own property. Political liberalism emphasizes the rule of law and supports liberal democracy.
* The social aspect of liberalism focuses on the rights of individuals pertaining to conscience and lifestyle, including such issues as sexual freedom, religious freedom, cognitive freedom, and protection from government intrusion into private life. John Stuart Mill aptly expressed cultural liberalism in his essay "On Liberty," when he wrote, "The sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That 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 a sufficient warrant." The social aspect of liberalism generally opposes government regulation of gambling, sex, prostitution, the age of consent, abortion, birth control, terminal illness, alcohol, and marijuana and other controlled substances. Most liberals oppose some or all government intervention in these areas. The Netherlands, in this respect, may be the most liberal country in the world today.
* The economic aspect of liberalism emphasizes the right of the economic actor to be autonomous, and argues that the dissapearance of economic freedom leads to a dissapearance in political freedom. In all of the forms of liberalism listed above there is a general belief that there should be a balance between government and private responsibilities, and so, that government should be limited to those tasks which cannot be carried out best by the private sector. All forms of liberalism claim to protect the fundamental dignity and autonomy of the individual under law, all claim that removing restrictions on individual action promotes the best society. All forms of liberalism support the right to private property.
Within the above framework, there are deep, often bitter, conflicts and controversies among liberals. Emerging from those controversies are a number of different forms of liberalism.
* Economic liberalism, many of whose adherents term it "classical liberalism", is an ideology which supports the individual rights of property and freedom of contract. The watchword of this form of liberalism is "free enterprise". It rises out of the spirit of laissez-faire capitalism, meaning the removal of legal barriers to trade and cessation of government-bestowed privilege such as subsidy and unnatural monopoly. Economic liberals want little or no government regulation of the market. Some economic liberals would accept government restrictions of monopolies and cartels, others argue that monopolies and cartels are caused by state action. Economic liberalism holds that the value of goods and services should be set by the unfettered choices of individuals, that is, of market forces. Some would also allow market forces to act even in areas conventionally monopolized by governments, such as the provision of security and courts. Economic liberalism accepts the economic inequality that arises from unequal bargaining positions as being the natural result of competition, so long as no coercion is used. This form of liberalism is especially influenced by English liberalism of the mid 19th century. Libertarianism is the closest modern representative of this intellectual tradition. Minarchism and anarcho-capitalism are forms of economic liberalism. (See also Free trade, Neo-liberalism, liberalization)
* Social liberalism, also known as "reform liberalism", arose in the late 19th century in many developed countries, influenced by the utilitarianism of Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. Some liberals accepted, in part or in whole, Marxist and socialist exploitation theory and critiques of "the profit motive", and concluded that government should use its power to remedy these perceived problems. According to the tenets of this form of liberalism, as explained by writers such as John Dewey and Mortimer Adler, since individuals are the basis of society, all individuals should have access to basic necessities of fulfillment, such as education, economic opportunity, and protection from harmful macro-events beyond their control. To social liberals, these benefits are considered rights. These positive rights, which must be produced and supplied by other people, are qualitatively different from the classic negative rights, which require only that others refrain from aggression. To the social liberal, ensuring positive rights is a goal that is continuous with the general project of protecting liberties. Schools, libraries, museums, and art galleries were to be supported by taxes. Social liberalism advocates some restrictions on economic competition, such as anti-trust laws and price controls on wages ("minimum wage laws.") It also expects governments to provide a basic level of welfare, supported by taxation, intended to enable the best use of the talents of the population, to prevent revolution, or simply "for the public good."
There is a fundamental antagonism between economic and social liberalism. Economic liberals see positive rights as necessarily violating negative rights, and therefore illegitimate. They see a limited role for government. Some economic liberals see no proper function of government (anarchists), while others would limit government to courts, police, and defense against foreign invasion (minarchists.) Social liberals, in contrast, see a major role for government in promoting the general welfare - providing some or all of the following services: food and shelter for those who cannot provide for themselves, medical care, schools, retirement, care for children and for the disabled, including those disabled by old age, help for victims of natural disaster, protection of minorities, prevention of crime, and support for art and for science. This largely abandons the idea of limited government. Both forms of liberalism seek the same end - liberty - but they disagree strongly about the best or most moral means to attain it. Some liberal parties emphasize economic liberalism, while others focus on social liberalism. Socially conservative parties often favor economic liberalism while opposing cultural liberalism.
:It is hard to compare the two versions without having them side by side.  Flipping back and forth between them, I find things to like and things to dislike.  I like the use of italics on the first paragraph.  I dislike the omission of the last three paragraphs.  I dislike the omission of a paragraph on cultural liberalism, and the repetition of the economic and social sections.  Over all, I like the current version better.  I'm going to see if I can start with the current version and incorporate the sections above that add to it.  My effort will be posted at the bottome of this page. Rick Norwood 15:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Luc: Forms vs. aspects change proposal 

message: I have the feeling the last edits by Hogeye are based on the experiences in the US. In the European Union many economic liberals actively supported the development of the EU and also support globalization and organizations like the WTO. A form of green policies is included in almost all programs of liberal parties. If we would follow the edits of Hogeye, it would lead to the conclusion that all or most European liberal parties are not economic liberal. I do not think that it is a reality. They might not share the libertarian agenda, but in Europe part of these parties are considered economic liberal. Electionworld 07:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I'll buy that.  Nevertheless, the earlier formulation implied that all liberals favored neocolonialism, when that is clearly not the case. Perhaps we can come up with a better qualifier than "social" to convey this. Hogeye 17:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Whether an economic liberal approves or disapproves of the WTO depends on how they evaluate that cartel of states. If the person thinks that  the WTO promotes free trade, then he approves.  If he sees the WTO as using political means to enforce certain practices and standards on unwilling nations, then he disapproves. E.g. Enforcing copyright rules or 1st world labor standards on developing nations is contrary to laissez-faire. Hogeye 18:17, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit by Hogeye 

message: What is "Part of the liberals" supposed to mean? "Some liberals"? "Every liberal to some extent"? "Liberals only partly believe their own rhetoric"?  (Just kidding on that last one.) Something else entirely? -- Jmabel | Talk 02:49, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they meant the little toe on the liberals right foot. Lucidish 05:18, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It might be a problem of not being a native speaker. Originally it was Some liberals, which I understood as a few. Part of the would be more neutral. Many could be even better. Electionworld 20:04, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I was actually guessing it meant "some liberals"; that has no implication of many or few, although it does tend to suggest less than a majority. "Many liberals" would be almost equivalent (although I guess it would eliminate any possible suggestion that it might be only a tiny sliver). "Part of the liberals" could not mean "some liberals"; it could have either of the latter two (presumably unlikely) meanings I gave above, though. I'm sure you are right that non-native English is the culprit. I'll restore "some liberals" if no one has beaten me to it. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:58, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Part of the liberals"