Talk:Classical liberalism/Archive 1

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

Merge
A merge would be incredibly naive. Classical Liberalism more refers to the liberals of the Industrialization and Revolution era's where change was needed. Liberalism could be used with almost any idea(s). GMuffin 20:32, 3 January 2006 (UTC)      {[User GMuffin}]

I merged the text into Liberalism. You can find the old text at talk:Liberalism/old text classical liberalism. The old text of this Talk page can be found at talk:liberalism/old text classical liberalism/talk.

Leave Classic Liberalism alone
Classic Liberalism and Classical LIberalism are "merged". &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by KDRGibby (talk &bull; contribs) 3 Dec 2005.

I'm leaving Classic Liberalism seperate just in case the socialists try and destroy Classical liberalism like they did the liberalism page. - Gibby &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by KDRGibby (talk &bull; contribs) 3 Dec 2005.

-- I believe the votes said no with only one yes for a merger of anykind... Once again giving criedence to the old saying "its not who votes that counts but who counts the votes" -  Gibby   :P

If you want a vote on the redirect, we can do that. I restore the page and will arange a vote. There was no vote yet on this merger. The merger voted down was another one. Electionworld 22:39, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

this or that article

 * A comprehensive discussion of classical liberalism is included in the article Liberalism.

If this is true, something must be done about the article "liberalism". Classical liberalism, at least with that name, is hardly explained at all! -EnSamulili 18:33, 13 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Probably was true when the statement was written, but, as you might imagine, the Liberalism article is a bit of a battleground. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:16, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

School of Salamanca
The School of Salamanca certainly anticipated certain aspects of liberal economic theory, but in other respects they seem to me to be much more communitarian, especially in their views on sovereignty. Is there a citation for considering them an antecedent to classical liberalism? Not an insane view, but not so commonplace as to justify asserting it in passing without even noting any differences. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

The recent changes to this article...
... strike me as completely wrongheaded. They take at face value, and as if it were universally accepted, the libertarian claim of being the only true heirs to the heritage of classical liberalism, to the point of identifying contemporary libertarian thought with classical liberalism. From what I've seen in the literature of political science, most political scientists would hesitate to use the term "classical liberalism" to refer to anything much later than the mid-19th century, when liberalism split into, on one hand, the economic liberalism that eventually developed into things like the Austrian School and the libertarians and, on the other hand, the social liberalism of Mill, which leads (for example) to American Cold War liberalism.

I am extremely skeptical of the claim that either of these forks has more claim to the classical liberal heritage than the other. -- Jmabel | Talk 09:37, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Are you serious? Read the first few paragraphs.  Like libertarianism, classical liberalism is "is a political school of thought that holds that all rights are held by individuals, and that governments are put into place solely in order to defend those rights." It was pro-free-market and against government intervention in the economy, just like modern  libertarianism and unlike social liberalism. Hogeye 21:31, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, I'm serious, but I don't have the time to respond at length right now. To sketch my answer: if you are going to say that, you are also going to have to say on similar grounds that the Soviet Union was not really an heir of Marx and Engels. The question is what one sees as the defining point of liberalism, and putting something in the lead of a Wikipedia article does not automatically make it true. If you see the emphasis on individual autonomy as the defining point, then of course you end up with something like libertarianism. If you see the maximization of individual liberty for the greatest number of people as the defining point, then you are more likely to end up with social liberalism. The Girondists, certainly classical liberals if ever there were, embraced Liberté - Egalité - Fraternité: fraternité is particularly missing from the libertarian vision, and the egalité has a tendency to degenerate into Anatole France's summary: "The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets or steal bread." As for social liberalism, in contrast to this, consider Isaiah Berlin's "Liberty for the wolves is death for the lambs". Basically, social liberals (starting probably with John Stuart Mill) came to conclude that maximising liberty for the largest number of people required that the liberty of the powerful be, at times, impeded. I'm not saying what is right or wrong here, I'm just pointing out where the two views forked, and that they have a common heritage. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:53, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The Girondists were not liberal (in our terminology.) They were a moderate republican (anti-monarchy) nationalist faction. During the French revolution, anyone against the monarchy was called "liberal" - even the Jacobins! Our definition requires that a primary value be liberty. As far as I know, there is no evidence that the Girondists cared about liberty at all, let alone "the maximization of individual liberty," except perhaps as an expedient bumper-sticker slogan (Liberté - Egalité - Fraternité). Do have a quote from a Girondist supporting maximization of liberty?


 * Jmabell: "Basically, social liberals (starting probably with John Stuart Mill) came to conclude that maximising liberty for the largest number of people required that the liberty of the powerful be, at times, impeded."


 * No, Mill used his utilitarianism to support the "night-watchman" state, i.e. limited government power. He was an economic liberal, not a social liberal. It was only later that people used his utilitarianism to justify instrusive government. Hogeye 22:45, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I would say that a definition that says that the Girondins were not liberals has serious problems. For that matter, the Jacobins were initially liberals: the constitution that they drafted (and immediately suspended) was admirably liberal in its principles; the problem is that they completely subordinated those principles to what they perceived as the needs of the moment. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:34, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Libertarians have the best claim to the heritage of the Liberal than any other group around. Period. In graduate level courses when discusing the theories of liberalism both philisophical, economical...and even in the rhelm of international relations its always what we now call the CLASSICAL LIBERAL meanings. The professors generally...no...always have to re-explain this stuff. Even though they generally call themselves liberals they at least bother to teach the class that liberal in the terms of our academic text are very different from our American understanding. - Gibby

-- perhaps one day one of the two of you will realize there is a difference between the theory and rhetoric / lip service in practice. - Gibby

In my graduate level courses the only time "Liberal" refers ro "Classical Liberalism" is in IR theory, no where else (economically "neo-liberalism" is used and philosophically a historical distinction is made.) Not that it really matters because few people who disagree with your view accept that "Classical Liberalism" is the same as Libertarianism.

Can we just get one thing straight? What is Classical Liberalism? Is it the work of Locke? Is it the work of Smith and Ricardo? Mill, maybe? They didn't all advocate the same thing, so how do we define it? "Classical Liberalism", IMO, is a hindsight historical construction that gives it more solidity and continuity than it actually possessed. Viewing it as an ideology is, to an extent, misleading. Slizor 12:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Economic Liberalism proposed merge
There are currently 2 proposed mergers: To avoid duplicating arguments, discussion and voting on both mergers should be held at Talk:Liberal theory of economics. Joestynes 14:35, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * merge Liberal theory of economics into Classical liberalism
 * merge Neoliberalism into Liberal theory of economics

I think things are fine where they are. No need for merge.

Article needs rework for NPOV
On 4 december 2005 I posted on this page that (in my opinion) the article needs a rework for NPOV.

Someone (apparently Hogeye) removed my comment from this page (perhaps inadvertently).

1) Please do not deliberately remove other people's comments from the Discussion pages; this is a serious violation of Wikipedia etiquette.

2) (IMHO) the article continues to need a rework for NPOV

Technically everything has a point of view. The problem is you prolly don't like what is being said. This article is about classical liberalism, and in fact, classical liberals do believe themselves to be the only liberals. That is there point of view, and Wiki, in order to be factually accurate, must point that out. This article does that quite well.

Please offer suggestions other than NPOV to help us further.

No discussion sense December 4 on the NPOV of this article, obviously this complaint was either unimportant or it has been fixed. NPOV tag removed.


 * I noticed some problems with the "as practiced in America" section, but I tried to clean those up. Technogeek 02:25, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

How the CATO Institute defines itself (removed)
Today, those who subscribe to the principles of the American Revolution--individual liberty, limited government, the free market, and the rule of law--call themselves by a variety of terms, including conservative, libertarian, classical liberal, and liberal. We see problems with all of those terms. "Conservative" smacks of an unwillingness to change, of a desire to preserve the status quo. Only in America do people seem to refer to free-market capitalism--the most progressive, dynamic, and ever-changing system the world has ever known--as conservative. Additionally, many contemporary American conservatives favor state intervention in some areas, most notably in trade and into our private lives.

"Classical liberal" is a bit closer to the mark, but the word "classical" connotes a backward-looking philosophy. Finally, "liberal" may well be the perfect word in most of the world--the liberals in societies from China to Iran to South Africa to Argentina are supporters of human rights and free markets--but its meaning has clearly been corrupted by contemporary American liberals. The Jeffersonian philosophy that animates Cato's work has increasingly come to be called "libertarianism" or "market liberalism." It combines an appreciation for entrepreneurship, the market process, and lower taxes with strict respect for civil liberties and skepticism about the benefits of both the welfare state and foreign military adventurism.

(From their website: http://cato.org/about/about.html)

Sincerely, JDR 16:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Merger of classic liberalism and classical liberalism
I suggest to delete the page classic liberalism and redirect it to classical liberalism. As far as I understand both articles classic liberalism and classical liberalism are one and the same. The content is largely identical. The reason for the creation of the page was: "I'm leaving Classic Liberalism seperate just in case the socialists try and destroy Classical liberalism like they did the liberalism page. - Gibby &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by KDRGibby (talk &bull; contribs) 3 Dec 2005. ". I do not think that is a good reason to have a separate article about the same subject. Furthermore, nobody can claim a page. Electionworld 22:46, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect. This is essentially the definition of a POV fork. -- Jmabel | Talk 22:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Let's focus on the classical figures and ideas
This article currently focuses on Hayek, Friedman, and such modern organizations as the Heritage Foundation and CATO Institute. I thought it was supposed to be about classical liberalism. It should focus mainly on pre-20th century figures like Smith, Ricardo and Bastiat. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 17:52, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Concur. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Classical liberalism isn't confined to those older philosophers. Hayek and Friedman are classical liberals as well --private property, free markets, and individual liberty. As far as who to focus on, I don't know --but I don't think it is an "npov" problem. I think you should remove the tag. RJII 00:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * If private property, free markets, and individual liberty were all there is to classical liberalism, this article would have to be merged with libertarianism. But that is not the case. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 01:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Libertarianism is classical liberalism. Classical liberalism isn't confined to a certain time period. You've got it all wrong if you think that. "Classical liberalism" just means "liberalism" (unless you're talking about the leftist philosophy that's called "liberal"). The term "classical liberal" was coined to distinguish from the leftist movement. Libertarianism is liberalism --classical liberalism. This is from Encyclopedia Britannica: "As liberalism became increasingly associated with government intervention in the economy and social-welfare programs, some classical liberals abandoned the old term and began to call themselves “libertarians.”" The "classical" in classical liberal is just wording to make sure we're talking about the negative rights, individualism, private property "liberalism." RJII 01:16, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be opposed to redirecting this page to libertarianism. But, from the discussion above, it seems others would... -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 01:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I see two options here: I'd be willing to support either one of those ideas. But either way, it makes no sense to keep the present form of this article. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 01:36, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Classical liberalism and libertarianism are the same. In that case there's no point in having two articles, and this one should be a redirect or a brief summary explaining why the same thing goes by two different names.
 * 2) Classical liberalism and libertarianism are different things. In that case their respective articles should talk about different things and different people.
 * To be precise, minarchist libertarianism is classical liberalism. I'm not sure if you could include radical libertarianism (individualist anarchism, anarcho-capitalism, etc) in "classical liberalism." So, that may be what would prevent libertarianism and classical liberalism being the same article . RJII 01:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, then classical liberalism and minarchism would be the same article... If classical liberalism and X are the same thing, then classical liberalism and X should be the same article. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 01:55, 27 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. Delete minarchism. RJII 04:09, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

there should be two seperate articles because people understand two different words. Libertian had to come about because the word liberal had been perverted. just check out the liberal page for more info...aka the example of perversion. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.97.49.51 (talk &bull; contribs) 31 Dec 2005.

All of this tried to be on the liberalism page but people who believe in the perverted understanding of liberalism refused to allow it...later allowing bits. There is a very wide understanding that classical liberalism is an appropriate term because of the perversion. If you remove the classical liberalism article you will remove the ability of people to search and discover this contradiction from the American understanding of liberalism. I assume this is what you want. Leave the two articles alone (Gibby 07:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC))
 * There should be to separate articles. I am not convinced that libertarianism and classical liberalism or minarchism and classical liberalism are the same. BTW, I think that also classical liberalism goes further than econonomy, e.g. also includes the rule of law. Electionworld 13:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Rephrasing pointL Libertarianism is a philisophy of political party that uses the economics and philosphy of classical liberalism to achieve its means. They are similar, but require seperate pages. Besides, few use the word libertarianism to describe liberalism.

Discusion on Tags
tags have been on since December 4. I deleted them because there was no discussion on January 3rd. Someone put them back up with no discussion. These tags will be deleted within 48 hours if no further discussion insues and I will continue to delete them thereafter. You cannot put up tags with no legitmate complaints, no discussion, and no recomendations on how to improve. (Gibby 07:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC))
 * I've briefly stated my dispute below. I intend to overhaul the article, but I simply don't have the time for it right now... -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 00:24, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Overhaul the article, I reject that. Based on your previous communist leaning editorials, you will seriously screw this up. (Gibby 04:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC))
 * It is already screwed up by your own libertarian POV, and needs significant "un-screwing", so to speak. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 15:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Dispute
Nikodemos, you placed the tag on the article. What, precisely, do you think is factually incorrect? -- Jmabel | Talk 00:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Factual dispute: The inclusion of 20th century libertarians in an article about classical liberalism. The relationship between classical liberalism and libertarianism is controversial, and this article gives the impression that the two terms are synonyms. The only citations provided are from libertarian authors. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 00:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * NPOV dispute: The article is slanted in favor of the aforementioned libertarians. It deals more with them than with 19th century classical liberals, and often presents their views as factual truth. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 00:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Libertarians are the political inheritors of classical liberalism. Your dispute is largely bogus. Their inclussion, while minor, is valid. The tags have been up for more than 30 days and you have done no work and made very little discussion on cleaning it up. Please copy and paste specific sections for your complaints so we can see how to work with you or possibly determine if your complaint is ideologically driven (a valid concern, no offense) I dont find your complaints to be suffecient enough to place a totally disputed tag on the article.

1. Libertarians are basically given 3 sentences. This is NOT more than the discussion on classical liberalism. Classical liberalism, I should remind you, is more than 19th century economics. It was not called classical liberalism then, but liberalism, and only has to call itself classical liberalism now because of the American perversion of the word to mean something that is its exact opposite. Libertarian is a short way of saying classic liberal (though with a stigma of drug legalization rather than free market economics).

2. Check out the history of libertarians, they are a political party birthed by liberal (classic) economic and political thought. Trying to delete one or the other is insuffecient a reason to place these tags and complain. Makes me wonder...

3. I dont find this article to be "in favor" with libertarians. Simply stating the fact that they are a political party more in tune with classical liberalism (aka just plain old liberalism) doesnt mean they are "favored". You're going to have to prove this one to me, right now it seems to be a tenuous claim.

(Gibby 06:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC))
 * Nikodemos: I am very interested in hearing your arguments. On the basis of these arguments we can see what to do. Gibby: nobody has to prove anything to you, the page is not yours. Electionworld 07:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Your right it is not, but he does have to prove his point, he did make the accusation! The totally disputed tag needs to go, the 3 sentences regarding liberatarianism and classical liberalism are properly refrenced. His complaint is likely one of an ideological POV, upset that the article provides evidence counter to what he or she has learned...then again I'm speculating but I've delt with enough people to notice patterns and trends...(Gibby 07:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC))

Minhea seems to think that "classical liberalism" means the philosophy of liberalis restricted to only those prior to the 20th century, which is not true. Look at the words of classical liberal Marquis de La Fayette, in 1789, for example "Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights." Now if someone said those words today, you would be correct in calling him a libertarian or a classical liberal. And, you would be correct in calling La Fayette a libertarian. Or how about Thomas Jefferson: ""rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others." The word "classical" was tagged to "liberal" just to make it clear one is not talking about Welfare Liberalism. Another example. Milton Friedman is a libertarian, is he not? The Encyclopedia Britannica calls him a classical liberal: "''...the more energetic response to the problem turned out to be a revival of classical liberalism. The intellectual foundations of this revival were primarily the work of the Austrian-born British economist Friedrich von Hayek and the American economist Milton Friedman.''" The only difference between the terms classical liberal and libertarian that I can see is that libertarianism can also include anarchists (which most people who refer to themselves as libertarians are not). But, certainly all libertarians who support minimized governmental intervention in civil and economic affairs are liberals (classical ones, that is). RJII 15:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

That is right, but I think Minhea and someone else have infected their dispute upon the libertarian page making a section that claims they classic liberalism and libertarianism are different with classical liberalism being restricted to the 19th century. (Gibby 16:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC))


 * As I stated further above, if classical liberalism and libertarianism are the same then there should be only ONE, not two, articles. Personally, I do agree that libertarianism is a continuation of classical liberalism (and I certainly agree that the term "liberal" is misused in the United States), but I would not say that classical liberalism and libertarianism are one and the same. I would say that the term classical liberalism should refer to pre-20th century liberals (hence "classical"), while libertarianism should refer to 20th century continuators - or rather, radical continuators - of classical liberalism. Please note that classical liberals were more centrist than modern libertarians. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 21:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, whether classical liberalism should only refer to pre-20th century thinkers, in your eyes, is not really relevant. The fact is that people such as Hayek and Friedman are considered to be classical liberals (and widely so).RJII 21:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Classical was an addition to the term liberal after that term change meanings. It is also used to refrence modern people as RJII stated.  You can be a classical liberal in the modern times.  CATO Institute discuses this and it is cited.  They do not like the term classical because it makes it seem backwards looking rather than progressive. They prefer the term Liberal but that confuses Americans, so they settle on Libertarian.  THis is all documented in the article.  I still do not see this as a legit complaint of yours.(Gibby 21:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC))


 * What I want is simple: More discussion of 19th century liberals in this article, an explanation on the dispute between social liberals and libertarians in the 20th century, and a NPOV-ing (and possible merger) of the three sections on the 20th century that are currently examples of slavish praise for libertarian authors. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 21:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Then add more about 19th century classical liberals (They do get mentioned and they all have links). No merger with libertarianism is necessary as libertarianism is already merged with Libertarian (aka the political party). More mergers would be highly destructive to our body of knowlege, though I think this is what you want.  (Gibby)

Niko, you have 48 hours to explain how 3 sentences with citation on libertarians equals slanting in favor of libertarians in regards to classical liberalism which libertarians are... (Gibby 21:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC))


 * Oh, and I also want you to stop giving ultimatums like you own this article. If classical liberalism = libertarianism, then this article should redirect to libertarianism (which is fine by me). -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 21:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't understand how an NPOV tag would apply to this. It looks like a factual dispute to me. Maybe you need to change the tag. RJII 21:36, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * No I'm trying to keep bogus anti classical liberal pov's off the page...much like yours. They get two seperate pages. And it stays that way. Deal with it.  By the way, this is not a suffecient excuse to put a tag. DELETED! (Gibby 21:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC))
 * Again, please stop acting like you own wikipedia. NPOV is achieved by discussing all views related to a certain subject; thus, this article should discuss both liberal and anti-liberal views (though obviously the latter should be given less space than the former). -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 22:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * As I explained to you before, not all libertarians are classical liberals. Some libertarians are anarchists. But, all classical liberals are libertarians. So you need two articles. RJII 21:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * On the libertarianism Talk page you said that all libertarians are classical liberals. How can you expect anyone to agree with you when you can't even agree with yourself? -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 22:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
 * No I didn't. I said that the Encyclopedia Britannica said that libertarians are classical liberals. (I would assume they're talking about non-anarchist libertarians) RJII 16:08, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The Liberal Democratic Party of Australia often describes its philosophy as libertarian (there's no question they're libertarian --legalized drugs and all). Classical liberalism, liberalism, and libertarianism can all be used interchangeably to refer to minimized goverment interventionism and maximized protection of individual liberty in person and property. We use the term "classical liberalism" in the U.S., and a few other places, because interventionists started using the term "liberal" --that's why the liberalism article has to talk about both definitions. A lot of liberals choose the term "libertarian" to totally distances themselves from welfare liberalism. RJII 18:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

That is a good point some libertarians are anarcho-capitalists. But not all classical liberals are anarcho capitalists. (Gibby 21:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC))
 * All I am asking from you is that you make up your mind regarding the relationship between classical liberalism and libertarianism. I'm not trying to push my own opinion, I'm just trying to figure out what your opinion is. Pick one idea and stick with it; then we can work from there. Logically speaking, we have five possibilities in total:
 * Classical liberalism and libertarianism are distinct ideologies and have nothing in common.
 * Classical liberalism and libertarianism are distinct ideologies and have something in common.
 * Classical liberalism and libertarianism are the same thing; they have everything in common.
 * Classical liberalism is a subset of libertarianism.
 * Libertarianism is a subset of classical liberalism.


 * Which of those do you believe to be true? Right now you seem to be saying that libertarianism = classical liberalism + anarcho-capitalism, which implies option 4. Is that the one you want to go with? -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 22:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that #5 is correct - libertarianism is the modern form of classical liberalism. Hogeye 18:42, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

---

You are trying to make a merger with libertarianism. As stated before Libertarianism was a merger with libertarian thus reflecting a political party nature. Libertarians subsribe to the ideals of liberalism, now known as classical liberalism as to avoid confusion (not sure if you really get this yet), but as RJII said, not all liberals (again classic for to reduce modern confusion) are libertarians. No merger is necessary unless you want to reduce the availability of information to the public.

Your concerns are largely bogus (Gibby 07:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC))


 * My patience is running thin. I am not trying to make a merger with libertarianism (all I've said is that I wouldn't oppose a merger, but that doesn't mean I want one). Now answer my concerns above, regarding your preferred definition of classical liberalism and libertarianism. If you refuse reasonable discussion and keep throwing accusations at me, I will consider you a vandal and treat you as such. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 13:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

--

What is factually inaccurate, maybe we can work on fixing it? (Gibby 21:48, 5 January 2006 (UTC))
 * See above. There is also a POV dispute, regarding biased statements such as:
 * "FA Hayek and Milton Friedman have both observed that economic freedom is a necessary condition for the creation and sustainability of civil and political freedoms. This has been observed through history over the last century; easily seen by the atrocities committed by the least economically free countries in the world which include Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Communist China, Khmer Rouge Cambodia..."
 * That is why I originally added the totallydisputed tag. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 22:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * FA Hayek and Friedman did observe this. And events through history have shown that the less economic freedom there is the more violations of civil and political freedom occur.  Studies have been done at Heritage and the Fraiser Institute to name a few.  There is nothing wrong with mentioning that these observations are supported with historical evidence.. No point here (Gibby 07:20, 6 January 2006 (UTC))
 * That is libertarian POV. Libertarians (Hayek, Friedman, the Heritage Foundation and the Fraiser Institute) believe that "economic freedom is a necessary condition for the creation and sustainability of civil and political freedoms", and their studies support their beliefs (go figure). I suggest you learn the fact that not everyone agrees with your interpretation of history. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 13:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Those libertarians are liberals (classical liberals), meaning they believe in minimized government that serves only to protect individual rights and private property. RJII 16:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * it is, no matter what niko says, factual, and not in violation of the npov policy given that it is a well researched, documented, and published subject (by 2 nobel prize winners no less.) (Gibby 17:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC))

THey, and others, have done emperical studies to prove that. If you have a problem with your studies then you also have a problem with mathematics. The correct answer supported through historical evidence is economic freedom = civil and political freedom. Also, and I know you will hate this, the more economic freedom the less poverty there is and more wealth there is created. Contrary to ignorant historical revisionism, the 19th century was not a time of labor exploitation and robber barons it was a period of explosive economic growth that drew millions of millions of people out of poverty. (Gibby 15:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC))


 * Read WP:NPOV and stop wasting my time. You are essentially saying "the article must support my POV, because my POV is The Truth!". That's called POV-pushing. I also happen to think your POV, like libertarianism in general, is bullshit, by I'm not under any illusion that explaining things to you will accomplish anything. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 23:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

No, that is what I said you were doing. I'm saying, which is actually fact, that the NPOV policy requires us editors to not take a pov in our writing but to cite sources by reporting them. If sources have a pov, that is not a violation of the NPOV rule. Nice try.

I find your complaints to be extremely petty. Libertarianism is the adopted modern form of liberalism. Liberalism is now called classical liberalism, and libertarians call themselves libertarian not classic liberal or liberal to avoid confusion. Just get over it and stop trying to destroy history through your own revisionism. Liberalism means= Free Markets, limited government, individual freedom. Not your beleoved socialist bull. (Gibby 17:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC))


 * Let no one ever accuse Gibby of including in his liberalism the Learned Hand's notion that "the spirit of liberty is the spirit that's not too sure of itself." Apparently, the Liberals in the UK have been misusing the term for over a century, the liberals in the US have been doing the same, and Gibby has the True Meaning, which in no way could be considered a mere viewpoint on a disputed matter. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:13, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

evolution versus immediate change
That's quite a bold statement to say it was an immediate change, especially since the concept of liberalism through socialism had been implemented in many other countries slowly over the years. I think Derksen's revision is better. Elle vécut heureusement toujours dorénavant  (Be eudaimonic!) 09:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It was an evolution, but not through socialism, in many countries. Let's name some examples: The Dutch liberal statesman Samuel van Houten was responsible for enacting social legislation (banning child labour). The introduction of social legislation was part of the liberal agenda in diverse countries at the end of the nineteenth century and the start of the twentieth century. It is a misunderstanding that European liberals are (all) classical liberals. Most of them accept (and proposed) social legislation, the same goes for health regulation. The idea was that in this way more people could be free (poverty and freedom are incompatible). It is not right to say that modern liberalism is less liberal then classical liberalism. I will revert to the old version. Electionworld 12:37, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

THere is a difference between the philosophy of liberalism and politicians doing whatever is necessary to get elected (populism). So long as people stay uninformed they dont know the difference. And that is what has happend. I disagree with the term evolution. It was not an evolution it was more like a robbery and a hold up. Furthermore, its more speculation and original research to state that it was an evolution rather than just leaving hte accepted fact that the definition changed and took on an oppisite meaning. (Gibby 16:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC))


 * Gibby, I think the point is that the definition didn't simply change overnight. Someone didn't just wake up one day and said "from now on we'll use a different definition of liberalism", to which everyone else said "okay". Rather, there was a slow transition - an evolution - from one definition to another. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 23:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * By the way, please note that you can't simply "rob" an ideology of its name. The change in definition didn't happen because a bunch of non-liberals walked up to a bunch of liberals and somehow "stole" their name. Rather, it happened because most liberals changed their views, while keeping the name "liberal" for themselves. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 23:17, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't describe it like that. I don't think liberals changed their views. I think it's just that people with other views started calling themselves liberals. Those who still hold liberal views have to call themselves "classical liberals" and "libertarians" to avoid confusion. RJII 04:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I wouldnt even worry about even talking about evolution or immediate change, or populist change. the fact is, it changed and took on an opposite meaning. We should leave that out and avoid original research speculation. (Gibby 06:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC))
 * It didn't take the opposite meaning. A fact is that allready in the nineteenth century many liberals in a lot of European countries evolved in their apporach of liberalism. It is not the opposite, since the inspiration, Locke, Smith, the French enlightenment etc. is the same. This entry is not about classical liberalism in the US. The usage opposite is not neutral, different is neutral. Electionworld 15:33, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Then you are saying the opposite meaning is within the United States (And a few others) but elsewhere the meaning is an evolution from the origin? And given that this article is not about the United States (or those other few countries with the opposite meaning) then we must have the evolution interpretation? This implies that this article is about classical liberalism in those countries who retained the original meaning but simply "evolved". This means you have no reason for deleting the word opposite in refrence to the United States and other english speaking countries because you have allowed "evolved" for the same reason you wish to delete opposite. (Gibby 15:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC))
 * The text of this paragraph as it stands now is neutral. BTW, Rawls, part of American liberalism, fits in the liberal tradition that started with Locke. Electionworld 16:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you brought up Rawls...because Rawls is wrong on his theory of fairness as justice. His conclusion is based off of fallacious reasoning given his own criteria for a just society. But this is my own original research so it cant be included. The appropriate answer he should have arrived at was Free Markets...not social welfare. (Gibby 16:27, 7 January 2006 (UTC))


 * If modern liberalism were "the opposite" of classical liberalism, that would mean that modern liberals disagree with classical liberals on every single issue, which is obviously false. Modern and classical liberals agree on freedom of speech, drug legalization, etc. -- Nikodemos (f.k.a. Mihnea) 02:06, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem is modern "liberals" believe in the outcomes of the core beliefs of (classical)liberals. Free speech and all that jazz is the result of free economics and a means to achieving free economics.  Modern liberals want the political freedom without the economic freedom which brought it...they are in fact, opposite!  (Gibby 02:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC))
 * I agree it's not the opposite. It's more like a "third way" between liberalism and a communism. RJII 02:18, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It is not the opposite nor a third way between liberalism and communism. Social democracy is a third way, but modern liberalism (read e.g. the electoral programme of the European Liberal Democrats) favour economic freedom, but not an absolute form of it. I am not aware of any (liberal) party in Europe with parliamentary representation that wants abolute economic freedom. Who does? Please get out of the US centric view. Electionworld 10:11, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
 * When I said "liberalism" I was talking about classical liberalism. So-called "modern liberalism" is like a third way between classical liberalism and communism -a heavy emphasis on altruism and welfare statism. Anyway, there are classical liberal parties in Europe that have parlimentary representation such as the United Civil Party of Belarus. Please get out the "Old Europe"-centric view. RJII 15:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Gents: I thought I would jump in here. Classical liberalism and libertarianism are distinct ideologies and "have something in common," but Libertarianism is more derivative of anarchist thought. John Locke is a (actually "the" ...) classic liberal; Robert Nozick is a libertartian. Classic liberals did not have a problem with state religion (as in Great Britain in the 19th century, although they did advocate tolerance of non-conformists. A libertarian would generally advocate a true and clear separation of Church and State. The US Republican Party is a classically liberal political party, but there are thinkers in the party who are libertarian - and both factions tend to diverge heavily over the idea of social policies, such as contraception, abortion, and even at times, civil rights. This is a good contemporary distinction between liberalism and libertarianism. Libertarianism should be a separate article altogether. TrulyTory 01:42, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Libertarianism is not a straightforward derivative of anarchist thought. But, it had a lot of influence, sure --specifically the anarchist thought of the American individualist anarchists (they used to be called libertarians, actually). But, those anarchists were in turn influenced by classical liberalism --they were a radicalized form of classical liberalism. So, I think what you could say is that the anarchist form of libertarianism (anarcho-capitalism) is influenced by liberal anarchism, and the minarchist form by the original liberals. Libertarians include both anarchists and minarchists (classical liberals), and so I agree with you that they need to be seperate articles. RJII 03:05, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Slizor's edit
I'm not sure if you guys have carefully discussed this, so I thought it would be a good idea to let you know that Slizor just took off much of the page. You can view these edits here. Rory 0 96 00:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It is disputed
That Libertarians are Classical Liberals is disputed and so the HUGE amount of text I cut out is simply POV (you should note that not all of it was removed.) Please refrain from sticking Hayek and Friedman in every paragraph. To be honest, I know I'll be ignored and people will just revert but it is very important that this blantant POV abuse is highlighted. Slizor 00:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Milton Friedman has never described himself as a libetarian, neither has Hayek...heck John Stossel even hates the term... you don't know what your talking about Slizzy... Its also not pov to say they are classical liberals when each of them prefers to use the term liberal except that modern American liberals have perverted the term so they've come to accept classic liberal instead...and have published these remarks. Try reading some books...like the ones they've written. (Gibby 06:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC))


 * It started again. Electionworld 07:12, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yawn* Then it is disputed that Milton Friedman, Hayek, etc were Classical Liberals. They may choose to define themselves that way and maybe that should be noted in the article, but that does not make them classical liberals. Slizor 13:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * "were"? Friedman is still very much alive. And where is it disputed? If it's you that's disputing it, it's irrelevant. Do you have sources that dispute it? I'm curious though --what about their philosophy is not classical liberalism? RJII 14:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I want to hear what you think a classic liberal, or better yet, a liberal is? (Gibby 15:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC))

"Liberal" is a catch-all phrase that describes a number of ideologies. In Britain if you say "Liberal" you are more or less going to be refering to Social Liberalism, however, I am not blinded by requiring a single definition.

A Classical Liberal is someone who believes (quite broadly) in the freedom of the individual in regards to religion, assembly, speech, etc, etc. It was largely a political project but married itself to early theories of lassiez-faire capitalism due to its support for private property. In Classical Liberalism the most important thing was the freedom of the individual, which Classical Liberals thought could be facilitated through the market. This is not the case with Hayek, Friedman, etc. They extol the free market and theirs is an economic project with politics vaguely attached. Slizor 14:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

If this is your definition, and you do not extend this umbrella to Hayek and Friedman than I can say you have obviously not read their work.

Liberals argued for social equality by arguing for economic eqaulity...that is the only way to get social eqaulity as they understand it (And I think they remain correct to this day as you cannot create wealth from wealth redistrobution). Hayek and Friedman wrote quite extensivly on the role of economic freedom and civil and political freedoms and agreed that they were so highly correlated that without economic freedoms you would lose civil and political freedoms but with economic freedom you would gain civil and political freedom.

Other than this you are operating on a perverted definition of liberalism and classical liberalism in such a way as to define out economic opponents from an ideology that exposes freedom and equality...aka you're hijacking the definition for your own purposes (not just you but everyone in the past who has done so as well). (Gibby 15:26, 11 February 2006 (UTC))

I have no purposes with the definition of Classical Liberalism, I am not a Liberal. You are hijacking the term - distorting it and twisting it so Classical Liberalism is nothing more than the economics it (reservedly) espoused. As I have already said in regards to Hayek and Friedman writing on civil and political freedoms being related to economic freedom - theirs is an economic project with politics vaguely attached.

I am not a liberal and I'm not a libertarian. I have no interest in this other than an academic one, don't you accuse me of intellectually dishonest hijacking. Slizor 13:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Quite Frankly this can't continue
A number of people have disputed whether Libertarianism and Classical Liberalism are the same, clearly there is disagreement over the usage. To reflect this disagreement we should minimise the extent to which Hayek, Friedman and others are mentioned in the main part of the article and include the debate in its own section. Currently the extent of the inclusion of Libertarian thought is purely POV pushing. If Libertarians want to claim the ideological inheritance of Classical Liberalism (using Berlin's formulations of freedom as evidence) then fine, they are allowed to claim that. It doesn't make other claims (for example Modern Liberalism using McCallum's unitary theory of freedom) any less valid or theirs any more important. Slizor 16:35, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to add that the article is inconsistant - first it says that "some historians consider Libertarianism a revival of the ideas" then it says libertarians are classical liberals and it even says that Adam Smith (ONLY) closely resembled a classical liberal. This is utter bollocks and WILL NOT continue. I will not sit back with the occassional edit that gets reverted - sort it out. Slizor 17:01, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I doubt very much that Adam Smith and the Scots - who first articulated liberalism - and the Physiocracts in France who took the lead would consider liberalism and libertarianism the same thing. Classic Liberals believed in religious toleration to be sure, but were not as agnostic, anarchistic, and nihilistic as libertarian thought typically denotes. Remember that liberalism is not JUST an economic doctrine, it is also a moral construct, which really was Smith's point after-all. TrulyTory 22:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Niether of you really know what you are talking about. Both are merely attempts to deleted cited and refrenced material on the subject. It is a fact taht Friedman and Hayek considered themselves liberals and only classical liberals because people like Slizor and TrulyTory have perverted the definition. We have quoted Cato and given their knowlege on the subject that libertarian is and or shares much in the same with classic liberals or liberals, though they prefer to use the term liberal it, like i've said, has been perverted.

And TT, not all libertarians are agnostic, anarchists. You are conflating issues something horribly.

I, like the Cato institute prefer to call myself a Liberal, but because there are alot of ignorant people we have to call ourselves Classical Liberal (Which still requires explination thanks to the perversion) or libertarian, which we both prefer less than liberal.

Sorry you dont understand but your criticisms are bogus. (Gibby 23:11, 13 February 2006 (UTC))


 * We have to remember that according to Gibby only his definition is true: all others perverted the word liberalism. Debate doesn't make sense, since he is not open to debate. Electionworld 23:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes and Hayek, and Friedman, and Brink Lindsey, and about everyone at Cato... but whatever. (Gibby 23:53, 13 February 2006 (UTC))

I have not disputed what Friedman and Hayek called themselves, or what the CATO institute calls itself. However, the only thing they possess is an ideological claim - nothing more, nothing less. That you wholeheartedly believe this, Gibby, does not make it any more accurate or correct (or make our understanding any less.) Slizor 23:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Interesting since their ideological claim matches up with both the economic and historical evidence. If one is a classical liberal they are a liberal, but do not have to be a libertarian. The closest thing to classical liberalism today is libertarianism and some libertarians do refer to themselves as classical liberals.  All classical liberals understand themselves to be the only true inheritors of liberalism. Sorry you don't notice it and don't understand.  (Gibby 00:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC))


 * Yawn. The ideological claims of Hayek and Friedman do not "match up" with the historical evidence. There is certainly some level of agreement, however, as Classical Liberalism was a political project concerned with the freedom of the individual I doubt (very much) whether they would have taken their views on economics (which WAS NOT linked with freedom according to them) to the extent where it restrains the individual.

As I have said before your view of the "closest thing to" classical liberalism requires Berlinist premises in the understanding of freedom....which a large number of people reject.

However, you have quite succinctly summed up my argument - it is libertarians who understand themselves to be the only true inheritors of liberalism. We don't understand it that way, which you seem unable to understand, I don't give a crap what the CATO institute thinks of itself.

Let's be honest here guys, Gibby has made these edits without anyone challenging him and has filled this page up with rhetoric and crap. It is high time that we changed this to reflect a more accurate depiction of Classical Liberals and of what Classical Liberalism is. Gibby, if you refuse to be reasonable I will be forced to launch an edit war (my first, I admit.) Your POV is not gospel truth. Slizor 00:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC) I think we should make Gibby's name redirect to Bollocks. Slizor 00:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I did my degree in Modern Greats and I have to say that Gibby has the most ethereal conception of this topic I have yet seen. It is also typically American in its assumption of a monolithic and universal POV. TrulyTory 02:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I really don't care what you have to say, "modern greats" wtf is that...seriously that does not give you much credibility here. Anyway, you seem to believe that allowing tariffs improves the welfare of society...you don't know what you are talking about. (Gibby 04:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC))


 * Another blanket condemnation from the ideologue of Wikiland. Surprise. Do a serach on Modern Greats in Wikipedia and please keep the vulgarities to a minimum. TrulyTory 14:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Classical liberalism is a broader term than some are trying to make it who are trying to exclude people today that are referred to as classical liberals. To be a classical liberal, you don't have to adhere to every belief to which the original liberals did. They originals didn't agree with each other on everything either. If someone today says "Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights" you would call him a libertarian wouldn't you? Well, guess who said it? Marquis de La Fayette in 1789,in the French Declaration of the Rights of Man of 1789. Or how about "rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others"? That's Thomas Jefferson. Or, "every man has freedom to do all that he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man" --Herbert Spencer The minarchist laissez-faire philosophies of today and yesterday both generally fall under classical liberalism or libertarianism interchangeably. The only significant difference between the two terms is that libertarianism also includes individualist anarchism (anarcho-capitalism) (which was derived by radicalizing classical liberalism). RJII 15:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else. I agree that rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. Yet I am not a libertarian - indeed, I am not even a liberal! Your mistake, RJII, consists in your belief that only libertarians support the statements you quoted. In reality, just about everyone supports them; people merely have different interpretations of what it means to "injure someone else", or what the "equal rights of others" are. One may believe, for example, that capitalism allows some people to injure others, or that everyone should have an equal right to health care. Please note that no ideology wants to restrict liberty for no reason. All those who advocate some restriction on some liberty believe that their restriction would prevent some people from harming others. Thus, like I said above, just about everyone would agree that you should have the freedom to do whatever you want as long as you do not harm anyone else. -- Nikodemos 19:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course only libertarians support the statements I quoted. If you support those statements, you are by definition a libertarian. And, no everyone would not agree with everyone should have the freedom to do whatever they want as long as they don't harm anyone else. Many people think that people are morally obligated to help others in need, or serve others, and that therefore they should be forced to do it through taxation, or involuntarily recruited into the military to serve others. If you believe the that, then you cannot simultaneously believe that people should have the right to be left alone. RJII 03:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * RJII: saying "of course" does not make it true. I think Nikodemos is right on the mark in terms of saying that the meanings of "injure someone else" and "equal rights of others" are the nub of the split between the different contemporary strands of liberalism. For example, the degree to which racial discrimination by private entities is a matter of freedom of association or an assault on a civil right is going to land one in a very different political camp.
 * Conversely, Nikodemos, while it is true that "no ideology wants to restrict liberty for no reason", some wish to restrict it for illiberal reasons: the privileges of an elite, a belief in the superiority of one race to another, etc. - Jmabel | Talk 18:13, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

On another note, I wish to offer my help to Slizor and TrulyTory in revamping this article and removing the pervasive libertarian POV. -- Nikodemos 19:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Complainers, please define
I would like the complainers of this page to please define the following for me.

Classical Liberal:

Liberal:

Libertarian:

Thank you. (Gibby 04:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC))


 * Short concise attempt to clarify:

Classical Liberal: An ideology that has at its core the maximisation of Individual Contract Rights within a Civil Polity that it typically Representative and politically Democractic. Someone who accepts the primacy of the market as the primary price mechanism and distribution system of goods and services. Liberals accept government as the guarantor of contractual and civil rights, and as means of maintaining social order. As in Adam Smith, most CL's believe that man's tendency to violence and disorder can be modified by channeling energies into Commerce. Liberalism is not necessarily hostile to Imperialism, and has historically seen Imperialism as a means of securing natural resources for Commercial Firms. The one tenet of Liberalism that is universal is a belief in Free-Trade Economics and a low, or non-existent tarrif on goods exchanged between the firms of various nation-states. Liberals believe in limited natural rights a la John Locke (Life, Liberty, and Property ...) as the means of asserting order within a social order that tends toward either despotism or anarchy. Liberals believe in a punitive Justice system that is used to maintain social order and protect the civil order, as opposed to a rehabilitation-based justice system. They prefer to avoid foreign entanglements, and prefer to run economies within the Military spending portfolio of the Nation. The tendency is to prefer that which is local and based on the idea of free-exchange without government intervention. Welfare is provided, but only to the poorest of the poor (as in the Workhouses of England during the early Victorian Age) and based on an idea of "Workfare". On Civil Rights matters, they support limited Contractual Rights and trust that human interaction will abate most social ills. Collectivities and Diversity is accepted and acknowledged (such as linguistic, ethnic, and religious groups) as long as them keep their practices and beliefs within the private sphere, and do not try to impose their values on the majority (usually a Protestant Majority). Separation of Church and State is not necessary, or prohibited, but the religious belief of the majority will prevail as the norm. Noted Classical Liberals include John Locke, Adam Smith, James Mill, Jeremy Bentham, Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, Keith Joseph, Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan.

Modern or Welfare Liberal:

In the modern parlance (post 1932) this has come to mean someone who subscribes to much of Classic Liberal thought, but has accepted the primacy of the Welfare State and the extension of broader Civil Rights under the Law. In most other Countries this type is known as a Liberal-Democrat, or a Social Democrat. Modern Liberals generally support free-trade policies, but are also concerned with ameliorating the ill-effects of such polices on particular groups, sectors, or industries via either the mild use of tarrifs, embargoes, and transfers of wealth via subsidies and allowances. What really divides them from CLs is their tendency to prefer manipulating Demand via Interest Rates and other mechanism in order to maintain a vibrant Consumer base for Firms in the national economy. These Liberals tend to favour social interventions (as in Abortion and Women's rights ...) in the interests of maximising individual liberty for the greatest number of citizens. These liberals also accept Cultural and Sexual Diversity within broad limits, as a further extension of individual liberty. Separation of Church and State is Firm and mandated by law. Noted Modern Liberals include John Maynard Keynes, David Lloyd George, Franklin Roosevelt, Lester Pearson, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson Pierre Trudeau, John Turner, and William Clinton. Note that most of these are Americans with some Canadians and Britons, as this modern strain has been a successful feature of life in those three Anglo democracies. In most European Countries, this ideology would be considered "Social Democracy" - which marries Democratic and Capitalist policies to some Socialist aims, such as Coporatism, full employment, a form of GAI, and the provision of welfare benefits to all, in some form.
 * I still see a general misunderstanding about what modern liberalism in many countries includes. European liberalism is not the same as the form of liberalism American libertarians favour. My experience with modern liberalism in Europe, being rather active in international liberal politics, that most have a position between economic liberalism and social democracy. It fits into the definition given by TrulyTory, though they generally oppose corporatism. An important difference between modern European liberalism and social democracy is the onus on the individual. Social democrats, rooted in socialist ideology, don't put the onus on the individual. I understand that some Social Democrats nowadays embraced parts of the liberal ideology, which could imply that they are not social democrats anymore. But striving after welfare benefits etc. is not per se socialist, but can be (Gibby, I know you won't agree) defended from the perspective of individual liberty: One is not free if one is starving. 159.46.248.230 08:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC) = Electionworld

Libertarian:

An ideology that arose in response to what some considered the excesses of the Welfare-State in Capitalist Countries during the 1960's and 1970's. Because of the inflation and rising taxation levels and consumption taxes that had risen to finance the extension of Social Welfare policies, some thinkers embraced a return to the idealistic notions of "laissez-faire" economics that were once the feature of American Life. Derived largely from Anarchist traditions, Libertarians seek to maximise liberty for all individuals by opposing any idea or conception of a collective. In a perfect Libertarian State, there would be no government; in a realistic State, government would be relegated to providing Law & Order and National Defence. Libertarians desire a society of individuals free from any sort of coercion from government regulation. They concurrently would support Free-Trade, Market-Economics, and the unregulated right of individuals to do with their Life, Liberty, and Property as they wish. They support personal euthanasia, abortion, firearms ownership, sexual freedom and pornography NOT because these are to all tastes, but rather because they are individual decisions best left to the individual with no reference to the collective or society in general. In this ideology, the INDIVIDUAL is Supreme and a very limited state only exists to maintain order in a very limited scope. In this model there is not only a very strict separation of Church and State, there is a very strict separation of any imposition of Values on any one or individual. Various social and commercial Exchange Mechanisms will eventually decide what is acceptable social behaviour and what is not. Notable Libertarians include Robert Nozick, Milton Friedman, Alan Ginsberg, Ayn Rand, Hunter S. Thompson, Barry Goldwater (socially anyway ...). Note the absence of notable Libertarians outside of the USA; for in the rest of the Western World, such ideologues are very much outside the mainstream of public life, and are often referred to as "Anarchists". TrulyTory 14:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Wait...how can the creators of Liberalism be called classical liberals, if Liberal means something different than its classic form? Furthermore, how can something be classic when it was once origina. Don't you see that Liberalism had to become classic liberalism because many people strayed from its beliefs by changing its core values and meanings? Thus, I do not see a problem with mentioning how classical liberals believe themselves to be the true liberals and that "modern welfare statist liberals" have perverted the meaning.

Libertarians are a reaction from the virtual elimination of liberals/classical liberals from the political scene as both Democrats and Republicans continued to abandon their beliefs on freer markets and limited government. Thats it. There are various levels of libertarians and free market advocates, and only a few of them advocate anarchism. I think you conflate free market with anarchy. Furthermore, I think you've failed to realize that Milton Friedman considers himself a liberal while being a member of the REPUBLICAN PARTY!!!!

Another supposed noted American libertarian is John Stossle, and he hates the term libertarian, he prefers to call himself a liberal but the meaning is something different from what it once was so he reluctantly refers to himself as a classical liberal for the less informed, or a libertarian for the most ignorant.

Furthermore, there has never been a laissez-faire American life. This is bogus leftist/tory propoganda. (Gibby 17:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC))


 * I wouldn't mind a sentence saying Present-day classical liberals claim themselves to be the true liberals and beleive that "modern welfare liberals" have perverted the meaning. I would strongly object with a sentence that classical liberals are the true liberals and that modern welfare liberals perverted the meaning. I cannot mind a claim, but I do not agree totally with the claim, since modern classical liberals/libertarians focus on economic freedom, but the original liberal thinkers focused in my understanding on political liberty. 159.46.248.231 08:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC) = Electionworld

NO, the original liberals did focus on economic freedom, they just never gave it a name. Later liberals, what we now call Classical liberals, thanks to the perversion, were able to draw a connection between limited government, freer market capitalism, and political freedom.

(Gibby 09:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC))


 * I do not think we will agree on this. It might be right for the Anglophone liberal thinkers, I doubt it with Kant and Montesquieu and I am sure about Thorbecke. This might have been the result of the furthergowing political liberty at that time in the UK. But if one reads the article on Adam Smith, one can also read Smith believed that while human motives are often selfish and greedy, the competition in the free market would tend to benefit society as a whole by keeping prices low, while still building in an incentive for a wide variety of goods and services. Nevertheless, he was wary of businessmen and argued against the formation of monopolies. and However, it must be remembered that Smith advocated for a Government that was active in sectors other than the ecnomy: he advocated for public education of poor adults; for institutional systems that were not profitable for private industries; for a judiciary; and for a standing army.). 159.46.248.231 11:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC) = Electionworld


 * You are correct. Smith thought that Capitalism was a reforming system but was wary (as all good liberals are) about an overconcentration of power in the hands of the few. A point lost on the hapless Gibby. In Smith's time, Capitalism was the movement of the Middle and Lower Classes to "earn" their way out of such social position. In the context of the times, this was radical and liberal. TrulyTory 13:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

NEITHER OF YOU HAVE SAID ANYTHING CONTRARY...omg. Smith, wrote of economics. Kant wrote of how this economic system could bring peace. Liberalism is about free market limited government. Smith saw that people were selfish and greedy but understood that free market capitalism will align selfish and greedy interests as the interest of other people. It is economics, politics, sociology, philosophy all rolled into one. Classical Liberalism is about free market limited government and takes the name classical ONLY BECAUSE MODERN LIBERALS PERVERTED THAT MEANING!

And TT, the point is lost on you. I'm the one whose been talking about liberal beliefs that free markets help lead to limited government, a protection of human rights, and increases in civil and political freedom. My god, pay attention.(Gibby 17:33, 16 February 2006 (UTC))

Gibby is raving. I think a good starting place for the article would be before it was merged with Liberalism and then include anything relevant added since then and a section discussing the "perversion" of the term by Libertarians. Slizor 19:08, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * He seems quite unbalanced I must say, but that is nothing new. We need to rework the ENTIRE article. Having said that, I am not really a liberal, but we non-liberals seem to understand it better than the ideologues who focus too much on the free-market and forget about the moral imperative and contract rights inherent in Smith's and Others work and that of the Scottish & Manchester Schools. Cheers TrulyTory 22:34, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I am a liberal, so please do not generalize. Electionworld 22:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I think by making this article reflect a keynesian "liberal" view point you ruin the very purpose of this article...which is to provide information on a liberal view point that is at great odds with keynesian macroeconomics. (Gibby 08:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC))


 * Once again, you have missed the point. Classical Liberals diverge from Keynesians fundamentally over the issue of Demand Management. Outside of that, there is lots of convergence. Also and in fact, Keynes maintained that you must have supply-side interventions at times, usually during so-called "good-times." Keynes' theory becomes perverted by 1965 - because economics cannot assert primacy over politics. Happily so I might add. TrulyTory 14:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Keynes merged economics into politics and politicians abused it...unfortunatly economics does not rule politics. I do not believe anything Keynes wrote about can be considered liberal, period. He may of thought that but I think you should ask von Mises, Hayek, and Friedman about that. They would tell you that what Keynes wrote about smacked liberalism in the face. The only reason Keynes can be considered liberal is because populists, politicians, and the media have conflated them together...ignorance or practicality, I'm not deciding. But government interventions effecting supply and demand, prices etc, are not liberal economic policies. Thus not classical liberal.

and, get it straight, Keynes diverged from liberalism. (Gibby 19:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC))


 * He is not your kind of liberal, but he was an active meber of one of the leading liberal parties around the world, the Liberal Party in the UK. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 21:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

That doesnt mean anything. President George Bush is a Republican, of the same party as Reagan and is more of a "tory" than a believer in free markets. The Republican Party is also the party of Lincoln, aka the party of nationalism, and big government and Democrats used to be the limited government, free trading, slave ownership, states rights party but are now the labor/socialist/enviornmentally friendly party that wants big government and hardly any state powers.

So...your point...doesnt mean anything. Keynes economic policies were not liberal...only to populist and highly imaginiative folk. (Gibby 21:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC))


 * Neither the US Republicans or the US Democrats are generally (international) considered to be liberal parties. The Republicans aligned themselves with the worldwide conservative movement and the Democrats have contacts with the three other internationals.

Keynes was a well respected member of the Liberal Party, not only outside but also inside this party. Denying that he was a liberal doesn't anything in this debate. 159.46.248.229 09:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC) (=Electionworld)


 * I was not aware that liberal™ was a registered trademark of Von Mises, Hayek, Friedman and co. What gives them ultimate authority to decide who is or isn't liberal? -- Nikodemos 23:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you werent aware that sometimes words get a different meaning...sometimes on accident, sometimes on purpose, sometimes because of ignorance. But liberal's original meaning is something different than it represents today. Much in the same way words like "gay" and "fag" have different meanings. The problem is, liberal is a word people are trying to reclaim and dispute the modern usage. You are attempting to change the article in such away that it eliminates the factuality of this dispute. People who call themselves classical liberals do so because they are in dispute with modern liberals over the usage. By replacing this article with anything else, especially with Keynesian interpretations eliminates the very purpose of this article, which is to inform readers of the original and alternative meaning to a word that is hotly disputed. So far, you all have failed to understand this.(Gibby 23:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC))


 * My point is that both social liberals and free-market liberals in modern times have claimed to be the rightful heirs of classical liberalism. I see no reason why we should privilege the POV of one group over the other. The only undisputed classical liberals are the pre-1850 liberals. This article should begin by discussing them first, then go into a discussion around the modern (and disputed) use of the term. -- Nikodemos 05:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * What social liberal calls himself a classical liberal? RJII 05:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Social liberals claim to be the heirs of 19th century liberalism. If they are correct, then self-identified classical liberals are not "classical". -- Nikodemos 05:51, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * "Hiers"? As they were influenced by classical liberalism? Sure they were. But they don't regard themselves as classical liberals. Who in their right mind would equate classical liberalism with social liberalism? Social liberals don't call themselves classical liberals, and nobody calls them classical liberals. RJII 06:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Social liberals in general don't accept the existence of a "classical liberalism" separate from modern liberalism. They claim an unbroken line from the earliest liberals to themselves. Not in the sense that they believe exactly the same things as the early liberals, but in the sense that their views are the logical conclusion of early liberal thought. -- Nikodemos 06:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * They don't accept the existence of classical liberalism today? Do you have source saying that? Likewise for your claim that they say think that they are the logical conclusion of early classical liberal thought? The latter point might make sense to include in the article if you can find some saying that, but of course you couldn't claim that they're classical liberals --so, that would be kind of tangential. RJII 06:16, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * They believe that the "classical" liberalism of today is in fact a modern phenomenon that illegitimately claims the adjective "classical" for itself. How could I make this point clear? Suppose there was a group calling themselves "good liberals". Other liberals would oppose the use of the adjective "good" by this group, because of its implication that any other liberals are "bad". -- Nikodemos 06:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to understand what you're saying here. "They believe that the "classical" liberalism of today is in fact a modern phenomenon that illegitimately claims the adjective "classical" for itself." Here you're saying classical liberalism exists today, but at the same time it shouldn't called classical liberalism, right? That seems like a really odd position to hold. Why shouldn't a thing be called what it is? Do you have a source for anyone that says such a thing? It would be a purely semantical argument. Maybe you can find a source that says the term should not be ahistorical, but only apply to a specific time period? That's what you're arguing, right? RJII 15:02, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Nikodemos that modern liberals consider themselves to be heirs of original liberalism, though their present ideology evolved. This evolution doesn't make themselves less liberal then those whose ideology didn't evolve, but became intransigent. One has to read the classical liberal works in the time and context when they were written in resistance to a mercantilist society with no opportunities for citizens. This context completely changed: present-day society is completely different from the seventeenth and eighteenth century. A real free market nowadays is at least as much endangered by monopolies and cartels as by the moderate state intervention in western society. Moderate state intervention is and was necesary to create optimal freedom for as much as possible people. This started with the banning of child labour. This opinion doesn't make modern liberals socialists. There is a clear difference between modern liberalism and socialism or social democracy, and that is the onus on individual liberty and development instead of class and collectivity. So why not make a difference between classical liberals (from Locke to Mill), modern liberals and intransigent (market) liberals. 159.46.248.229 09:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC) = Electionworld

Libertarians consider themselves to be the heirs of original liberalism, though their present ideology evolved - let us not forget that. If Libertarians follow Classical Liberalism exactly as it was in the 19th Century then Hayek, Friedman, etc have said nothing new (and thus are of no importance and should not be included in the article.) And Gibby, as you have said, that there is a dispute. The article does not reflect that, it does not discuss it, what it does is repeat Libertarian dogma. What has been proposed is to include that dispute (in its own section) in an article based primarily on 18th-19th Century liberals. Slizor 15:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
 * You don't have to follow the philosophy of the original liberals "exactly" to be a classical liberal. Classical liberalism is an ahistorical term for any philosophy that is similar to that philosophy. The original liberals didn't even agree with each other on a lot of things, so what would it mean to have the "exactly" the same philosophy? Classical liberalism is a "loose term." RJII 15:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

It is interesting to see someone demand that their own rigid definition of an amorphous concept is considered correct. As the original liberals didn't agree with each other on a lot of things (which brings in the question of "who was a liberal?") then pretty much all ideologies could claim to be like Classical Liberalism - it is dependant upon which particular elements of the "project" you choose to emphasize. Slizor 15:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)


 * RJII: So why are present-day classical liberals more close to the old liberals than the modern liberals? 159.46.248.229 16:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC) = Electionworld
 * I think probably the most important is the focus of classical liberals on individual liberty (negative liberty) and the desire to see intervention by the state minimized (especially in the economic realm). "Modern liberals" (by that I mean "social liberals" or "welfare liberals") are concerned with positive liberty and aren't advocating against state intervention --they want state intervention in order to promote equal opportunity. They think individual liberty isn't worth much if you don't have the means to enjoy it, so they tend to see a moral responsibility of "society" to provide a more level playing field --individual's don't have a right to be left alone, but have a responsibility to take care of others and the state should enforce that. On other other hand, classical liberals do not embrace ethical altruism --there is no moral responsibility to give to others, or if there is, it should be left to individual decision. RJII 00:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

No the original liberals didnt agree on a few things, but today these disagreements would be considered splitting hairs. Even Joseph Shumpeter recognizes that the enemies of private enterprise and the original liberalism have taken up the name of liberalism for themselves. Classical liberals are more close to the original liberals because of their believe in limited government, individual freedom, and economic freedom.

There was one basic thing that all liberals agreed on and that was human liberty. This was achieved by creating a limited government with few and defined powers (without getting into any economic arguement here) while modern liberals tend to favor big government centralization of power and collectivization of community interests rather than individual freedom. THIS IS THE EXACT OPPOSITE OF LIBERALISMS ORIGINAL INTENTIONS. Modern liberals seek to expand central authority which was the very reason why men were not free according to the original liberal understanding.

(Gibby 22:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC))

It is a general misunderstanding that modern liberals favour big government etc. See the electoral programs of most liberal parties around the world. Do not mix up American liberalism with modern liberalism, it is just one of the variants of modern liberalism. There is much liberalism between American liberalism and libertarianism. Most liberals favour limited but not minimal governments. Banning cartels and monopolies is government action to realize a free market. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 23:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Like what? From our last conversation it seemed you tended to favor a host of centralization programs, social programs, and trade barriers that original liberals would have found to be anti-freedom and anti-individual. Please explain what a European liberal is like now? Because after talking with you it appears that European liberals don't hold on to the true meaning. Especially since you conflate minimal government interference with having a government that cannot punish cartels or break up monopolies (Bad bad bad electionwood!...you are making the socialist free market conflation mistake!  free market limited government advocacy does not mean anarchy!  Stop that fallacious assumption please). (Gibby 03:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC))


 * I have to stop discussing with you again, considering the tone you use. Bye, I will have to ignore your statements. (As far as I know I didn't support centralization programs or trade barriers. As a liberal I can agree with social programs, education programs, health programs and environmental programs, I believe in free trade etc. I am not a socialist and do not use bad bad bad or electionwood). Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 05:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Wilf, this is why we are all ignoring him now. He has forfeited his right to discourse. TrulyTory 13:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Why do all of you wiki users have such wet panties. The tone of my statement was not harsh or mean, it was asking a question, how cna you support so much state run programs and call yourself a free trade liberal. Its like republicans in American saying they support small government and spend an extra $600 billion on big government programs, 400 billion beyond budget, run military camps beyond the reach of the court, wire tap peoples houses, allow the siezure of private property by the government for private buisness use... I'm saying it sounds a bit like hypocrisy. Thats not mean and you should be wining about it not wanting to discuss such a serious change to an article with which you are going to destroy its actual meaning for a keynesian approach (and seriously, I have my doubts about you EW because you spent so long deleting the free market interpretation of the great depression etc.) (Gibby 22:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC))

Belated remarks; sorry, I hadn't been folllowing this page for a while: Jmabel | Talk 18:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) "Why do &hellip; you &hellip; have such wet panties.": Gibby, what on earth makes you think this is an acceptable way to address people? If you want to lower the level of discourse to whether people can hold their piss, why should anyone continue to either take you seriously as anything other than a schoolyard bully?
 * 2) On the main question here: the construction that I believe would be given by most social liberals is
 * 3) That social liberalism begins to be an identifiable stream in liberalism with J.S. Mill, who broadened the definition of liberty compared to earlier liberal thinkers, making a small, but definite, move left, and that he and his intellectual heirs have as much claim to the prior intellectual heritage of liberalism as those who focused more on laissez faire economics.
 * 4) That, eventually, reacting against social liberalism, another stream in liberalism made a similar move somewhat to the right, focusing increasingly on the rights of private property as having primacy over other rights, and that their intellectual heirs include today's libertarians, economic liberals, etc.
 * 5) That the term classical liberalism, a term created after the fact, appropriately designates those those thinkers who preceded the split.
 * 6) That contemporary libertarians, economic liberals, etc. have no more (and no less) legitimate claim to the mantle of classical liberalism than do social liberals.
 * 7) That the appropriation of the term classical liberalism by those people in reference to themselves occurred mainly because the term liberal, unqualified, had come, especially in the English-speaking world, to mean the other side of the split.
 * 8) That this exclusive appropriation of the word, and the cocksureness that go with it are, ultimately not terribly true to what Learned Hand called "the spirit that is not too sure of itself," that of liberty.

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

It is npov, its called REPORTING their views. (Gibby 02:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC))

Okay guys, we've got a lot of work to do. The two most obvious areas that need improvement are philosophy (which needs to discuss the thinkers a bit more) and the introduction. I think it would be best if we cite things as well. Anyhow, let the construction begin! Slizor 20:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Deleting Hayek, Friedman, and CATO is idiotic. All are self described classical libertarians and all the sections that were deleted were reporting their views on what classical liberalism is. If you keep deleting it I will not only revert it I will add more quotes in to defend their points with more quotes by them. I have more, lots more...don't F with the page. Add a criticism if you like, but the rest is perfect. Otherwise you socialists and keynesian revisionists stay off and stop trying to destroy the page. (Gibby 13:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC))


 * (belated interjection:) And Vladimir Zhirinovsky calls himself a "liberal", but I assume that none of us take that seriously. - Jmabel | Talk 18:54, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

They can be classical libertarians all they want, it doesn't mean they have shit to do with classical liberalism. How am I a revisionist? My account is the STANDARD, yours is the revision. Slizor 15:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

You are deleting entire sections of cited material in an attempt to revise the meaning of classical liberals and their disagreement with how modern liberalism is used, their views on the great depression, totalitarianism, freedom etc. You are removing classical liberalism from the page about classical liberalism! (Gibby 00:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC))

No I am not. I am removing Libertarianism from the Classical Liberalism page. Classical Liberals tended to have views that were no where close to what Libertarians espouse. Elitist republican liberty (not negative liberty), some limits on the free market (although most were not concerned with economics) and mostly a focus on FREEDOM - the idea, not just one concept of it. My version does not censure your views, your version completely ignores mine. Slizor 13:05, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I just looked at the history of editing. MY SOAPBOX? You're the one who made this article! The only way I can understand that comment is as "that's not your ice cream, that's my ice cream" (i.e. the soapbox is yours.) However, Wikipedia pages are not meant to be soapboxes - you are not meant to "dominate" pages (was that the term you used on your talk page?) with your own views. Look at the history of this talk page - people do not accept your view. Slizor 13:25, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Ignorance is no excuse for what you have done. You have not one citation to back up the reasons for your reverts, AND you have deleted many quotes and citations in your quest to destroy the content of this page. If you have complaints or a different interpretation, ADD IT, do NOT DELETE CITED MATERIAL...even if you disagree with it. It is NOT MY VIEW, it is the view of many classical liberals including John Stossel, Milton Friedman, FA Hayek, Brink Lindsey, Joseph Shumpeter, the Cato Institute...

REmember, you have no citations to back up your destruction of the page, while I have all sorts of quotes and citations to back up its existance. I'm reverting your clear violation of wiki policy. (Gibby 23:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC))

You have citations from the people making the claim - that does not make the claim true. It is NPOV to report the claim, not to take the claim as true and then build the article around that claim. The claim itself is contested and you providing sources of their claim does not back up your assertion of truth. You are claiming you are reporting a view, when you are not. You have accepted that view and then built the page around it. Slizor 01:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh and comparing classical liberals to "elitist republicans" not only shows your own bias, but extreme ignorance!!! They are nothing alike! Not to mention you have no citation for your little original research. Your entire edit is predicated on your own original research while erasing the publicated cited researched sources that say things you disagree with. YOU HAVE TO DO MUCH BETTER THAN THIS! (Gibby 23:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC))

Read what I said - elitist republican liberty. Your ignorance of the school of thought is no reason to think me stupid. Slizor 01:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, why don't you try explaining elitist republican liberty and why not providing some sources on it. lets try that. And if you really get it done, add a section on it, don't delete all the cited material on the page. (Gibby 01:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC))

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

Libertarians
There is no reason for mentioning Libertarianism here as there are already debates concerning the link between Classical liberalism and Libertarianism elsewhere. Slizor 15:50, July 21, 2005 (UTC)


 * There is a reason, which is why it's listed as a "See Also". The "see also" reflects that there is a debate being debated elsewhere.Harvestdancer 17:44, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Fine, but there is no reason for the Libertarianism series to be up there. Slizor 17:46, July 22, 2005 (UTC)


 * That I can agree to.Harvestdancer 20:13, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

I've changed my mind on this point. The Libertairan series mentions Classical Liberalism, just like the Liberal series mentions Classical Liberalism. Either the 'tarian series need to be edited to remove a one-way, or it shoudl be included here. Harvestdancer 21:19, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

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

Slizor you are trying to destroy an entire article based on 2 badly reasoned quotes. I have included them (as ignorant and stupid as they are...the quotes and authors not you) in a section. You cannot delete the entire article, quotes contrary to your own and all, just because you have two almost meaningless quotes from people who are not even as close to credible as Friedman, Hayek, and Cato! (Gibby 01:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC))

Here is where you are messing up
italics are quotes made by Slizor taken from the talk page on libertarianism

''No, I do not think Classical Liberalism can be classified as against welfare and public ownership. Look at Adam Smith, biggest Classical Liberal economist, he thought that some utilities should be under public control.''


 * An incorrect interpretation, Smith wrote of 3 things the government could do, protect citizens from other states, protect citizens from harm by each other (both are protection of citizens from coercsion) and the provision of public goods. Your interpretation demonstrates a lack of understanding on the economic definition of public good.  Essentially, Smith argues it is ok for governments to correct market externalities but he does NOT condone the creation of government monopolies for the permanent control over these externalities.  I believe this incorrect interpretation has lead you far astray.

My criteria of Classcal Liberals having standing is if they were famous during their life time of shortly after their death - Bastiat was not, he was just dredged up by Libertarians so they can claim that Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism are the same. The difference between Classical Liberals and Libertarians is that Libertarians view lassiez-faire economics as an end in itself - they think of it as "econmonic freedom". Classical Liberals argued for it because they thought it worked (Mill based his defence of free trade on utilitarian grounds) although they also limited where it should extend to. I also doubt that Mill (the foremost Classical Liberal thinker on social freedom) would support unrestrained use of drugs.


 * You don't seem to realize that All libertarians are Classical Liberals but not all Classical Liberals are Libertarians. You also seem to conflate all libertarians into one political ideology, as well as conflate capitalism with free markets and free markets with anarchy...and libertarianism with anarchy.  All are incorrect and fallacious.  Free markets are not anarchical nor do most classical liberals or libertarians advocate that.  Even anarcho-capitalists advocate some form of authority (corporate authority as opposed to a tradition government).  Which brings me to the next point, not all libertarians believe in anarcho-capitalism!


 * On John Stuart Mill, we I don't know where he would stand but I do have a quote from him: ''"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant" - John Stuart Mill. If he is logically consistant we can conclude that the government has no true reason to prevent the use of drugs.


 * And by the way your poor interpretations lead to other insights on your own studies and beliefs...as you fail to realize that many classical liberals saw that Capitalism and economic freedom could bring about a reduction in poverty, equality, protection of civil and political freedom, and an end to war (or at least a reduction to violent conflict). This from Adam Smith to Joeseph Shumpeter.  So, yes classical liberals did focus on economic freedom.

''Essentially, Classical Liberals focused on social freedom - they were concerned with people being free from the "tyranny of the majority". Libertarians are focused on Economic "freedom" (in the Freedom = Slavery sense of the word.) Slizor 14:47, 2004 Jun 24 (UTC)''


 * Again, they did focus on economic freedom. Adam smith understood that economics played a major role in the governments ability to maintain control and retain tyrany over the people, to make arbitrary wars, and pick winners and losers in society.

Your use of the word freedom seems to imply that you believe freedom = anarchy. Most classical liberals hard argued that freedom ment a freedom from coersion, thus it meant you were free in so far as you retained no freedom to coerse others. They like many modern libertarians see government playing a role in protecting citizens from coersions.

My compromise of your addition is suffecient, though I think your sources are largely incorrect in their assumptions (as you are). Though because they are properly cited they shall stay, in its own section, but shall not be the main focus of the article (especially since the rest of the article is already so heavily cited against your thesis). (Gibby 12:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC))

From WP:3o
I'm not an expert here, so someone has to explain it to me: Why is this text being removed? What is the disagreement that is causing this edit war? Fagstein 18:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

As an aside, this article is a bit long, with a lot of quotes from academics (in the longer version) that should probably be pruned or added to a new article on a more specific subject. Remember this is an encyclopedia article, not an academic research paper. Fagstein 18:21, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * There are a lot of quotes from academics.....certain kind of academics who espouse certain views. I have removed large amounts of text whose inclusion is premised on something that is contested (i.e. the text is POV.) The current article is my proposal for the start of a more accurate and NPOV article. Slizor 18:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm still trying to figure out the source of the debate here. Is there a dispute about whether "Classical liberalism" and "liberalism" are the same thing? Or whether the quotes from the academics should be included? Fagstein 19:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Slizor has an understanding that libertarians are nothing like classical liberals and share nothing in common. He also tends to think that modern leftwing liberals share more in common with classical liberals than libertarians and that classical liberals did favor a good deal of state intervention for the public good which he defines as more than just correcting market externalities. The article is NPOV already, it reports the views of respectable sources who all happen to disagree with Slizor and his 2 quotes.  He delets them anyway.  I tried a compromise by including a section with his thesis in it, which is his main complaint against libertarianism sharing classical liberalism as the basis for their philosophy (as a matter of fact, Slizor thinks it a conspiracy they have taken classical liberalism as their heritage...but doesnt seem to have a problem with modern liberals, especially in America which favor serious intervention as stealing the original name for themselves. (Gibby 20:18, 3 March 2006 (UTC))

Wow, how to misrepresent my views. I won't dignify your pathetic strawmans by burning them down. My argument is that this article is premised on the Austrian School and Minarchists as being Classical Liberals. In large, this not how it is academically used (as 5, 6 and 7 prove on my version.) It is the papering over of the debate and the assertion of something which is contestable. The only sources Gibby has provided to prove this are the people who claim to be classical liberals saying that they are classical liberals - which clearly are not independant sources and as such are not fair assessors of their own claim. Furthermore it clearly violate NPOV because it gives minority views (i.e. the views of Hayek in the classical liberal tradition (let's say for a moment I accept your arguments)) disproportionate space - there are 38 mentions of Hayek on the article and only 7 of Mill.

It is not contested that people such as Adam Smith, J.S. Mill, John Locke, etc were classical liberals. It is contested that Hayek, von Mises and Friedman were. Slizor 11:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems some people think classical liberals don't exist today, which is bizarre. RJII 20:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Not me that was someone elses edit who argued that Classical Liberalism was something that occured pre 1850 and never returned. (Gibby 20:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC))


 * From what I can tell, that seems to be what's causing the problem. Some of these people think Classical liberalism is confined to a certain time period, and they want to exclude everyone that wasnt around pre-1850. RJII 20:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps this is why Slizor has a problem with von Mises, von Hayek, Friedman, Shumpeter, the Cato Institute and calls them all neoliberals. Though he does make an exception for Mill who was post 1850, but most likely that is because Mill became increasingly favorable for some state intervention for the provision of the poor, thus he thinks he has proof for modern welfare states as being the inheritors of liberalism rather than neoliberals or libertarians (i'm guessing). (Gibby 20:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC))

You clearly are guessing. I do not care who claims the inheritance of classical liberalism, I honestly don't. However, to misrepresent the fact that there are arguments over differing claims is POV-pushing. This is what Gibby can't understand, I am not trying to push my particular ideology on this page I'm just trying to push his off from dominating it. Slizor 11:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

No personal attacks please. We're interested in the article itself, not its editors. Clearly NPOV isn't the issue here (both versions appear to be NPOV). The question is what to include. I'm not a philosophy major, so I can't comment on the "accuracy" of either version. However, I still believe the article is too long, and would suggest that the debate be given one argument from each side, and then links added to further opinion as the case may be. Fagstein 21:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The debate is ignored in Gibby's version, the entire article is premised on the assumption that his ideas are correct. Slizor 11:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not making a personal attack, I'm just trying to examine and understand Slizor's reasoning. (Gibby 21:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC))

I did like Slizor's idea of Key Liberal Thinkers section but expanded it to reflect the long history of classical liberalism and its developement. Also, Slizor, neoliberalism is a new term, generally post 1990, though some place it around 1980, to reflect a return to Liberalism origin. The term classical liberal came about post 1930 after liberalism original meaning had been abandoned. (Gibby 21:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC))

Gibby, actually look up the history of modern liberalism - look at Green, Hobhouse, Keynes, Dewey, etc. There is an unbroken line from liberals of the classical persuasion to present day. Why is that not a more valid claim to the title? Slizor 11:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, now I know where you are coming from. Keynes smashed liberalism in the face, destroyed its very purpose in order to try and save it. I find it ironic that you come from the revisionist branch of liberalism claiming the real original branch are the revisionists. You've bought the populist line, but its just not historically or factually accurate. (Gibby 18:20, 4 March 2006 (UTC))

Actually, it appears you have missed my argument entirely (again reducing political ideologies to economics.) Actually looks at Green, Hobhouse and Dewey and what they said. There's a fairly straight uninterrupted line of thinkers from classical to modern (note: this is a fact and not an opinion.) I do not claim that the original branch are revisionists, I claim that the Austrian School are revisionists. It is your claim that the Austrian school are original (one which is evidently flawed and rejected by numerous academic sources.)

I am merely reporting what they have said. Slizor 20:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
 * no yoru not your saying it you havnt cited it Furthermore, scholars like Friedman and Hayek have demonstrated the logical disconnect between classical liberals and modern social liberals, including a disconnect between liberalism and Keynesian economics.  (Gibby 05:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC))

PS, classical liberals focused on freedom from tyranny and oppression, this was acheived through economic freedom of free markets and through limited government (Which just so happens to also work well with free markets). Keynes and his moder ilk, aka the liberal revisionists, don't believe in limited government and free markets to promote liberty, they believe in centralized authority (the opposite of classical liberalism) and massive state economic intervention as the key to promoting and protecting freedom. THIS IS THE OPPOSITE OF CLASSICAL LIBERALISM!!! The evidence is quite clearly against you Slizor (Gibby 18:24, 4 March 2006 (UTC))

The evidence is not against me at all. Remember Gibby, no original research. I have provided numerous academic sources disputing your usage of the term. Please note, so you don't continue with your delusions, that free markets did not focus in a large amount of liberal work and "economic freedom" was in barely anything. Your definition may validate your claims, but what will validate your definition? Slizor 20:29, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


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

You've totally misread all liberal text. (Gibby 05:29, 5 March 2006 (UTC))

HAHAHAHA. "My definition fits the claim because it is the definition" - there you go POV all the way. I'm done with this. There is no point in even dignifying your "responses" as in discussing with you when all you do is say I've misread things and I don't understand things. I'm fairly sure that I'm far more qualified than you on this subject and have recieved far more formal education on this subject than you. Slizor 16:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and none of your sources are even close to the credibility of mine. (Gibby 05:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC))

Yes......the Chief Examinations Officer for A-Level Politics....no credibility when discussing political issues..... Slizor 16:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

ok, all your examples, hobhouse, keynes, dewy, are exactly what these historiaans/economists have noted as not being true liberals. They start out liberal then come to an illiberal conclusion.


 * 1. Liberals believed in individual freedom (lawful not lawless freedom...as in free to do what you will so long as you do not harm others. Kant has a different definition I won't go into) and equality.
 * 2. The threats to freedom, rights, equality came from government and from lawless people.
 * 3. To protect you must limit the power of governments, protect people from each other with laws restricting coersion and protecting property. And as part of limited government and personal freedom you must have free markets to allow people freedom from governments and aristocracies as a means of societal promotion and wealth building. Free markets also allow people to act without coersion, and help contribute to decentralized government while giving the people an effective check and balance against arbitrary  government authority.

Modern social liberals abandoned all this by conflating failures of capitalism with free market liberalism. and so


 * 1. Saw that to protect freedom and equality you needed government intervention
 * 2. Saw that free markets hurt freedom.
 * 3. Believed that coersion was necessary to correct many externalties.
 * 4. Thus as a result advocated the centralizing governments and expanding their power.

Your line of liberalism fell far from the tree. They're belief in protecting freedom resulting in destroying the very foundation of liberalism itself. Modern liberalism/progressivism is actually conservatism/toryism (or whatever you call it there) with a nice friendly "we love the workers" propaganda tag line. It was very clever and very successful PR campaign that won the populist battle.

You are toting the populist line. And that line is not historically or factually accurate. (Gibby 06:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC))

Yawn. I'm tired of propaganda. Slizor 16:10, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

no, apparently your tired of making arguements for which you cannot actually make. You're defeated. YOu cannot explain how modern liberalism with their belief in centralizing authority harks back to the classical liberalism which saught to decentralize authority to protect freedoms. YOu've lost, your line of thought is incorrect, and so are your miniscule sources. However as a consolation prize, you will get your minority view in a nice section on the article. Thanks for playing (Gibby 21:09, 5 March 2006 (UTC))

Hah. I am not required to explain how modern liberalism "harks back" to classical liberalism - that would be original research. It is a view (and by your own admission a popular view) that has numerous references citing that usage of it. It is above us as to establish truth, only to report versions of it and your understanding excludes many significant versions of understanding of classical liberalism, while mine (as far as I can tell) does not.

Do not try to draw me into your red herrings Gibby, it won't work (i.e. centralising authority = some control over markets.) Slizor 01:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

A populist view that is so incorrect, so opposite of the original meaning of liberalism that liberals had to RENAME THEMSELVES as CLASSICAL LIBERALS.

And no, modern liberalism has sought to increase and centralize authority, not decentralize it. How many modern liberals advocate local healthcare coverage, local social security, welfare etc. THEY ALL WANT UNIVERSAL!!!! Aka state run or in the US case federal run programs. That is centralized, not decentralized! Centraliziation is the opposite of liberalism which saught decentralization of government power. Period, end of story. Modern liberals engaged in a very sucessful PR campgain to usurp them name for themselves. That is the fact. That is why there is classical liberalism now instead of just plain old liberalism. You've been wrong this whole time, you don't even understand half of what you're talking about, and don't even understand the origins of classical liberalism as a name. You're wrong, now deal with it. (Gibby 05:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC))


 * Here we start again. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 14:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Classical Liberalism is a term which refers to THE CLASSICAL LIBERALS, i.e. Locke, Smith, Mill, De Tocqueville, Bentham, etc. I did not say that Modern Liberals sought to decentralise, again you are going off on a tangent, although yet again I was correct (in regards to you thinking that nationalisation is a centralization of authority.)

It is not a fact that Modern Liberals engaged in a attempt to usurp the name for themselves, it requires an unsubtle mind to think that. Anyone who knew anything about liberalism would know that it is more than just two factions with only one having the rightful claim to the title "liberal". You appear to echo your idol in this

"Hayek's dogmatism is nowhere more powerfully displayed than in his attitude to rival intellectual traditions. It is never a question for him of there being two different perspectives on the same problem or two strands of the same tradition." Andrew Gamble, pg 36 of Hayek: The Iron Cage of Liberty.

This is not a place for the narrow-minded propaganda of a dead economist. Slizor 16:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Again here is where you go wrong. Locke, Smith, Mill etc etc etc...are just plain Liberals. THe term classical liberal had to be created once socialists and conservatives allied and usurped the name Liberal for themself. This is why modern liberalism accepts and believes things that are completly opposite of what liberalism originally stated.

It does not require an unsutable mind to think that (PERSONAL ATTACK: Hey Tony Sidaway, why don't you go after crap like that?) It requires a logical mind that can see the connections and the disconnect. Advocacy of centralized big government and heavy economic interference is NOT LIBERAL! (Gibby 20:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC))

The evidence is against you. This is what other people have said, it is sourced, it is verified. You are now just POV-pushing by claiming they are wrong. As it has been established that it is contestable if the Austrian school were classical liberals the article must be altered to reflect this and present a more NPOV. Slizor 22:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

My Edits
Are consistant with Wikipedia policy. Citations which were relevant to the article (and did not break NPOV by unbalancing) were kept, others (including several very vague references) were dispensed with. Large amounts of text whose right to be in the article was contested by the article itself were removed (with some bits just moved.) I think we need to standardise the Modern Liberalism bit and expand the first few sections (including working on the area "Classical liberalism and freedom".) I'm also not so sure how relevant the Great Depression is to Classical Liberalism. Slizor 22:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point out this part of the Wikipedia policy to Gibby

""Verifiability" in this context does not mean that editors are expected to verify whether, for example, the contents of a New York Times article are true. In fact, editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources, regardless of whether individual editors view that material as true or false. As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth."

It has been verified that the term is contested and that a number of people reject the assertions of hayek and others. As such the article should reflect this.....as it now does. Verifiability Slizor 23:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Your citations are from a POV inconsistant with classical liberalism. Your pov citations are consistant with modern liberalism, that is why there is a page on it. Your POV sources are allowable but only as critical view points. Your pov and your sources are not factual, but I am following wiki policy (unlike you who deletes cited material) and it is allowed to stay in a criticism section. (Gibby 23:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC))

"As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." My sources verify the position. Claiming that they are "POV" is stupid since you are quoting Hayek himself! May I also add I only deleted cited material whose inclusion would have made the article NPOV. Not that deleting cited material is against Wikipedia policy. Slizor 00:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

You are doing what you acuse me of. Interesting. See your own point. I'm very disturb your missing your own point. My sources verify a position counter to your own. My sources are also more reputable than your own. Your sources claim something that is opposite of what classical liberalism is not only historically, but logically as well. (Gibby 00:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC))

My sources claim nothing of the sort. I have not once claimed that modern liberalism and classical liberalism is the same - it has been you erecting a strawman so you can more easily quote Hayek at me. It has been heavily cited, from reputable sources, over the usage of the term. You have provided four authors, three of which are talking about themselves and one of which is less than a no body. If you want to decide "reputability" do a google search - find out how well known Andrew Gamble and Andrew Heywood are and compare them to Friedman and Hayek. Remember Gibby, ignorance is no excuse. Slizor 00:23, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Right, ignorance is no excuse. Friedman and Hayek are reputable. Extremely reputable. Everyone and their mother has heard of them. Even you, I'm sure have read material by them.

You are arguing a highly ignorant pov. It is illogical, revisionistic and simply does not add up to what classical liberalism is. Furthermore it hinges on one major weak point (other than taking an opposite view of governments role and size) and that is wether or not classical liberals existed for a fixed time period. That simply isnt the case.

You're arguing a pov that has turned liberalism on its head. It deserves nothing more than its own criticism section. (Gibby 00:32, 7 March 2006 (UTC))

Ahh, so this is one of your professors...I'd love to meet the guy. Anyway...as I thought, found someone who agreed with me that this guy might just be misinterpretting things (As you do). http://lsb.scu.edu/~dklein/papers/gamble.html You are a left winger, your professor is a left winger and you are revisionists who misunderstand what liberalism was all about. (Gibby 00:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC))

"You also can't delete, repeat CANNOT delete cited and reputable material" That material was cited and reputable. Do you perhaps want to expand your policy?

As for criticism of Gamble (I like how you realised he does actually work at the Uni I go to, although he isn't my professor our library just has a lot of books on him) what does that prove? Seriously, what does it prove? That someone criticised him? Wow! Oh no, he's clearly not credible! Slizor 00:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

if i was allowed to call you an idiot i would. Your logic is so bad it is amazing. When attempting to prove points like you did it is best to make such comparisons along lines of relevancy. Please try good logic this time around. (Gibby 00:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC))

You provided a maxim that you then violated. It is fairly clear that you do not hold the maxim very true. And my example was perfectly relevant - it was a cited, reputable source and we were talking about cited, reputable sources. How is that not relevant? Slizor 00:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

no the criticism, as I thought, stated taht this professor misunderstands hayeks points. Basic points like "what is property" I bet you cant even answer that. (Gibby 00:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC))

Again, I am not required to. No original research. I am merely reporting what has been said. I suggest you read Wikipedia's policies more closely. Slizor 00:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes you are reporting what someone said, that is why I have created two criticisms sections for your cited material. Have you not been paying attention? (Gibby 01:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC))

I have not found one person who disputes Adam Smith, John Locke, de Tocqueville, etc being Classical Liberals - not one. However, I have found numerous references to the Austrian School and Libertarians NOT BEING CLASSICAL LIBERALS. There are no disputes with my limited use of the term, but there are disputes with your extended concept (which is only supported by the self-styled classical liberals themselves but rejected by more impartial observers.) Slizor 01:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

How about we add something like, "Classical liberals include, Hayek, Friedman..." --a list of classical liberals in a sentence. If there's any dispute about person, all we have to do is find a source calling the guy a classical liberal. That would clear the way for the rest of the article as far as what philosophers we are going to allow to be sources. RJII 01:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

That isn't going to promote a NPOV at all. It ignores the criticisms of the usage of the term in reference to that person. If there is one reference to Tony Blair being a classical liberal and a hundred saying he is a right-wing social democrat, should we include him as one? My restricted use of the term is far more neutral. Slizor 01:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think is is going to help. I would think you'd be hard-pressed to find a source saying that, for example, Milton Friedman is not a classical liberal. RJII 16:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you're right there actually. Most people just ignore that usage of the term since it is so in the minority. There are obviously volumes of him NOT being classified as a Classical Liberal. For example "A sizeable minority vigorously espouses right-wing radicalism of the Friedman or Hayek variety." Milton Friedman, Superstar? J. R. Shackleton The Political Quarterly Volume 51, Issue 3, Page 354, Jul 1980

However, in my current search of ejournals (such a valuable resource) I came accross this wonderful quote from, suprisingly, one of my professors. It could just be that our databases are biased (although this is from an impartial site) but I am coming across a lot of them in political theory research. "One popular view was that classical liberalism was an identifiable creed with an ahistoric continuity which was betrayed by new liberalism, itself a form of socialism. This view - a view still being peddled by some New Right theorists in the 1980s - lacks any historical or ideological sensitivity and can be disregarded." New Ideologies for Old? Andrew Vincent, The Political Quarterly Volume 69, Issue 1, Page 51, Jan 1998

We could always go with something more along the lines of this "A note on terminology: numerous labels are employed to describe the perspective of the free market Right, including not only economic but also market, classical or neo- liberalism, not to mention the often highly ambiguous one of libertarianism. For the purposes of this article, the nuances of the meanings attached to these different terms need not be explored. Rather, the term economic liberalism is to be used inclusively, to denote the perspectives of all those thinkers who emphasise the promotion of free markets and individual economic liberty." What Ever Happened to Economic Liberalism? Bruce Pilbean Politics Volume 23, Issue 2, Page 88, May 2003

The majority of what I have read has described Hayek and Friedman as neo-classical (or neo-liberal), in the classical liberal tradition (but not classical liberals) or simply as economists. I've gotta say, I love that second quote. Slizor 17:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

We must also remember that there is a large difference between the Austrian School and Libertarians. There is also the issue of modern liberalism's claim to Classical Liberalism. There are proponents of all views, the current article ignores the two others claims (having an entire article dedicated to one and a small section for each is pretty much ignoring.) Slizor 01:42, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

i find it interesting you see gaping differences between libertarians and the austrian school but see very little difference between classical liberalism and modern liberalism (Gibby 13:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC))

Yet again you choose to misrepresent my views. I have not said there is very little difference between classical liberalism and modern liberalism just that it has as good a claim to the inheritence of classical liberalism as any of them. Stop trolling. Slizor 15:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Intro/Disclaimer
As long as the intro/disclaimer I added shortly in the entry is included, I can live with most of the text of the article as it stands now. In that way the article is about modern classical liberalism as a school of liberalism claiming to be the orginal form placed in the context of original liberalism and not about orginal liberalism itself. At some places it is still to POV, so it needs some edits. In that way the entry might be acceptable for most editors, even KDRGibby and Slizor. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 08:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree with this approach, since it effectively makes the article redundant with libertarianism. Also, I am skeptical of anything short of an outright praise of Friedman ever being acceptable to KDRGibby. -- Nikodemos 10:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't live with most of the text in the article, Hayek is mentioned 44 times. I think instead we should have a "Uses of the phrase" section at the start. The current article with the intro/disclaimer essentially just means that this page is a POV fork, since Gibby restarted this page himself from it being merged with Liberalism. If the citations are down on the table Gibby's view is in the minority. Slizor 13:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I would also like to draw your attention to this recently deleted sentence - "Classic Liberalism is close to 18th century Liberalism." Clearly Gibby sees what I consider "classical liberals" to be "18th century liberalism". If this is the case then we might as well just put an intro/disclaimer telling people to go to the Austrian School page instead of dedicating this page to it. As far as I can see there are other pages on the Austrian School and Libertarianism but not on Classical Liberalism (i.e. original liberalism.) Slizor 13:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

no you think classicals = 18th century. Classical simply has a set line of thought which you deny (Gibby 13:47, 7 March 2006 (UTC))

It has never been about what I deny, this article is not about what I deny. It is what other people have denied. You can not prove that your version of classical liberalism is correct, so it should not be used as the basis for the article. Slizor 15:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The problem is that KDRGibby considers present-day classical liberalism the same as 18thc century liberalism. About that staring point there is no consensus. Most contributors to this article do not agree or cite people who do not agree. My problem is that as a liberal democrat from a European country, I see a direct line between classical liberalism in the sense of the 18th century liberalism to the social liberalism I adhere to. I won't deny that other interpretations are possible (e.g. present-day classical liberalism), but I will deny that present-day classical liberalism is the only true continuation of 18thc century liberalism. I suggested my compromise to make a clear difference between orginal liberalism (which is described in Liberalism) and present-day classical liberalism to be described in this article. Any article on present-day classical liberalism must be NPOV and include criticism of that ideology. The intro is necesary to make clear where it is about.
 * A second problem is that due to wiki-history, I won't debate with KDRGibby. So good luck with the development of the article. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 16:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

If that is the case we should re-name the article to "Present Day Classical Liberalism" or something like that. However, I doubt we will find consensus since RJII has argued that it is a direct continuation where Gibby has argued that Classical Liberalism is seperate from 18th Century Liberalism - seems highly inconsistent and POV. Slizor 16:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh and Libertarians also use the phrase, not just the Austrian School. Slizor 16:20, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I would just like to re-state this so every notices it because it is a truly relevant quote and just sums things up nicely. "One popular view was that classical liberalism was an identifiable creed with an ahistoric continuity which was betrayed by new liberalism, itself a form of socialism. This view - a view still being peddled by some New Right theorists in the 1980s - lacks any historical or ideological sensitivity and can be disregarded." New Ideologies for Old? Andrew Vincent, The Political Quarterly Volume 69, Issue 1, Page 51, Jan 1998 Slizor 18:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Slizor, you have the minority viewpoint here. The majority viewpoint is that Classical liberalism is what I say it is, and that classical liberalism has a dispute with modern liberalism. The minority view is that classical liberalism is from a strict time period and has no dispute with modern liberlaism because there is no dispute. Thats just not the facts of history, economics, or politics.

And what is this of sensitivity? What does he refer to? Should we care? Or should we care of the historical and ideological underpinnings for which modern liberalism (which is more toward socialism) denies.

Classical liberals, the Austrian school, the Chicago school....btw are not right wing...agian that is leftist/socialist propoganda. And does not relate well to the logic of the facts in economics, politics, or history. If there is any connection it is only because the right wing has adopted some pro market reforms for their political survival (but then again, so has the left as they discovered that the market really does work afterall). (Gibby 21:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC))

Yawn.....prove it. I have cited numerous works that put the Austrian School/Classical Liberalism view in the minority. In fact, my last source dismissed your view as nothing. What exactly do you have supporting your position?

And again you misrepresent my views and the views of my sources. That they believe that classical liberalism is from a certain time period is something that has been argued, that there is no dispute with modern liberalism is not. Slizor 23:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Modern liberalism
It is not that simple! First of all, there is a strong American bias when you equate "modern liberalism" with social liberalism. Modern European liberal parties consider themselves to be libertarian compared to other parties in the mainstream political spectrum. What Americans call liberal Europeans call social democrat. Modern European liberalism is much closer to classical liberalism than modern American liberalism is, at least as far as ideology goes.

It gets a bit more difficult though. The whole European political spectrum is shifted to the left relative the American political spectrum. The social component is implicit in just about any political party. Nobody questions the need for government, social security, taxes etc. and the discussion is more about the which degree the state should be involved. The liberal ideology is still the same: more individual freedoms, less state intervention. In the American case, the situation is exactly the opposite. The environment is far more libertarian while the American liberals support more state control to provide a stronger social system.

Perhaps you can see where I'm going with this. We need to decide if by liberalism we are referring to an ideology or to the practical implementation. If we are talking ideology then there is a very strong difference between European and American liberalism. From an ideological point of view European liberalism is the same as classical liberalism which in turn is the same as American libertarianism. If we on the other hand look at it from a practical point of view then modern liberalism certainly has a strong social component to it -- implicit in the European case and explicit in the American.

Either way, it will be open for misinterpretation. If you say that European liberalism is the same as American libertarianism people will loudly object as the practical implementation of those ideologies are very different. In the same way if you claim that European liberalism and American liberalism are the same thing you would be equally dead wrong. --Denoir 23:25, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that European Liberalism is different from American Liberalism.     It doesn't require an American bias to think that. Not that this in any way influences the current debate which is over the dominance of the Austrian school on this page. Slizor 23:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * There are all possible finge groups that call themselves "liberal" ranging from neo-nazis to communist. Instead of cherry picking outliers, the best reference for what "liberal" means in practice in Europe is to look at the liberal party in the European Parliament, ELDR and the average national liberal party that is a member of it. American liberalisam (i.e the democrats) have ideologically nothing to do with your average European liberal party. --Denoir 00:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

All the examples of the parties provided are from the ELDR. Some more?      All of them are in the ELDR. To think that somehow American liberalism is entirely separate from European liberalism would make you..err, "dead wrong".

A point often missed by people of your political persuasion "Liberalism is complicated, intricate and pervasive. For liberalism spills over into other ideological domains. There are liberal forms of feminism, nationalism and even of socialism and somtimes conservatism." Political Ideologies M. Festenstein and M. Kenny, Oxford 2005 pg 51 Slizor 00:59, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * ELDR is a joint liberal and reform party - i.e they have non-liberal parties in the group as well. And that has only increased with the ALDE merger. However, they are clearly not socialists, as for that you have PES. And that social liberals are a subset of liberals in Europe was kind of the point I was making. You will have great difficulty finding any mainstream political party in Europe that isn't socail liberal. The goal however must be to separate them on the basis of ideology - relative to the general polital environment. In their own environment the European liberal parties pursue a traditional liberal agenda with the freedom of the individual as the focus. In absolute terms they may be more socialist than a communist party in America, but that's hardly the point as (moderate) political ideology is relative to the politcal environment. It's about relative change not absolutes (i.e "less government involvement" and not "no government involvement"). Of course, you can always find radical parties, but the mainstream idologies deal with how to change (or not) the existing environment and in that respect European liberals and American liberals are pulling in opposite directions.
 * ELDR (and I am an active member inside ELDR) clearly adheres to liberalism. See below for the explanation of Reform in the name. BTW, the most classical liberal party inside ELDR names itself the Estonian Reform Party. Furthermore, there was no merger of ELDR into ALDE, but ALDE is the joint group of the European liberal democrats and the European Democratic Party of UDF and Margherita. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 21:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * As for liberal feminism, liberal veganims, liberal whatever, the focus is not on "whatever" but on the liberal part. When you are grouping parties by liberality, "liberal vegans" will fall in the category because of their liberal agenda, not because their vegan agenda. And yes even conservativism can work well with liberalism - as we can see in the US. The republican party is a typcial classical liberal party with a hefty dose of social conservativism. In that respect the classical liberals in the US are the GOP. Which sort of is the point - the word "liberal" in the US is used in a fashion that has no meaningful connection to classical liberalism. In Europe it still has - we differentiate between liberalism (even social liberalism) and social democratism. --Denoir 01:23, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * As we do differentiate in Europe between liberalism and conservatism. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 21:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually I would argue that Liberalism is instead seen as a catch-all term in Europe. So people classify Liberalism as "classical liberalism", "modern liberalism" and "social democracy". They do not just assume that Liberalism means it in its classical understanding. "Liberal" in the US is used in a fashion which does not connect it to any specific ideology - it is almost a propagandistic label that is devoid of any descriptive value - much the same as "conservative" over there.

May I also point out that your reponses are predicated on understandings of the term "classical liberal" that have already been extensively documented. I suggest you pay regards to that. I would also like to point out that I am European. Slizor 01:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no problems with the "classical liberalism" definitions. What I'm thinking is wrong is equating modern liberalism with social liberalism. While in Europe liberalism does have a strong social component, so does basically every other party. The relevant component is the classical liberalism part, that is still an essential component. I think that the main liberalism article highlights the practical differences well:


 * "One of the greatest contrasts is between the usage in the United States and usage in Continental Europe. In the US, liberalism is usually contrasted with conservatism, and American liberals support broader tolerance and more readily embrace multiculturalism and affirmative action. In Europe, on the other hand, liberalism is not only contrasted with conservatism and Christian Democracy, but also with socialism and social democracy. In some countries, European liberals share common positions with Christian Democrats."


 * Don't you agree that modern liberalism and contemporary liberalism should be talking about the same thing? --Denoir 07:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

No. Modern Liberalism is a term used to refer to social liberalism in a large amount of academic work. It may be that Contemporary and modern are roughly synonyms but that doesn't change the usage of the word. Slizor 11:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, after a check with Britannica, I must concede. Britannica says:

The goals of modern liberalism have therefore shifted dramatically from those of classical liberalism. They may be summed up in the notion that the powers of government are to be used to achieve a redistribution of political and economic power in society.

...and later makes a clear distinction between modern liberalism and neoliberalism. Language is a bitch ;) --Denoir 21:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

European liberalism and libertarianism are not the same, surely not. Some European liberal parties come close (Venstre Denmark and Reform Estonia), but still accept responsibilities for government intervention, e.g. in education. European liberalism was influenced by modern thinkers after John Stuart Mill. It is different from American liberalism as it is from libertarianism. About ELDR: ELDR clearly considers itself the rally of European liberals. The name reform was included when Iberian parties joined, but in Spain and Portugal it was negative to use liberal. Modern liberalism and contemporary liberalism are not identical, but most liberal parties adhere to forms of modern liberalism. There is a clear division between modern liberalism and neoliberalism, since neoliberalism is not necesarily combined with liberalism on non-economic issues. The article Liberalism is clear on that. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 21:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget that European and American liberalism might differ, but the society and political system in which they function aren't similar too. The lavel of government intervention in (old) Europe is far more intensive then in the USA. When European liberals want to reduce government intervention, the results might be similar to American liberalism wanting to increase government intervention. Furthermore, generally the American political spectrum is far more to the right then the European spectrum. The Republican Party is in my opinion far more to the right than most European parties. Beinag a centrist in Europe might be similar to being a lefty in the USA. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 21:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, that's basically the point I was trying to make - that ideology is relative to the political environment, at least for moderate parties. Political parties advocate change in a certain direction more than they advocate an absolute position. If we take an artificial example, suppose that the private per public school ratio in the US is 2.0 and in Europe is 0.5. EU liberals advocate that we should have more private schools (citing the right of the individual to choose) and the American liberals advocate more public schools (citing equality in education). Now it's quite possible that both would ultimately be pleased with a 1.0 ratio. If we suppose that, would it mean that the US and EU want the same thing and that hence their ideology is the same? I'd say very much no and that ideology is relative and has much more to do with the motivation than the final result. The EU argument (of more individual choice) is a classical liberal position while the US liberal argument (of government enforced equality) is a socialist argument. Although the EU liberals may very well share that view on an absolute scale, so does basically every other moderate party in Europe, so that attribute has nothing to do with liberalism. In that way European liberalism is on an ideological basis closer to American libertarianism - even though they would very much disagree on an absolute scale. --Denoir 08:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * It is right, ideology is relative. But I think many European liberals would strongly disagree with a minarchist society as proposed by libertarians or classical liberals. Part of the liberal programme in Europe is a government delivering certain services or guaranteeing e.g. a health system. In my opinion European liberalism is as at least as far from libertarianism as it is from American liberalism. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 12:35, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

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

I didn't get rid of the Libertarian series because I objected to its inclusion (although I do) I got rid of it because at that point it was just ugly. Maybe we can give more prominance to these views with a "Usage of the Term" section at the start? Anyhow, this article needs a lot of work to come close to being decent and I can't do it on my own (quickly.) Slizor 23:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


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

So, no - I'm still not allowed to inject any sense of NPOV into this article? That's all you had to say. "No - we are still not discussing whether Classical Liberalism and the Austrian school are the same". I mean, for god's sake you have an essay by someone who only had an undergraduate degree at the time of writing as proof that your position is correct. And Gibby, don't even try labelling my sources as biased. I don't quote the bloody Cato Institute.

So we're just going to continue with this crap article then? Slizor 19:19, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


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

His dispute and pov are included in criticism sections already. As a matter of fact, he's not even the one who made them. I did. He just deleted everything else....aka deleting sourced information relevant to the article. Oh and this "contemporary" view EW, is over 100 years old! (Gibby 23:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC))

They are included...yet this criticism is not reflected in the article - the article assumes the criticism incorrect and continues irregardless. Gibby, the fact of the matter is that your "sourced information" is.....crap. It really is. You quote one academic (whose creditials I'm yet to check), one expert on science fiction and three people who claim to be "classical liberals" themselves. How is this vaguely on a par with my academic references? In fact, your references are being regarded as bible writ with mine being ignored. Slizor 02:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

And the communism article still talks about communism after the criticism of communism says communism is wrong and can never work adn that communists kill millions of people rather than helping anyone. What is your point? Oh yeah, that your criticism is the right view and the only one that should be expressed.

Your academic refrences are neo marxist revisions, period. And don't even reflect any sort of logical consistancy with the material discussed. You couldnt even explain the reasons why libertarians couldnt be classical liberals or why classical liberals cannot be existing today or that classical liberals are not true liberals. You cant even explain it, and you can't explain it because not even your sources can over-run the facts that bad.

And stop it with "being ingnored" THat is total bs. I"m the one who has included your material. ME!  You have done NOTHING but delete everything you disagree with!  PEriod end of story, stop with the revisionism in the discussion page too!(Gibby 04:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC))

The communism article is an entirely seperate thing entirely - no one is questioning how to use the term. They may both be termed "criticism" but you're the one who decided to call it "criticism" and so it led to your weak point. And no, I don't think "my view" should be the only one expressed - but that as it is the majority view (and usage of the term) it should be what the article focuses on.

I love how you just dismiss the references as "neo-marxist revisions" it's just great. Why....do you classify them so? What information do you have? As for me "not being able to explain" I am not going through this with you again. I am not required to refute your views, one definition is not required to prove itself over another to claim the title. The understanding of classical liberalism that I am proposing the article uses is the minimum - its on people who pretty much everyone agrees are classical liberals.

And no, my versions haven't just edited out your sources. I removed "Amy H. Sturgis PHD, expert in intellectual, yada yada" because it is a truly pathetic source. It was written by a no-body. I also removed the sheer volume of Hayek and Friedman quotes because they weren't relevant. Slizor 11:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Neo marxists who claim that Hayek is not a classical liberal because that neo marxist assumes private property is akin to feudalism is irrelevant...and beside the point, completly stupid. Its in the article because its cited and critical of MAJORITY view of who is considered a classical liberal then and today. (Gibby 11:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC))

Where has anyone said that private property is akin to feudalism? Again, Gibby, I'm going to have to ask you to prove what is the majority view with some decent sources. Slizor 11:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Explain: ''"That libertarianism’s resemblance to liberalism is superficial; in the end, libertarians reject essential liberal institutions. Correctly understood, libertarianism resembles a view that liberalism historically defined itself against, the doctrine of private political power that underlies feudalism. Like feudalism, libertarianism conceives of justified political power as based in a network of private contracts. It rejects the idea, essential to liberalism, that political power is a public power, to be be impartially exercised for the common good."

This is a neo marxist revisionist statement make improper and infering incorrect assumptions. Care to explain it? (Gibby 12:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC))

I'll let the person explain it himself. "Classical liberals by contrast do not envision a nonmarket mechanism that ensures each person a right to income and wealth adequate to individual independence. This does not mean that classical liberals do not provide for a social minimum too; they normally do, but it is not recognized as a requirement of justice and what each person is entitled to. Instead, the social minimum is conceived as a matter of public charity so that people will not starve (Friedman), or it is depicted as an expedient required by some other political value, such as (in Hayek) the need to prevent social strife.*" Is he still a neo-marxist now he agrees with your view on the Austrian school? Slizor 12:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW, that's from the same article. Slizor 12:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Then htis guy simply does not understand libertarians. Not all libertarians advocate the elimination of government authority which seems to be the implication, nor are liberals specifically for public charity. The few that did advocate this public charity did so sparingly and in no way were their views related to what we currently have today. Nor does this negate the possibilty that technology may have eliminated the externality that may have created the reasons some classic liberals saw no problem with limited public charity. (Gibby 16:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC))

Yes, it is everyone else who doesn't understand. You are clearly always right, even when the evidence is against you. Slizor 16:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Bentham
I dispute that Bentham was a classical liberal. He was a collectivist --not an individualist. He did not advocate protecting individual liberty from the the majority. RJII 05:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting. You could be right. I was operating based on Michael Doyle and utilitarianism which originally was a classical liberal form which was later adopted and perverted by the left. Are you sure? (Gibby 14:20, 10 March 2006 (UTC))
 * I just took the book Filosofen van het klassieke liberalisme. This book by the Telders Foundation, a liberal think tank related to the VVD. It has a chapter on Bentham as a classical liberal thinker. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 20:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, then, we'll have to note that it's disputed. I can find sources that say he's not a classical liberal, such as: " Jean Jacques Rousseau's vision of the social contract, while also noteworthy, included an almost mystic notion of a general will. Such a concept created an unaccountable power elite to interpret and impose this will, by force if necessary. Again, vital components of classical liberal thought are offended. Neither Bentham nor Rousseau therefore are members of this legacy." By the way, are you sure it says "classical liberal" and not just "liberal"? Can you give us a quote so we can verify this? RJII 01:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

You do realise that "One popular view was that classical liberalism was an identifiable creed with an ahistoric continuity which was betrayed by new liberalism, itself a form of socialism. This view - a view still being peddled by some New Right theorists in the 1980s - lacks any historical or ideological sensitivity and can be disregarded." is refering to people such as Hayek and Friedman...right? Should we add the "its disputed" part to everything refering to them in the article? Slizor 02:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course we should if it's a credible source. What's your source? Anybody that thinks welfare liberalism is the same thing as classical liberalism has got to be off their rocket. RJII 02:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure, but it was in a different language. It's merely been translated as "libertarian." RJII 03:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It should be included even though its wrong. Hayek had been writing sine the 30s, Friedman since the 40s.  Before that were many others who said the same all going back to Adam Smith who had written way back in 1759 how private interests could lead to improved happiness for all of society (Ayn Rand would later replace private interest with the word greed).  Your quote here also says nothing in and of itself...except for alluding to a complaint toward modern conservatism, especially in the United States and Britian where "free market" (aka less restricted trade) and more limited government became the popular rhetorical catch phrases.  Its nothing more than an idiotic populist statement reflecting Reagan and THatchers love of Friedman and Hayek and is in no historical, economic, or otherway related to actual classical liberalism (Gibby 04:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC))


 * Gibby, what you just said was actually a load of drivel. Why is it relevant when Hayek had been writing from? It is also not talking about it being used by Reagan and Thatcher, it is talked about theorists using the phrase. Slizor 11:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Off their rocket? Unusual phrase, but then again unusual thinking. The quote seems so right at this point, you lack any ideological sensitivity. Where did the quote state that the Austrian School not being the heirs of classical liberalism means that it is Modern Liberalism that is the inheritor? Anyhow, that quote was from New Ideologies for Old? Andrew Vincent, The Political Quarterly Volume 69, Issue 1, Page 51, Jan 1998. BTW, if you want intellectual consistency you should deny that Bentham was a classical liberal, since Hayek disapproved of utilitarians. Slizor 02:31, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You honestly think "moden liberalism" is pro-laissez-faire?! RJII 02:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

No, and I have never stated anything to that extent. I believe your confusion on this issue stems from seeing economic policies as centeral to Classical Liberalism - I disagree. I think other things were more important to classical liberals. Slizor 11:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * By the way, which paper does Andrew Vincent say that in? Its not clear what he's saying there RJII 04:34, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

"New Ideologies for Old?" in The Political Quarterly Volume 69. Slizor 11:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


 * By the time Hayek was writing almost all utilitarians were socialists who had usurped the title and were also in the process of usurping the name Liberal as well! You've got no point.  You don't even understand the logical, economic, political, or philisophical underpinnings of any of this. You don't know how anything connects and the only thing you can do is quote criticism from neo marxists who do much of the same...misunderstand and build up their thesis upon populist revisions of the very thing classical liberals are complaining about! (Gibby 04:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC))

Neo-Marxist? Populist? Revisionist? Prove it. Slizor 11:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Neo marxists treat private property as a form of coersion and often relate it to slavery, including feudalism.
 * Socialists adopted many features of liberal thought on serving the greatest good for the greatest number, protecting freedom, etc those were all very attractive but instead of seeking free market limited governments as was the original arguement, they adopted them into their own philosophical structure (made the statements fit their own beliefs).
 * Populist because they are so often repeated ignorantly as truth...a great example is "free markets created the great depression" which simply isnt true. Its populist and revisionist.

How bout this.

Explain in your own words why the following are not classical liberals.

1. Austrian School 2. Chicago School 3. Libertarians.

Explain what classical liberals are. Explain classical liberal philosophy. Explain liberal philosophy Explain how modern social welfare liberal adds up to classical liberal Explain what liberal institutions are missing from Hayeks assesment Explain exactly how private property is fuedalism and how does Hayek make it sound so...

I'll give you more once you can answer those.(Gibby 12:01, 11 March 2006 (UTC))

Oh, how kind of you to give me an article to write. Why should I do this when you don't prove your assertions, just explain them? And Gibby, darling, please stop attacking one source - especially when it agrees with some of your views. Slizor 12:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

hell your sources seem to treat private property as having similiarities with fuedalism or making the claim that private property is something akin to feudalism...not only is this ignorant marxist revisionism, it doenst come close to even making a sound understanding of liberalism, let alone contemporary classical liberalism. (Gibby 04:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC))


 * I'm still waiting for your analysis. I am really not convinced you are capable of putting this all together yourself. (Gibby 16:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC))

I'm still waiting for your proof. I really don't care what you think of me. Slizor 16:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Obviously the same way you don't care for logical consistancy or factually cited information. (Gibby 17:10, 11 March 2006 (UTC))

Haha. Are you saying what you write is "factually cited information"? Hahaha. Anyhow Explain what classical liberals are. They "are" nothing - they were a bunch of thinkers who held views with vaguely similar conclusions and who were grouped together ex post facto as "Classical Liberals". It is generally seen as starting with Locke (whose philosophy was quite illiberal compared to later classical liberals) and ending roughly with J.S. Mill. Explain classical liberal philosophy. Philosophy suggests a unified body of thought - this is incorrect. There are many varying traditions in Classical Liberalism and one would tend to ignore some important strains of thought by focusing on particular ones - as you have done. There are some vaguely accurate themes that unite Classical liberalism - the individual, freedom, reason, justice and toleration. Explain liberal philosophy A ridiculous question. "Liberal" philosophy is so broad that it is impossible to define or explain it. If you want to take it at its broadest Liberal philosophy is concerned with how people are free. Different strains of liberalism have different conceptions of freedom (as the triadic, not Berlinist, theory of freedom explains.) Explain how modern social welfare liberal adds up to classical liberal It doesn't, I've never argued that. I've argued that modern liberalism has as good a claim (possibly even better) to the inheritence of classical liberalism as any right-wing fanatics do. This is because there is an unbroken line of thinkers whose premises remain roughly the same but who come to different conclusions - for example Rawls based his theory of justice on individualist rationally egotistical assumptions.

Explain what liberal institutions are missing from Hayeks assesment Explain exactly how private property is fuedalism and how does Hayek make it sound so... Always thinking about Hayek, aren't you?

1. Austrian School 2. Chicago School 3. Libertarians

All of them are not Classical Liberals because they do not fit into the framework set out above. Also, the Austrian School and the Chicago School were primarily economists - this meant that they were influenced by Smith and Ricardo but that they lacked the ideological framework to support their view for a free market. Essentially they were too far removed from the philosophy. Furthermore they only emphasize some classical liberal thinkers, while ignoring others. And, along with Libertarians, put property above freedom - most classical liberals were utilitarians who valued freedom first and foremost, I doubt they would have supported the extent to which private property came to be valued by these thinkers (in fact they take it to the extent that it would not be incorrect to view them as reactionaries.) I don't think that Libertarianism really requires much to refute its claims - especially after my points about the more moderate schools of thought. Happy? Slizor 13:07, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

When liberalism originated, economics and politics were of the same field. Your view that the Austrian school, Chicago school, and libertarians are right wingers is simply bogus leftwing populism. They share more in common with classical liberal thinkers than Keynesian "liberals".

Freedom required private property and classical liberals knew this, utilitarians and all.

I don't think you are very familiar with economic political implications argued by Austrian and Chicago economists. Free market economics is freedom, it is political and social freedom. The Austrian school is very qualititative and very philisophical. The Chicago school is very quantitative and scientific in their approach of not only proving free markets with math but proving strong corelations between economic freedom and civil freedom. These were all infrences made by Smith 200 years prior, where he used simple logic to deduce how freedom can derive from economics Chicago used math, the Austrians used more logic and history. The Austrian and Chicago schools both share the same philisophical underpinning you seem to deny...the belief in freedom of individuals, private property, the general welfare, freedom from coersion, limited governments, decentralized authority...

And...yeah, your "refutation" of Libertarians is sketchy at best. If you consider modern liberalism a strand of classical liberalism there is no logical way to deny libertarians as such unless you conflate libertarian with anarchy from authority and build straw men out of their points. This is often done by leftists in general. ALong with conflating the meaning of free markets and confusing market oriented terms like "externality" "perfect competition" "complete information", and most importantly as you have shown, making a mess of the term ""free"market" while making very sketchy claims as to what constitutes coersion (proxy voting...give me a break!). Seriously if you consider Keynesians which abandon liberal philosophy on why limited government is necessary as liberals, then Libertarians are simply even more liberal.

Your logic, and the logic of your authors do not add up. I think you all miss the points. (Gibby 18:45, 12 March 2006 (UTC))

Oh and all true liberals are unified on a few core beliefs.
 * Individual freedom
 * belief in private property
 * belief in free markets
 * belief in a limited decentralized authority (centralized authorities are tyranical and harm freedom)
 * belief in a limited authority that protects property rights, individual freedom. Protecting free speech etc is simply part of the job of protecting freedom.

AND, we came to the term classical liberal, ex post facto as you say, for a very important reason. The use of the word liberal change drastically over time to a point where it no longer reflected the thoughts of the original thinkers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This is a key point which you seem to miss.(Gibby 18:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC))

Man, you really do rant. It is not a case of people misunderstanding, nor revisionism, nor anything else. They (and I) disagree with you. You constantly assume stupidity or bad faith when it is in fact a disagreement. Your view is ridiculously Americo-centric and ignores the work of a great number of theorists rendering it amazingly useless. If you choose to define the original thinkers so narrowly then you can just about manage your views, however, the term is not used the way you use it. Your view is one just peddled by people who wish to promote their own philosophy. Slizor 20:13, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

My view is hardly American centric...and being American centric does not render anything useless. The defining of them so "narrowly" is hardly such. Its just that simple. You are attempting to define them so broad so as to justify leftwing economic activities as a promotion of liberty...but guess what, even Rawls gets it wrong, builds off bad logic, misconceptions, historical errors, economic fallacies.

And boy, its easier for me to say that you are defining liberalism in such a way as to peddle and promote your own philosophy. Problem is, yours simply doesnt add up.

Liberals - Limited government, individual freedom, (religous tolerance, free speech = all apart of freedom and limited government), free markets (also apart of freedom and limited government and a means of protecting against centralized authority.) THAT is what classical liberals are. If libertarians are not classical liberals then they are more closely related to classical liberals than modern liberals, keynes, or even Rawls.

And seriously, what kind of "liberal institutions" do Libertarians deny? I seriously doubt if these institutions were actually liberal or a result of revisionist/populist liberalism. (Gibby 14:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC))

Your (Friedman's) view is clearly Americo-centric. It relies on American history for the basis of "the perversion of Liberalism" and incorrectly argues that European usage solely means "classical liberal". This ignores a great deal of philosophical build-up and events in other countries - your view is Americo-centric and (this is what makes it useless) is dependant on being Americo-centric.

Your accusation that I am trying to peddle my own philosophy is laughable at best. My own philosophy has pretty much nothing to do with what I am arguing - apart from, like pretty much every contemporary philosophy, being influenced by Classical Liberal thinkers. You wrongly equate my views with that of Rawls and also wrongly equate classical liberalism (and, in your understanding, negative liberty) as the "correct" form of freedom - when it is hopelessly deficient.

And girl, you have also consistantly confused classical liberal policies and classical liberal ideas - which is why you consider modern liberalism a form of socialism.

"Liberalism evolved in great part by rejecting the idea of privately exercised political power, whether it stemmed from a network of private contracts under feudalism or whether it was conceived as owned and exercised by divine right under royal ab~olutism.~L7ib ertarianism resembles feudalism in that it establishes political power in a web of bilateral individual contracts. Consequently, it has no conception of legitimate public political authority nor any place for political society, a “body politic” that political authority represents in a fiduciary capacity. Having no conception of public political authority, libertarians have no place for the impartial administration of justice. People’s rights are selectively protected only to the extent they can afford protection and depending on which services they pay for." If you really want to find out what the author is talking about (since it goes quite indepth) I suggest you find the article yourself. On a side note, are you arguing that the Austrian School, the Chicago School and Libertarians are all classical liberals? Because there's a fairly big difference between them - what about Anarcho-Capitalism? Slizor 17:52, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Gibbs, for all your ranting about how modern liberals have usurped the term "liberal" to mean something different than its classical origins (which, agreeing with Slizor, is debateable), you seem clueless that "libertarian" is equally "stolen." It was originally coined by the followers of Bakunin, who was an anarchist/anti-statist socialist.Shotgunstockton 20:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

neoliberalism
I think it merits note that a major divergence of neo-liberalism from classical liberalism is "globalism"....neo-liberals, by their own admission, favor government regulated global economies; whereas a more typical classical liberal approach would be that government intervention into economic matters is improper.


 * Who are you talking about when you refer to "neo-liberalism"? This page is currently disputing the definition of the term "classical liberal" and so it helps when discussing its relation to other ideologies to define them. Slizor 17:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I think I know what Anon is getting at. The article says, "the same philosophy, as revived in the 20th century by Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman.[2] This contemporary restatement of classical liberalism is sometimes called 'neoliberalism' [3]." This is clearly wrong, since classical liberalism opposed political intervention, while according to the neoliberalism article, "neoliberalism favors the opening of foreign markets by political means." Hayek and Friedman both strongly opposed that sort of thing! (BTW note 3 requires a subscription, so can't be verified.)


 * To remedy this error, I will replace "neoliberalism" by "libertarianism," which is what modern classical liberals generally call themselves. Hogeye 04:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

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

What so you can quote more idiotic authors who totally misunderstand what Hayek and Friedman are saying while conflating big government with little government and calling it liberalism while ignoring little government and little government philosophies and saying they have nothing to do with each other nor are nothing alike? (Gibby 14:07, 18 March 2006 (UTC))

If you want I can do that. I have a wealth of academic sources on my side. Slizor 14:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

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


 * If you can cite it, we can include it. One thing this page needs is a better emphasis on the philosophy of classical liberalism. Slizor 10:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Intro needs a definition of classical liberalism
The Intro should have a definition of classical liberalism. The intro without one is pretty useless. I put one in there, and it is supported by a few. But, a couple people are deleting it. The definition I put in there is: "Classical liberalism (also called classic liberalism) is a political ideology that embraces individual rights, private property and a laissez-faire economy, a government that exists to protect the liberty of each individual from others, and a constitution that protects individual autonomy from governmental power." My source is The Rise, Decline, and Reemergence of Classical Liberalism by Intellectual Historian Amy H. Sturgis Ph.D.  Please stop deleting the definition unless you can replace with another one (that you can source). RJII 03:10, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It is not pretty useless and not everybody shares (see this talkpage) this definion. So, your propesed definition is not enough. I could quote Graham Watson (leader of the liberals in the European Parliament):
 * We are actually a group whose philosophical base draws on the three strands of liberalism: the classical liberalism which is concerned for human rights and human dignity and fundamental citizens' freedoms; the economic liberalism which says that free markets generally deliver the best solution; but also the social liberalism that recognises that you have to have freedom from huger and freedom from poverty if you are to fulfill your potential as an individual. (e.g.: )
 * He's not what one would call a scholar. An intellectual historian is more credible than a politician on defining concepts in political philosophy. RJII 04:43, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

This would lead to classical liberalism as the strand of liberalism which is concerned for human rights, human dignity and citizens' freedoms. The problem is that economic liberals tend to emphasize economic freedom out of the writings of classical liberals (and do not consider thinkers not emphasizing economic freedom, like Bentham) and political liberals tend to emphasize other values out of these writings (human rights and dignity. This article should be open to both interpretations and not be limited to the economic interpretation. I read in an article the term neo-classical liberals. hat might be the best term to describe Hayek and Friedman. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 11:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Regardless, the classical liberals have always had a laissez-faire economic philosophy. What someone wants to emphasize is up to them. You guys are deleting that fact out of the intro. Why, I have no clue. By the way, Bentham was not a classical liberal. RJII 04:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Why wasn't Bentham a classical liberal? Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 07:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Because he didn't advocate protecting individual liberty from the majority --he was a complete utilitarian. Granted, Mill was a utilitarian, but he did advocate that there was a limit that should never be crossed --individual liberty had to be protected. Classical liberals are individualists --they don't think the community should be able to rule over the individual. That's why Rousseau, for example, is usually considered as being an antagonist to classical liberal --because the social contract idea advocates that the individual be subordinate to the "general will." Classical liberalism is individualism. Bentham is more like a "social liberal" or something. Check out the quote from Kant I just put in --that's why Kant is a classical liberal. RJII 07:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Isn't it strange not to consider Bentham, one of the founding fathers of liberalism, a classical liberal. It sounds like if a liberal doesn't fit in your definition of classical liberalism, saying that he is not a classical liberal and than saying that all classical liberal thinkers promoted laisser faire. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 08:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, Bentham was a philosophical radical, and their ideas were influential on the Whigs who then introduced abolition of slavery as well as introducing Malthusian Poor Law reforms putting the onus on the individual to work or perish, in a free trade reaction against Tory paternalistic charity which they thought just encouraged the poor to breed. A coming together of more socially liberal Whigs and "popular radicals" subsequently produced the Liberal Party (UK) which is essentially social liberal, while the Tories became the Conservative Party (UK) which at that time supported the anti-free trade Corn Laws, but then split over that issue and went on under Thatcher to become very "economic liberal" while the Liberals were by then presenting themselves as both more middle class and more socialist than the socialist Labour Party (UK), which under New Labour has arguably adopted a social liberal stance accepting many of the economic liberal precepts about free trade. We don't have these "libertanians". Hope that helps to clarify things, at the least there should be a link to Historical radicalism in the article. ...dave souza, talk 09:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

The source RJII is using is absolutely useless. It may have been written by someone with a PHD, but it was written prior to her obtaining the PHD or even a masters. Furthermore it is not published in a peer-reviewed publication and this "Amy H. Sturgis" is a professor of literature or science fiction - some shitty subject. The source is about as good and proven as me sourcing myself. Slizor 17:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

"Classical liberalism" usage for Liberal theory of economics
It seems to me that the label "classical liberalism" is frequently applied to proponents of the Liberal theory of economics such as Thatcher whose basic interest is in free trade and minimal state intervention in business, but who of course also proclaim their support for individual freedom and apple pie. At the same time the label is claimed by modern Liberals who consider their social liberal approach to be closer to the founders of liberalism. Stating this in the intro, and moving detail about the free trade lot to the stub "Liberal theory of economics" would help to balance both articles. ...dave souza, talk 10:19, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I think this is exactly my point. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 10:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * But, that's not true that "the label is claimed by modern Liberals who consider their social liberal approach to be closer to the founders of liberalism," is it? I haven't seen any social liberal claim that label, and certainly not in any scholarly source. RJII 16:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * My view is that "classical liberalism" is before the split between forms of liberalism and contains elements of both. No classical liberals claim the name because they're all dead. Slizor 17:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You're making a fundamental error. Classical liberals are not all dead. They exist today. You're assumption that classical liberalism died a long time ago is what's causing a lot of problems with this article. It's not the case --classical liberalism is alive and well. Classical liberalism isn't confined to a certain time period in the past --it's a philosophy. If you accept that philosophy, you're a classical liberal. RJII 17:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * For a modern social (democratic) Liberal claiming that the label supports his position, see above and check out Graham Watson. Phrase intro to suit. ..dave souza, talk 17:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * So far, this is hearsay. I'd like to see a quote where Watson calls himself a "classical liberal." RJII 18:03, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not making a fundamental error at all - we have a difference of opinion. My opinion is that a) the influence of classical liberalism is such that no group of individuals can lay claim to it now b) that the philosophies that claim to be "classical liberalism" in the modern-day focus more on economics then on freedom - the central concern of classical liberals. Please also note my point above about Amy Sturgis. Slizor 18:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not denying that classical liberalism influenced social liberalsm --at all. Of course it has. I'm saying that social liberalism is not classical liberalism, and classical liberalism exists today as distinct from social liberalism. (About Sturgis, what does it matter? She's a PhD in intellectual history and has a well sourced article. Until anyone can find a more credible source for a defintion, that will have to do.) 18:07, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually that wasn't what I was saying - the influence of classical liberalism is beyond liberal philosophies. Because of your definition you discount important thinkers such as Bentham and Rousseau who, although not part of the dominant strain within classical liberalism, influenced the movement none-the-less. As for Sturgis, qualifications are not retroactive. Can we be honest here, can everyone state their political affliation? I am a socialist, I have no reason to try to co-opt the term. Slizor 18:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not "my" definition. It's a sourced definition, and generally the same definition I've seen everywhere. Bentham and Rousseau influenced liberalism, of course, but not classical liberalism. They're not classical liberals. They may have influenced some classical liberals, of course, causing them to steer away from classical liberalism and into social liberalism. But, they're not classical liberals. Classical liberalism is an individualist philosophy that advocates protections of individuals from the state and the will of the community. RJII 18:42, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

It is your definition, it is a poorly sourced definition and you really haven't been looking if you have seen it everywhere you've looked. What is your political affliation? Slizor 19:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
 * My political affiliation is clear, I am a liberal democrat, member of the Dutch social liberal party and a bureau member of the ELDR. (The last is the reason not to edit the entry on ELDR). My ideology is a combination of the classical liberal vision on individual liberty and rule of law, the economic liberal vison of a free market economy, the social liberal vision of community responsibility to ensure that everybody can be free. I agree with the Dutch euthanasia law, since it is completely voluntary, I am strongly in favour of gun control, since the availabilty of guns limits my freedom. Violence is a state monopoly to defend its citizens. I am strongly in favour of European integration to enable Europe to be an open and free market. etc. etc. My philop[sophy is influenced by Montesquieu, Kant, Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, but even more strongly by John Rawls. I am against economic liberals/libertarians monopolizing classical liberalis. I am a classical liberal too !!! Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 12:50, 1 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems quite odd and awkward for anybody modern to be claiming the rights to something classical. It seems that if we take into account everybody's POV, "classical liberalism" becomes just the same as "liberalism". That being the case, we should probably make this a short article ruminating briefly on how the term "classical liberalism" is used, then direct people to more information on the history of liberalism at liberalism, as well as linking to libertarianism. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 03:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * That was how it was originally before KDRGibby restarted this page. Slizor 18:04, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, let's move back towards that. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 19:28, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. I think at least one person here (it appears to be slizor) thinks that classical liberalism and social liberalism are the same thing. Why else would he deleted the statement that "classical liberalism is distinct from social liberalism"? RJII 20:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Classical liberalism and democracy
This article is horribly slanted in favour of economic factors. There's almost nothing on stuff like the rule of law or democracy. In fact, the article suggests that democracy is incompatible with classical liberalism, suggesting that a 'constitutional republic' is more in line with the classical liberal way of thinking, supplying some quotes and sources from certain thinkers outlining their dislike of democracy. This strikes me as more of the same libertarian POV which dominates the article. They don't like democracy, after all. Are the quotes really representative of classical liberalism as a whole, or have they just selective POV pushing? The article seems to suddenly jump to democracy being a classical liberal idea later on.

I've removed an erroneous link - the Federalist Papers link led to a site praising Ronald Reagan.--Nydas 11:46, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Samuel Freeman quote
I think we need to take out the Samuel Freeman quote claiming that libertarianism is not classical liberalism. The quote says: "that libertarianism’s resemblance to liberalism is superficial; in the end, libertarians reject essential liberal institutions." Notice that the quote doesn't say anything about classical liberalism. RJII 04:23, 3 April 2006 (UTC) I'll look up his classification of liberalism if you want - he includes classical liberalism and other strands of thought as "liberalism", in fact it may be quoted above on this talk page. The essential jist of his argument is that libertarianism is not a liberal (including classical liberalism) philosophy. He doesn't use the absolutely insane definition that you propose (where "liberal" is not a catch-all term.) Slizor 13:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

What the hell is wrong with you? That was clearly a bad faith edit (since you deleted two sources.) Freeman is talking about all forms of liberalism, including classical liberalism. The quote just says liberalism because it is part-way through an article where he has already defined his terms. His argument is that not only is classical liberalism and libertarinism different, but that libertarianism is no where close to being a form of the broad school that is liberalism. "It is commonly held that libertarianism is a liberal view.4 Also, many who affirm classical liberalism call themselves libertarians and vice versa. I argue that libertarianism’s resemblance to liberalism is superficial; in the end, libertarians reject essential liberal institutions. Correctly understood, libertarianism resembles a view that liberalism historically defined itself against, the doctrine of private political power that underlies feudalism." Stop requiring a huge weight of evidence to satisfy your crackpot views. Slizor 18:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC) It might even be bad faith to dispute this citation. It is clear what Freeman meant. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 20:28, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Milton Friedman quotes
There are two identical Friedman quotes in two consecutive sections. Excessive, no?--Nydas 08:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I've removed the first Friedman quote and removed some poorly constructed and/or incorrect sentences in the rest of the section. From what I can tell, there were no minimum wages in the 19th Century. If anyone thinks that the Friedman quote should be in the first section and not the second, edit away. The section's still not good or informative, though. Is the one paragraph economic history of the Industrial Revolution reliable? Is the one paragraph political history any better?
 * Also removed Marketization from the see also section - it's a seldom-used term that is already amply covered by the other links.--Nydas 12:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

slizor removed note that classical liberalism is not social liberalism
Slizor, it's really interesting that you removed the note that "Classical liberalism is distinct from socialism, although it has influenced the latter." Can you explain why you removed that? Your position is not that social liberalism and classical liberalism are the same philosophy is it? RJII 17:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Easy, I think it is worth telling people what classical liberalism is, rather than what it is not. It was also quite ugly, crude and blunt and already has a section (poorly constructed) on it. Slizor 17:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it needs to be in the intro. Apparently, there are some people that don't realize that classical liberalism is its own philosophy. Apparently, some try to equate it with social liberalism when it's not the same thing. RJII 17:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Firstly, who does that? Secondly, some people think that classical liberalism is an ahistoric ideology with the end result something like neo-classical economics or libertarianism when it is clearly not. SHould that be included at the start? Slizor 18:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Apparently, you. What source do you have the claim classical liberalism only applied to a specific time period? You're still not understanding that classical liberalism is its own philosophy. You can be a classical liberal today. RJII 18:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * For reasons relating to my mental health and my 56k modem I will provide you with similar evidence to that which you have provided me with, namely - . Stop asking for more than you give. BTW, as I have said numerous times before I understand your argument, I just disagree with it. There is no blinding truth to your view, it is simply an opinion (actually, more like a belief.) Slizor 18:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

It is clear that there are different views on what classical liberalism is. The Encyclopedia Brittanica doesn't even have an article on it. It buses the tem in the main article on liberalism in the meaning of early liberalism. Libertarians and affilliated introduced the term again to label their ideology as a continuum of early liberalism. That is the point where we do not agree. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 20:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

The very start
It makes sense to do what has been done, but I think it needs work and needs to be put in far greater prominance.....if people think it should be accepted. One of the problems with this is that not only is the term being coverted by neoliberals, but also by libertarians - which view do we write the article on? There are far too many views on what classical liberalism is to just give up and decide on the one that the article is already ridiculously biased towards. Slizor 18:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Will you acknowledge that a person can be a classical liberal today? RJII 18:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I will acknowledge that a person can think that they are a classical liberal today. Slizor 18:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * LOL. So, you truly don't acknowledge that it is a philosophy. You think the term stricly refers to a specific time period. That's not the case at all. Classical liberalism is the philosophy itself. Your confusion is probably from the term "classical." If they decided to call the philosophy something else, we wouldn't be having this problem. RJII 18:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it is a time specific classification of a broad group of thinkers who advocated roughly (very roughly) similar ideas. Some of these ideas lead to, or influenced, Modern Liberalism, Social Democracy, Democratic Socialism, Popularism, etc, etc. Some other ideas lead to, or influenced, neo-classical economics, neoconservatism, libertarianism, minarchism, etc, etc. YOUR confusion stems from calling it an "ism", which implies a coherant ideology, which it was not. Oh, and libertarian propaganda, that seems to have confused you too. Slizor 18:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * How do you explain this statement: "Modern adherents of classical liberalism often ground their defense of minimal government on what they take to be a minimal moral basis." (Alan Ryan, Liberalism) Classical liberalism is understood to be the philosophy itself.  Convinced yet? RJII 18:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It's easy to explain - Ryan thinks that classical liberalism is an ahistoric philosophy. I understand that people think that and the view should be included on the page, but I (and many academics) reject that view. BTW: If you really wished to get into it the guy doesn't actually argue (in that quote) that classical liberalism is around today, but that there are modern adherants of it. Since it is usual academic pratice to seperate usage of a phrase by time periods (as ideologies can stay true to their principles but change according to a different environment) it is not inconcievable that he would call modern adherants of classical liberalism neoclassical liberals. Slizor 18:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about?? If someone is a "modern adherent of classical liberalism" that mean that they are a classical liberal. What what you, personally, call someone who has the same philosophy as someone you would call a classical liberal from the 18 century? What would his philosophy be called? RJII 18:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * If I advocated feudalism today I would be an neofeudalist. If I advocated classical liberalism today I would be a neoclassical liberal (a term, depending on your view of what classical liberalism was, which is used today to refer to modern adherants of classical liberalism.) Slizor 18:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * "Neoclassical liberalism" only gets like 130 hits on Google. "Classical liberalism" is the standard term. RJII 18:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe your google is broken....I got 166,000 (not to mention the fact that neo-classical liberalism is a term usually shortened to "Neoliberalism") and since when has google been the great store of academic phrases? Slizor 19:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * No, maybe you just don't know how to use Google. You have to put quotemarks around a mutiple word term, otherswise you're finding everything that has the word "neoliberal" OR "classical". Look:  And, neoliberalism is not the same thing as classical liberalism. It's its own philosophy as well. RJII 19:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Meh, my point about google not being the store of academic knowledge remains (plus, may I point out, that there are variations on "neoclassical" and "neo-classical".) Anyhow, I choose not to argue (nor have ever argued) that neoliberalism and classical liberalism are exactly the same. However, some people have argued that neoliberalism is a modern version of classical liberalism - it is the modern adherants version of classical liberalism.

I've just got to ask - who do you consider a classical liberal? You're not advocating a coherant view at the moment. Are you a libertarian? Slizor 20:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * My personal philosophy is not relevant. I consider Hayek and Friedman classical liberals. Classical liberalism is itself a libertarian philosophy. The classical liberal Marquis de La Fayette say in the French Declaration of the Rights of Man of 1789, "Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights." Who can deny that that's libertarian? Or, Thomas Jefferson, "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others." Anyone who has this philosophy, is by definition a libertarian. RJII 14:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


 * A libertarian, most likely yes. A Libertarian, no. Libertarian socialists could entirely agree with those views, those views do not have to accept the rest of the crap that is "Libertarianism". The thing is, you're ignoring important other elements within Classical Liberalism that disagrees with your version of it. For example (this is from the Rights of Man also) "A common contribution is essential for the maintenance of the public forces and for the cost of administration. This should be equitably distributed among all the citizens in proportion to their means." "Law is the expression of the general will." "Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be founded only upon the general good." It does rather appear that there are some communal concepts, doesn't it? "General good", "general will" proportional (i.e. progressive) taxation.
 * When I say "libertarian," I mean "libertarian" --not Libertarian. RJII 14:24, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Is Anarcho-Capitalism part of Classical Liberalism? Slizor 14:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I just took the book "Filosofen van het klassieke liberalisme" from my bookshelf. This book gives short biographies of classical liberals, which ends with WW I. It includes Spinoza, Bernard Mandeville, Jeremy Bentham, Hegel etc. I would day classical liberalism means here early liberalism. Most sources identifing libertarianism with classical liberalism have a libertarian or present-day classical liberal background. I am proud on my classical liberal roots, but I am a social liberal. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 20:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see a quote from that that says Bentham is a classical liberal. Yes, he was a liberal, but not a classical liberal. RJII 14:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * "Filosofen van het klassieke liberalisme", ed. by P.B. Cliteur, A.A.M. Kinneging and G.A. van der List, 1993 Kok Agora, Kampen/Telders Foundation; page 149-166. Philip Stokes: Filosofie. 100 essentiële denkers, p. 112 (Dutch translation, English: Filosophy. 100 Essential thinkers.) This last book does not use classical liberal but liberal and list as liberals Smith, Wollstonecraft, Paine, Bentham, Stuart Mill and Comte. Other liberals are listed under Empirists and idealists. The book does not make a distinction in the early liberals. The problem is that neo-classical liberals consider of the early liberals only those as classical liberals who fit in their present-day ideology. Thats the point I'm making now for some time, as do others, like Slizor. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 18:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, so it's not a source for Bentham being a classical liberal then. Bentham was a social liberal. "Classical liberalism" is an political ideology. Shouldn't those who use the term define the term? You can't make up your definition that's so broad that social liberals is the same thing as classical liberalism. Those are two distinct philosophies. The reason the term was created was to differentiate the minimal statist philosophy from social liberalism. "[Classical liberalism] is hostile to the welfare state; welfare states violate the principle that each individual ought to look to their own welfare, and frequently couch their claims in terms of the acheivement of social justice, an ideal to which classical liberals attach little meaning." (Alan Ryan, Liberalism in A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy) RJII 19:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * As you have access to that book I suggest you look at page 296 on Libertarianism and Liberalism. Slizor 12:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The first book was clear about it, listing Bentham as a classical liberal. I use the term too, so are other people. This is not a libertarian project, you don't own the term. Another source: Jasay : Classical liberals and political economists in the 19th century were divided in their views of the justification for economic intervention by the state. On the one hand, there were the followers of Jeremy Bentham and his theory of utilitarianism—James Mill, John Stuart Mill and the school of thought know as the Philosophic Radicals—who had an enormous impact on British political and economic reform throughout the 19th century. The Utilitarians believed that government intervention in the economy could be sometimes justified on the grounds that it improved the "happiness of the greatest number" of citizens. On the other hand, many classical liberals (like Herbert Spencer in England) and some Contintental political economists (like Bastiat and Molinari in France), although sometimes using utilitarian arguments preferred to ground their defence of individual liberty on ideas of natural rights and justice. Another source David M. Harts lectures on liberty lists under Key Moments in the Development of "Classical Liberalism" Bentham and the other philosophical radicals. See also The free dictionary, Anton Derks]: Op het eerste gezicht is dit vertoog verwant met de ideologie van klassieke liberale denkers en utilitaristen als Adam Smith en Jeremy Bentham., Ralph Raico in a Libertarian magazine Vrijbrief (translation in Dutch) etc. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 20:21, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I had no doubt that a source could be found saying he was a classical liberal (and they're wrong). If you want to add him, fine, because you have a source. But, I'll have to add sources noting that there's a dispute. There are sources that say he is not a classical liberal. 20:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

For me it is not about Bentham, it about your limitation of classical liberalism to those parts of early liberalism that are consistent with the neo-classical liberal view. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 11:23, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not about me or my opinion about what classical liberalism is. It's about how the sources present it. Classical liberalism is well-established to be an minimal statist philosophy. The term was coined for a reason --to differentiate from welfare liberalism. RJII 18:07, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

But that is the problem. Many sources, esp. American sources, use the word in this meaning. Other sources, maybe especially outside the US, present also the other meaning. This is not an American encyclopedia, this is a global English-speaking encyclopedia. The entry should take into account the diverse meanings. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 08:18, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

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

Key thinkers: Montesquieu, Wollstonecraft, Condorcet, Voltaire, Diderot...?
It's not a subject I know much about - actually, I'm not sure what the subject is - but I wondered what criteria were used to decide on 'Key Thinkers'? And why those above, for example, aren't included. Thanks. 165.165.209.213 23:00, 19 April 2006 (UTC)


 * They're probably not sufficiently popular with libertarians. This article is written by libertarians, for libertarians, in libertarian language. Crucial things like opposition to monarchy and seperation of church and state aren't even mentioned.--Nydas 07:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

So, please add it. The article shouldn't be about libertarians, but for all users. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 20:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * It's POV either way to say that "classical liberalism" is or isn't essentially the same thing as libertarianism. Hence, it would be best to make this article something sort like a disambiguation. - Nat Krause(Talk!) 23:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * From a formal Poly-Sci persepctive there is a great difference between Liberalism and Libertariansim. To say that they are the same is either dismissive or ignorant of the anarchist influences on Libertarian thought. TrulyTory 16:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Classical liberalism and democracy
The anti-democratic slant of this article is getting ridiculous. I find it hard to believe that the liberal revolutions of 1848 (and the tens of thousands who perished in them) were motivated by the desire for a 'constitutional republic'.--Nydas 08:00, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Classical liberalism opposes monarchy. That makes it republican. In a republic, the head of state is elected rather than a permanent ficture that is there by heredity. Contrast with constitutional monarchy. Both a constitutional republic and a constitutional monarchy can be a liberal democracy (if the monarchy has an elected parliament), but only the former type of liberal democracy is consistent with classical liberalism. Constititional liberalism is indeed liberal democracy, but a specific kind. But, it's certainly not pure democracy, which classical liberals strongly oppose. Pure democracy is where the popular vote makes law. Classical liberals feel this endangers individual liberty ("tyranny of the majority"), so they favor voting merely for electing representatives who then govern according to limits of constitutional law that protects individual liberty from the majority. RJII 15:30, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The idea that constitutional monarchy is incompatible with classical liberalism makes no sense. Unless you think that the 19th century Liberal party in the UK wasn't classically liberal.--Nydas 09:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Did Adam Smith, John Locke, Kant etc. all argue against a monarchy? Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 10:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

"Classical liberalism opposes monarchy. That makes it republican." Ahem... False Dilemma. Slizor 12:38, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Look at the sourced information in the intro: "Classical liberalism rejects many foundational assumptions which dominated most earlier theories of government, such as the Divine Right of Kings, hereditary status, and established religion, and focuses on individual freedom, reason, justice and tolerance" (Heywood, A. (1998) Political Ideologies: An Introduction, Macmillan Press page 27) RJII 15:37, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, Heywood might be wrong about that. Was your hero Adam Smith a republican. Did John Locke favour a republic? Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 16:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually it's my mistake - I added Divine right, hereditary status and established religion to that sentence a couple of days ago (copied from Liberalism). The reference does NOT refer to them. -- Nydas 18:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

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

As discussed more below, I would like evidence that prominent nonlibertarians use the term to describe modern libertarians. We know that libertarians use the term, but have no evidence of prominent nonlibertarians using it.

I don't think this is a POV issue so much as an evidence issue. Looking at the first two pages of google results, we only see libertarians using the term or (and the wikipedia with answers.com's copy of the wikipedia entry.) Kitteneatkitten 00:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Making the article neutral
I do not believe that calling libertarians "classical liberals" or calling early liberal figures "classical liberals" is neutral. I believe that there is a libertarian project to associate with and claim for themselves America’s Founding Fathers and other early liberal figures, and to dissociate modern liberals with these figures. Identifying both modern libertarians and early liberal figures as part of some continuous “classical liberal” tradition is part of this project. Whatever the merits of such a viewpoint, it is indeed a viewpoint and not a fact, and the Wikipedia ought to reflect this.

I also note and command the Wikipedia for noting “The Wikipedia project has a systemic bias that grows naturally out of the demographic of its contributors.” It has long been noted and documented that libertarians are far better represented on the Net then in the general population. For this reason we ought to be particularly concerned that Wikipedia articles, especially those about politics and intellectual history, do not reflect this heavily libertarian demographic.

Obviously sometimes when describing liberals of yore people have used the phrase “classical liberal” just as one might use the phrase to “classical music” to discuss music from a particular era. It is use of the phrase to describe modern libertarians, or to describe early liberals in a way that suggests that their views are consistent with those of modern libertarians, that is not neutral.

I would like RJII to cite a few examples of prominent non-libertarians using the term “classical liberal” to describe a modern libertarian figures. None of the references that contain a web link are references to "prominent non-libertarians using the term 'classical liberal' to describe a modern libertarian figures." It is only clear so far that libertarians think it is an appropriate word to describe themselves, not that it is in widespread use among non-libertarians.

I don't think you will be able to do this, the reason being that the term "classical liberal" as a description of modern libertarians is about as neutral as the use of the term "partial birth abortion." - Kitteneatkitten 21:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


 * So there's a "libertarian project" to disassociate modern liberals from classical liberals? As in a conspiracy of some kind? You've got to be kidding. "Classical liberalism" is a very common term for the political philosophy. It's not restricted to use by "libertarians." Why don't you try taking a look at the sources in the article? How about the two I recently sourced? Alan Ryan and Anthony Quinton. I don't know what their personal philosophy is. Maybe you should set out to prove that they're libertarians. I think anyone in a basic political philosophy course in college is taught about "classical liberalism." "Classical liberalism" and "modern liberalism" are two different philosophies. How about this definition I just pulled up ? Are the authors of that "Online Dictionary of the Social Sciences" (Robert Drislane, Ph.D. and Gary Parkinson, Ph.D) "libertarians"? RJII 00:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I found this definition which suggests that Libertarianism is not classical liberalism. Are the authors of that "Online Dictionary of the Social Sciences" (Robert Drislane, Ph.D. and Gary Parkinson, Ph.D)"neo-marxist revisionists" (as gibby used to say)? Slizor 11:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * What countries have come closest to classical liberalism?--Nydas 19:26, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I find it offensive that the first thing you do is accuse someone with whom you disagree of conspiracy theorizing. I would appreciate an apology. The effort of libertarians to wrap themselves up in the legacy of Jefferson and other early liberals by calling themselves "classical liberals" is no more a conspiracy than NARAL's attempt to get everyone to use the phrase "anti-choice" to describe those who want to ban abortion. They are both Orwellian attempts to manipulate the English language.

"Classical Liberal";;;;;;; is not a neutral term, and I do not appreciate you removing the FACT that it is primarily libertarians who use this term to describe modern figures, and replacing it with your OPINION that libertarians are "classical liberals." Given that jmabel has raised this issue months ago to no avail, I suggest that mediation would be futile, and we should proceed right to arbitration.

Agreed?

Kitteneatkitten 20:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This sounds kind of irrational to me. It seems to be common knowledge that there was a schism, during the "progressive era," between people who were actually liberal (I.E. Classical Liberals) and the people who are called "liberal" today.  In my mind, the term was hijacked, and I've seen more and more acceptance that it's true, from various sides.  For example, the "liberals" don't even seem to identify themselves as liberal any more, to a large degree.  The seem to like "progressive," which is of course an even more loaded term. What&#39;s the frequency, Kenneth? 03:55, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Further, this sounds like a pretty interesting link, in that context:


 * Google Directory on Libertarianism What&#39;s the frequency, Kenneth? 04:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You're the one that said there was a "libertarian project" going on, not me. And, for your information, I am not of the opinion that libertarianism is identical to classical liberalism. The sources in the article are not from libertarians, so stop making the bogus claim that the term is only, or primarily used, by libertarians. It is a neutral term commonly used by writers on political philosophy. "Classical liberalism" is a real philosophy. We can't take this to arbitration unless other dispute resolution processes have been tried first. RJII 21:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Editing suggestions
According to WP:NPOV all majority and significant minor points of view should be in the article. The content should be based on verifiable, reliable sources.

Are all major and significant minor views, supported by reliable sources, present in the article? FloNight  talk  06:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Flo, one POV dominates CL, and that is the libertarian view that the liberals of today, as WTFK says, have "hijacked" the word liberal from them.

That is their story, and they are unwilling to deviate from it, or even acknowledge that many people might disagree with their story.

The idea that it is in fact libertarians who are manipulating language by calling themselves "classical liberals" is nowhere in the article (as of now). And even if it were, the fact remains that libertarians are a tiny minority everywhere other than among cranky Internet users with lots of time on their hands, a demographic that is overwhelmingly libertarian.

Ok guys, I surrender in your little edit war. You are obviously are numerically superior here on the wikipedia, and have a lot more free time than me to devote to this topic. I will cease to edit this article pending the decision of the arbitration committee.

Flo, thank you for your intervention here. Please read the posts above starting with JMabel's and Slizor's. Their edits have simply been removed, just as mine have. Many people have asked for balance in this article already to no avail. My actual opinion is the whole article should be simply merged with the liberalism and libertarian articles.

I hope I can get your support in this arbitration. It is not a fact that libertarians, or any modern person, is a "classical liberal," nor is there any broad agreement what that term means. I Bill Clinton and those who favor universal healthcare are liberals whose views are completely consistentant with the broad ideology of early liberals, libertarians say those who wish to abolish public education, privatize the roads, and repeal the Civil Rights Acts that prevent people from being fired for their race or gender are classical liberals. There is no way to agree on this. I don't acknowledge that there is such a thing as "classical liberals" today, which is why I would like to see the article deleted.

The one issue that is a matter of fact here Flo is whether it is primarily libertarians who use the phrase "classical liberal" to describe modern figures. If you do a Google search for the word, you will see that this is the case, and I invite you to do so.

I think letting libertarians edit pages that deal with libertarianism is about as wise as letting scientologists have free reign over the Scientology pages. In both cases you have an extremely forceful minorty determined to impose their views over those who disagree. BTW, I do not mean by this analogy that libertarians are in any other way like Scientologists. Kitteneatkitten 09:00, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

See Webster's definition 2b, at www.m-w.com for the definition of liberalism which is embodied in "classical liberalism." The reason for the addition of the term "classical" is indeed because the people who call themselves liberal today did indeed "hijack" the term, which was meant as Webster indicated, but clearly does not describe liberals today. What&#39;s the frequency, Kenneth? 09:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Your view relies on an assumption of there being one definable idea that is "liberalism", which any person who has taken Political Philosophy 101 could tell you is not the case. "Classical Liberals" is a definition of a particular group of people whose views differ significantly from Libertarians even if, at first glance, they appear the same.

As for the intial question I would answer that major and minor views are represented in this article, but in a jumbled and confused way. Firstly there is the idea of neo-liberals (essentially the economists of the Austrian and Chicago schools) as classical liberals. Secondly, there is the idea of libertarians as classical liberals. And thirdly, the idea of classical liberals as the original liberals - whose work contains elements of both "negative" and "positive" liberty. The first view is represented in the main body of the article, as is the second. The third view is represented in the criticisms section (the part with the majority of sources.) The first and second views, to take their claims seriously, require a framework of right-wing thought and a poor generalised notion of who the classical liberals were and what they believed in. Slizor 11:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The use of "right-wing" in this context is inappropriate. Liberty transcends that one-dimensional analysis. The assertion of "negative" and "positive" liberties, however trendy, is absurd. There are no liberties which require special rights that only some people have or require the enslavement of others to fulfill them (two sides of the same coin), which is what so-called "positive" liberties imply. By the very context they are not "liberties." What&#39;s the frequency, Kenneth? 12:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hahaha, oh please. Go read MacCallum and possibly consider the idea that other people do not agree with your idea of private property and people's rights to it, then come back and talk to me about liberty. Right-wingers always seem to assume they are correct. Slizor 23:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Again, I'm going to ask: what countries have come closest to classical liberalism? The way the libertarians are spinning it, it seems like even 19th century liberal parties could not be classified as 'classical liberals'. They supported free trade, but they also helped pass laws restricting child labour and so on.--Nydas 13:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


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

Kitteneatkitten has filed an arbitration request advocating that the best "course of action is to merge the "classical liberalism" article with the articles on "liberalism" and "libertarianism." Apparently he doesn't think that "classical liberalism" is a real philosophy. RJII 16:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


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

Specific concerns
Could the regular editors of this article help me out by stating 2 or 3 specific parts of the article that are the source of this conflict. Then we can work on each of them. -- FloNight  talk  17:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it's more about the ariticle as a whole. Kitteneatkitten claims that "classical liberalism" is a "libertarian" term. But, the sources in the article (except for the libertarianism section), that use the term and define it, are not "libertarians" are far as I know. I've been adding sources to the article. It's not like I'm looking for "libertarians." I'm just coming across the term in articles and books about political philosophy. I was even taught about "classical liberalism" in Political Philosophy 101 by a self-described "communist" professor. The term to describe the philosophy is very common in political philosophy --it has nothing to do with being a libertarian. We all agree, correct? It seems Kitteneatkitten is the only one who thinks it's not a real term/philosophy. This is what he's doing to the article: RJII 17:50, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the term "classical liberal" should not have a seperate wikipedia entry.

The article should be merged with the articles on libertarianism and liberalism, where I am sure there is a good discussion of early liberal figures and links to each of their pages. If there is not already such a discussion now, the article on libertarianism can be changed to include a discussion of the fact that many libertarians also consider themselves "classical liberals," while another significant POV is that libertarians are not liberals of any sort.

Do others agree that the article should be merged? Kitteneatkitten 06:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * LOL. Good luck. RJII 06:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You really need to present evidence that the sources are libertarians. You're the one making the claim of this, so the burden is on you to show that they're "libertarians." RJII 06:52, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, please provide a source for your claim that "classical liberalism" means libertarianism. I disagree with that. RJII 07:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


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

RJII, please refrain from deleting sources. If you disagree with a source, please make your disagreement known on the talk page first. Kitteneatkitten 07:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't delete a source. I deleted this: A google search is not a credible source in accordance with Wikipedia policy. Please see our  [Wikipedia:Reliable_sources] policy. RJII 07:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Please provide a source for your claim that classical liberalism includes support for public education. It may be true that some classical liberals favor public education, but I don't know that that's part of the classical liberal philosophy as defined by scholars. Classical liberalism is not the entirety of beliefs of any particular person. It's a philosophy that may exist in part or in whole in any person. Note that some libertarians also favor public education. Philosophies overlap each other. Some who are regarded as being adherents of a particular philosophy even contradict each other. There is no brightline. It's not up to us, as editors to try to determine what dilineates the philosophies. That would be original research, and is contrary to Wikipedia policy. Rather, we have to rely on credible sources to define "classical liberalism," niko. RJII 07:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Again RJII, I ask you not to delete sources. If you disagree with them please first note this on the talk page for discussion. I did provide three sources, one of which you have deleted. It is not original research contrary to wiki policy to quote from books and historical sources. Your combativeness and source deletion, on the other hand, probably are violations. Jefferson and Paine, the two leading American liberal intellectuals from the founding era favored a policy, I believe the burden is on you to show that universal public education is not part of classical liberalism.Kitteneatkitten 08:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


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

Which I did, by quoting the two leading "classical" liberals of the late 18th century, which are certainly credible sources. Kitteneatkitten 08:35, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

You made the claim that part of the definition of classical liberalism includes "measures to prevent the concentration of private wealth" and provided this as a source: "Thomas Jefferson wrote to James Madison, “small land holders are the most precious part of a state. …The descent of property of every kind…to all children…is a politic(al) measure. Another means of…lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise." Read what I wrote above. You can't pick out certain things that people that have been called classical liberals have said unless what they have said aligns with how classical liberalism has been defined. Some of what they have said may not be consistent with classical liberalism as defined by scholars. What you're doing is "original research" --you're making up your own definition of classical liberalism by just picking out things that people who have been called classical liberalis have said. A classical liberal can of course say anything that could be out of character with classical liberalism as defined. You can't make up your own definition. That's not how Wikipedia works. You need to find a secondary source that says that classical liberalism includes "measures to prevent the concentration of private wealth." RJII 08:39, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

So, in defining Classical Liberalism, the views of classical liberals are ignored? Does the definition of the ideas precede the ideas themselves? Interesting use of logic there. Slizor 10:49, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * The views of an individual classical liberal or the classical liberls as a group are not ignored if there is a reliable source that links the classical liberals ideas with classical liberalism (or any other ideology of course). We can not make the link ourself. If we take the ideas of people and use them in an article to link it to an ideology, we are doing original research. That is the reason that we must use secondary sources instead of primary sources to make these points. It matters less whether the analysis is right or wrong, than if it is published in a reliable source. FloNight   talk  13:32, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Precisely. All we need to do is follow Wikipedia policy and source our material, instead of engaging in useless warring over each other's original research. RJII 15:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


 * RJII, you have made it perfectly clear in the past that any source that disagrees with your viewpoint is in the minority (despite the majority of reliable sources supporting my viewpoint.) Why is it that you now decide that sources are something to be valued? Slizor 16:30, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, why are you getting nasty with me? I've never said anything of the sort. Accept the Wikipedia policy on sourcing and "original research." Don't take it out on me. RJII 16:34, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Nasty? This is not nasty. What is nasty is that the page is a bloody mess and you are trying to defend a unsourced view against other sources, i.e. the wealth of sources I have already provided. Slizor 12:52, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia then just a page of libertarian propaganda? RJII and WTFK say that liberals have "hijacked" the work liberal because they have deviated from the beliefs of early liberals. I've shown the belief of early liberals includes a strong dose of utilitarianism in the form of economic egalitarianism and social spending on education.

Libetarians would like nothing better than to claim Thomas Jefferson for their own. But Jefferson would be disgusted at the far-right views of libertarians.

Let's review what is going on here. They want this page to define classical liberalism exactly the same as libertarianism, and then call men like Jefferson "classical liberals." This is a fraud. The impression left is that Jefferson was a libertarian when he wasn't.


 * Libertarianism is not identical to classical liberalism, but it's similar. Who can deny that this is the definition of libertarianism: "Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’, because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." -Thomas Jefferson. Or, "Liberty consists in the freedom to do everything which injures no one else; hence the exercise of the natural rights of each man has no limits except those which assure to the other members of the society the enjoyment of the same rights" -Marquis de La Fayette, 1789 By the way, it's common knowledge that the meaning of "liberal" evolved. RJII 15:41, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Can we actually stop editing this article?
The page at the moment is an absolute bloody mess. There is no even vague idea of structure and pretty much everything contradicts itself. We need to start from the start and do this again, if this should even be done. Slizor 12:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
 * It needs a top to bottom rewrite based on verifiable reliable sources, making sure that the majority and significant minority views are represented. It does not need to be done in that order but the introduction is a logical place to start. :-) IMO, the rewrite needs to be done on this talk page so all interested editors can give their opinion. Who wants to help? FloNight   talk  00:19, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it needs a major revert. Look at the version before people screwed it up: RJII 00:29, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, that is the libertarian version of the article. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 07:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The libertarian version? Like it or not, classical liberalism is very similar to libertarianism. There's no way to get around that. "Libertarian" is broader term that includes even philosophy that oppose the state altogether (also includes left libertarianism). But, I think classical liberalism is a form of libertarianism. RJII 15:26, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
 * that is because some of you messed up this page with poor interpretations and understandings of the meaning, economics, politics, and philosophy behind liberalism. And no, that is the correct version of it, not your modern revisionist version. (Gibby 11:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC))
 * Go away Gibby. We have an article to write and have no time for your childish antics. Slizor 14:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

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

intro
I went ahead and added Hayek as part of classical liberalism in the intro, since there are sources for it (e.g. "Classical liberalism is associated with John Locke, Adam Smith, Alexis de Tocqueville, and Friedrich von Hayek, Ryan). I haven't seen any source saying that classical liberalism only includes "early" liberals. If anyone wants to continue to make the claim that one defintion of classical liberalism refers only to "early liberals" then please provide a source. Also, Electionworld had a problem with the term "anti-statist." Being against statism doesn't necessarily mean being an anarchist. Statism is defined in Merriam-Webster as " concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government" I thought it was more precise than "minimal state" but I could take either one. RJII 16:58, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * See my remarks on April 6. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 19:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, and I don't see anything relevant there. You said something about Encylclopedia not having an entry on classical liberalism. But, what does that matter? Wikipedia has 10 times as many articles as that Encyclopedia. I gave you a credible source above for Hayek being included in classical liberalism but you deleted it. Why? RJII 19:45, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I meant this remark: I just took the book "Filosofen van het klassieke liberalisme" from my bookshelf. This book gives short biographies of classical liberals, which ends with WW I. It includes Spinoza, Bernard Mandeville, Jeremy Bentham, Hegel etc. I would day classical liberalism means here early liberalism. Most sources identifing libertarianism with classical liberalism have a libertarian or present-day classical liberal background. I am proud on my classical liberal roots, but I am a social liberal. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 20:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC). Another source: . But see also arguments of many of the editors above. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 19:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * That can just mean that's the theorists the book wanted to discuss. I've never seen a source that says classical liberalism ONLY applies to pre-20th century classical liberals. There are sources that do include Hayek. By the way, why are you delineating Hayek as a "libertarian"? Does he support drug legalization, etc? Here's what Encyclopedia Britannic says: " Later in the 1970s Hayek's monograph The Denationalization of Money was published by the Institute of Economic Affairs in London, one of the many classical liberal think tanks that Hayek, directly or indirectly, had a hand in establishing. And, " Hayek was endorsing free market economics and classical liberal political doctrines when many intellectuals regarded socialist and welfare state policies as providing the “middle way” between totalitarianism (especially in its communist or fascist forms) and the perceived failures of unfettered capitalism (particularly in the aftermath of the Great Depression)." I think the idea that classical liberalism just applies to a particular time period is very uncommon, indeed if it's even an idea published anywhere. RJII 19:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not delineating Hayek as a libertarian, i wrote e.g. the ideas of Friedrich von Hayek and libertarianism. Furthermore I am not saying that Hauek isn't a classical liberal, but early liberalism and modern laissez-faire liberalism are not completely identical. BTW, the book Filosofen van het hedendaags liberalisme list as contemporary liberals Hayek and Nozick. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 20:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well of course "modern laissez-faire liberalism" isn't identical. But, neither are the philosophies of early classical liberals identical among themselves. Like any political philosophy, it's a bit amorphous but with a few common themes uniting the philosophies of various theorists, and those common themes constitute classical liberalism. And, of course social liberalism overlaps in areas with classical liberalism and is itself amorphous with no two social liberals having identical philosophies. But, the philosophies themselves are ahistorical --they're merely a theme. About your book saying Hayek is a contemporary liberal, I can only assume that they mean he's a contemporary classical liberal. RJII 00:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * But that is exactly the point. Not for all early liberals/classical liberals the free market was of the upmost importance. I think you should try to find a copy of the books I mentioned (can you read Dutch). One is about classical liberals, the other is about contemporary liberals. The books use the first meaning of the term classical liberals. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 16:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I understand that, but "classical liberalism" is a philosophy. And, various early liberals can have some ideas that are not consistent with the philosophy called classical liberalism. Scholars have defined the philosophy by picking out a general consensus of viewpoints of theorists, and those secondary sources who define classical liberalism are what we have to reference. And, no I can't read Dutch. RJII 17:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * We are getting closer. Those early liberals that have some ideas that are not consistent with the philosophy you call classical liberalism are still considered classical liberals in the first measning of the word. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 21:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, but the article is "classical liberalism," not "classical liberals." RJII 21:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * But the ideas of these classical liberals are part of classical liberalism. I refer to my earlier remarks on the statements of Graham Watson. Do not monopolize classical liberalism as pure and solely laissez-faire liberalism. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 21:07, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, all the ideas of classical liberals are not classical liberalism. That's the point I'm trying to make. Any particular "classical liberal" may say something that is out of whack with classical liberalism. It's up to secondary sources to tell us what views of theirs are consistent with "classical liberalism." Classical liberalism is its own philosophy. Any particular "early liberal" may embrace that philosophy in whole or in part. We can't do original research here by picking out ideas from early liberals and saying it is part of classical liberalism. We can only rely on sources to tell us how classical liberalism is defined. RJII 02:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

So for you classical liberalism and early liberalism are not identical? Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 12:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes "early liberalism" is classical liberalism. If social liberalism existed at that time then we wouldn't call it classical liberalism because it wouldn't correspond with the definition of classical liberalism. Various early liberals had various positions, and I'm sure some of them contradicted each other. But, we we can't take those contradictions and say that that is classical liberalism. And, we can't take unusual positions that a few of them might of had and say that that is part of classical liberalism. You have to look at the positions that the early liberals had a consensus on. (not us, but the secondary sources, because original research is not allowed) That consensus of ideas would be classical liberalism. RJII 15:19, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

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

economic liberalism derives from ignorance on how liberalism developed and what it was. Liberalism encompased economics, philosophy, and political institutions like republican governments. It was not ONLY political and social. People started breaking it up when they started conflating liberalism with socialism and conservatism. (Gibby 12:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC))

Introduction (lead paragraph)
The Introduction (lead paragraph) of this article is a good place to start building consensus about the content of this article. I removed www.google.com/search classical+liberalism as a source and the text "primarily by libertarians" based on WP:NOR, WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:NPOV. The whole section needs a rewrite to make it represent all significant points of view in a neutral way based on verifiable, reliable sources. FloNight  talk  14:38, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I made a subpage with various definitions of the term Classical liberalism. Regular editors of this article and other interested users, please look at the list and add other definitions to fill in any gaps. We need to have definitions from every significant point of view. We are going to be developing this definition for days and maybe weeks, so there is no big hurry.

I would like to find definitions from as many different types of reliable sources as possible. Also we need to consider how the definition might have changed over time. I'm going to look through old texts to see if and how the term was commonly used in the past. FloNight  talk  17:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Great idea. That's what we did for the capitalism article by making an article on Wikiquote and it worked out pretty well. Like capitalism, I don't think there is too much variation in the definitions of classical liberalism so I think it should work out. Excellent work you did on that subpage so far. RJII 18:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Replacing this article with a redirect to libertarianism
Given that there are many sources that say the terms are used interchangably, but that libertarian is a far more common term and a less controversial word, this page should be replaced by a redirect to libertarianism.

FloNight, thank you for your efforts to salvage this whole mess, but I do not think you understand how and why this phrase is used. It is a propaganda phrase, like partial-birth abortion, and merely having an article under the heading, just as having a "partial birth abortion" article, expresses a viewpoint that is biased.

Zigzogger 02:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Sure, some use the terms interchangeably, but many don't think they are exactly the same thing. The most glaring reason is becuase libertarians include anarchists, whereas classical liberals don't. Also, Alan Ryan, professor of Politics at Princeton, says that "Contemporary Libertarians often claim that they are classical liberals. This is not wholly true." He points out that there is nothing in the philosophy of classical liberals regarding legalizing "prostitution, drug-taking, and unorthodox sexual activities." And also point out that libertarians view government as an "unnecessary evil", whereas liberals view government power as something to "be treated with caution." RJII

Many also don't think that anti-choice and pro-life are the same. Just as here, that doesn't mean a redirect is inappropriate. The main point is, it is a propaganda phrase and having any article about it fails the test of neutrality. Furthermore, there is no one accepted libertarian belief or set of beliefs Zigzogger 02:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it's not a "propaganda phrase." Never taken Political Philosophy 101? Everybody learns about "classical liberalism" in basic political philosophy classes. Even Encyclopedia Britannica explains "classical liberalism" in their liberalism article. Classical liberalism is what was called "liberalism" before the name started being applied to the philosophy that supports a welfare state. RJII 02:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Zigzogger, please respect the other editors of this article and revert the redirect. There was no consensus to merge these articles. FloNight  talk  03:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Zigzogger,this article created 16:08, October 12, 2001. This article is the oldest one that I have ever worked on. How many different editors do you think have worked on this article over the years? FloNight  talk  03:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


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

The schism between Ordoliberals and classical liberals is enough to warrant an article for classical liberalism, to provide historical context. Intangible 03:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * For example, they called Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek "paleoliberals", someone who held on to the traditional liberal idea of laissez faire. Hayek and Mises of course went to the United States after WWII, where Roosevelt already used the word "liberal" to enact socialist policies. Intangible 03:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Proposing structure across multiple articles
In my mind, the simplest and most neutral solution to all of this would be to confine classical liberalism to the period of its originators due to the disagreement throughout the liberal spectrum as to who is the rightful heir. Libertarianism, as the philosophy of the US Libertarian Party, etc, should be moved into an article named right-libertarianism, and structured as a "mirror", so to speak, for the article containing left-libertarianism. Each of these two articles will have sections explaning why they are the true heirs, in their opinion, to classical liberalism. I suppose modern liberalism and modern conservatism can do the same. All articles should also contain a section, or perhaps within the "rightful heirs section" I just described, a history of the evolution of the terms "liberal" and "libertarianism" ("libertarian" was coined by Bakunin's followers), briefly mentioning the controversy.

I am not sure what to do with the "libertarian" page, as to (probably the vast) majority of Americans, "libertarianism" is synonymous with right-libertarianism. I have heard the opposite is true of Europeans, but I cannot confirm that. Making it into just a placeholder page to direct people to either of the two philosophies (left- and right-) could be disconcerting, but I think could be a solution if done correctly.--Shotgunstockton 06:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * To "confine classical liberalism to the period of its originators" would be fine, but there is something that prevents that. Mainstream sources hold it to be an ahistoric philosophy that has experienced a revival --and Wikipedia has to represent the sources. Classical liberalism is the philosophy itself --not a specific time period. "Liberals" used to support laissez-faire and opposed the welfare state. When FDR, and a few others, redefined "liberalism," (Schlesinger, Arthur Jr, Liberalism in America: A Note for Europeans) people that were still calling themselves "liberals" were at a loss as to how to label themselves. So, they chose to call themselves "classical liberals." Others chose "libertarian." Here you can even see a "liberal" pondering over the dilemma in 1995:
 * "Many of us call ourselves "liberals," And it is true that the word "liberal" once described persons who respected the individual and feared the use of mass compulsions. But the leftists have now corrupted that once-proud term to identify themselves and their program of more government ownership of property and more controls over persons. As a result, those of us who believe in freedom must explain that when we call ourselves liberals, we mean liberals in the uncorrupted classical sense. At best, this is awkard, subject to misunderstanding. Here is a suggestion: Let those of us who love liberty trademark and reserve for our own use the good and honorable word "libertarian." (Dean Russell's article in the periodical Ideas on Liberty ) RJII 19:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't want to trade quotations, RJII. We are each surely capable of finding many quotations from notable people supporting any viewpoint of our choosing. There is debate, which I alluded to, over who best represents the thoughts of the classical liberals. Thomas Jefferson, for instance, favored progressive taxation. Adam Smith can be interpreted to have done the same. However, I surely don't want to get into the debate over who are the true heirs. It is an ungainly huge debate (as in breadth). I think it should be sufficient to say that because disagreement occurs at a susbtantial level, there must be merit to both sides. That's the spirit of my proposal. You feel that the right-libertarians today make the most compelling arguement, which is fine. However, NPOV is important, and views other than yours are not so in the minority that they can be ignored, or offhandedly dismissed. At the least, and I would be content with this, there should be the addition a small section briefly describing the arguments of modern liberals and left-libertarians as to why they are the true heirs, though primarily linking to articles where their arguments are explained further. And for the record, "libertarian" was coined by followers of Bakunin. If "liberal" is stolen, "libertarian" is equally so. --Shotgunstockton 06:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If you can find sources for such an argument, go for it. Put a section in. Just make sure it's sourced and not "original research." For example, pointing out that Smith favored progressive taxation and then YOU linking that to modern/social liberalism would be your own argument and therefore original research. It looks like you're new to Wikipedia, so I'm just informing you of the policy against "original research" in case you don't know. See WP:OR. RJII 06:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Weak opening, not borne out by citation
Leaving aside libertarianism, this article now begins:


 * Classical liberalism is a term used to describe the following:
 * the philosophy developed by early liberals from the Enlightenment until John Stuart Mill
 * the philosophy developed by early liberals from the Age of Enlightenment until John Stuart Mill and then revived in the 20th century by Friedrich von Hayek and Milton Friedman.

…and cites Girvetz, Harry K. and Minogue Kenneth. Liberalism, Encyclopedia Britannica (online), p. 16.

However, Britannica says that classical liberalism split into two strands "the first a narrowly political doctrine emphasizing the importance of limited government, the other a philosophy of life emphasizing individual autonomy, imagination, and self-development." In other words, the two strands identified here do not correspond to the two strands mentioned in Britannica, and Britannica says nothing about the (to my thinking, dubious) claim that von Hayek and Friedman qualify as "reviving" classical liberalism (as against appropriating the term). Effectively, the authority of Britannica is being falsely claimed.

To tell you the truth, I didn't get any further than the lead: this was enough to tell me that I would not consider this article credible. - Jmabel | Talk 05:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well Hayek can be called a classical liberal, but with Friedman I definitely have my doubts. Intangible 06:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I just checked. It's definitely in the source. Here is a quote from the Encyclopedia Britannica Online article: " But modern liberalism was unprepared to cope with the slowing of economic growth that gripped most Western nations beginning in the mid 1970s. By the end of that decade economic stagnation, combined with the cost of maintaining the social benefits of the welfare state, pushed governments increasingly toward politically untenable levels of taxation as well as mounting debt...With modern liberalism seemingly powerless to boost stagnating living standards in mature industrial economies, the more energetic response to the problem turned out to be a revival of classical liberalism. The intellectual foundations of this revival were primarily the work of the Austrian-born British economist Friedrich von Hayek and the American economist Milton Friedman. One of Hayek's greatest achievements was to demonstrate, on purely logical grounds, that a centrally planned economy is impossible. He also famously argued, in his work The Road to Serfdom (1944), that interventionist measures aimed at the redistribution of wealth lead inevitably to totalitarianism. Friedman, as one of the founders of the modern monetarist school of economics, held that the business cycle is determined mainly by the supply of money and by interest rates, rather than by government fiscal policy—contrary to the long-prevailing view of Keynes and his followers. These arguments were enthusiastically embraced by the major conservative political parties in Britain and the United States, which had never abandoned the classical liberal conviction that the free market, for all its faults, guides economic policy better than governments do. (It's on page 16) Jmabel, please be more careful about what you claim. You didn't read the article so you didn't know what was in it. C-Liberal 12:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * What the Encyclopedia Britannica claims here is incorrect. Ludwig von Mises already proved in 1920 that a socialist economy cannot calculate (economic calculation debate). If there is one person whose work can be used to base this article on it is von Mises. "These arguments were enthusiastically embraced by the major conservative political parties in Britain and the United States, which had never abandoned the classical liberal conviction that the free market, for all its faults, guides economic policy better than governments do." This is incorrect, those conservative parties did find fault with the free market, but they did like to privatize national economies. I suggest finding a different reference than the Encyclopedia Britannica one. Intangible 12:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Encyclopedia Britannica is a good mainstream reference. It's about as NPOV as you're going to get. And even if you disagree with a credible source it's still a source. Are you telling me Ronald Reagan found fault with the free market? He engaged in massive deregulation and reduction of taxes, and extolled the virtues of laissez-faire. Check out this internview with Reagan where he answers the question "REASON: Are there any particular books or authors or economists that have been influential in terms of your intellectual development?" with "REAGAN: Oh, it would be hard for me to pinpoint anything in that category. I’m an inveterate reader. Bastiat and von Mises, and Hayek and Hazlitt–I’m one for the classical economists"   C-Liberal 12:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * No budgets were cut, deficits were created, debt skyrocketed, Social Security was fiscalized (a huge tax increase). That goes against everything Bastiat, Mises, Hayek or Hazlitt have ever written. Intangible 12:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * But look at what that debt was spent on. It was spent on defense. Taxation and debt for defense is consistent with classical liberalism. Defense is a legitimate function of government, for classical liberals. If it were spent on increasing welfare, it would be a different story. Reagan cut welfare programs. By the way, if you read on in the Britannica article it does not say that conservatives and classical liberals are exactly the same. It says there were different than classical liberals, but influenced by them in opposing the welfare state and supporting deregulation of the market. C-Liberal 12:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Classical liberalism might imply spending money on defense, however spending on defense does not imply a form of classical liberalism. Intangible 13:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. But, nobody is claiming that conservativism is a form of classical liberalism but that their economic policy is influenced by classical liberalism. That's hard to deny in my opinion. C-Liberal 13:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, it seems to me that Reagan was engaged far more in military Keynesianism than classical liberal "defense", a "spend-up", rather than a "build-up". - Jmabel | Talk 22:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

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

definition #2 deleted
It did read: "the philosophy developed by early liberals from the Age of Enlightenment until John Stuart Mill from the Age of Enlightenment until John Stuart Mill and then revived in the 20th century by Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman"

This does not make sense. If I knew nothing about the subject I would think from reading this that Bentham and Mill developed an abstract philosophy which eventually died out only to be revived by Hayek and Friedman. Kitteneatkitten 02:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Redirect
I would again like to propose, now that the malicious libertarian editor RJII has ceased haunting this article after being permanently banned from wikipedia, that this article be replaced with a redirect to libertarianism. The fact that libertarians like calling themselves "classical liberals" does not mean that it is a distinct ideology, rather than a synonym for libertarianism that they like to use to associate themselves with the great figures of liberalism from history.

The existence of this article is as silly as if I called myself a Historic Genius, and then started a category here calling myself and my modern friends Historic Geniuses, in addition to Newton and Edison.

Note that one of the links at the godawful end of this godawful article is a Randian group that has a list of liberals, the best two of which are Ayn Rand and Aristotle. See http://www.liberalinstitute.com/individuals.html

Can we all agree the Randian page is ridiculous? The "Classical Liberalism" article, however, is virtually the same other than its pretension to objectivity.

The fact this article is so awful (please feel free to disagree and tell me its great!) despite so many thousands of edits and discussions is good evidence that it should not even exist in the first place.

My position is that that a NPOV article called "Classical Liberalism" is impossible because any article whatsoever legitimizes the libertarian use of the term. We might as well set up articles called "the death tax" and "the anti-choice movement."

Kitteneatkitten 02:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, I have to say this, although I'm not EVEN going to get into this battle. There are plenty of conservatives, both "neo" and otherwise, who claim the appellation "classical liberal."  I think "classical liberal" should be on its own page because the term is used enough, and it really *isn't* the same thing as "libertarian."  Libertarians are classical liberals, but all classical liberals are not libertarians.  No, I don't have sources to back that up right now, which is why I said I'm not fighting this battle.  I'm just saying what I know to be true.  I also really don't see "classical liberal" as a loaded term (as you said with "death tax" or "anti-choice") at all.
 * I'm just saying this because as soon as you have a redirect or something saying it's the same as Libertarianism, someone's going to demand it be a separate article. And again, there are people who may want to know exactly what a "classical liberal" is supposed to mean.  If it's the same to some people, put a note in there that "some consider the term to be interchangeable with Libertarianism" or something.  Just my 2 cents, FWIW.  ;-)  --Beth C. 07:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

classical liberalism is not a NPOV issue. Go read some books on the subject if it confuses you. Mrdthree 15:57, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It should not be redirected. This looks like a pretty good article to me. It looks pretty well sourced. I think right libertarianism and classical liberalism are pretty much the same but libertarianism may be a little more tending toward anarchism. Also libertarianism includes left libertarianism which would not be classical liberalism. [LowBlow]

I think there is alot to work out in the classification of types of liberalism. I think that a consensus should be built about the types of liberalisms.

Edit War, ending in surrender and retreat
I added a clarification to one of the definitions of classical liberalism, with a source, but I was reverted twice, so I gave up.

Did someone want to discuss my changes? I'm willing, despite what Jim said on my talk page. --Uncle Ed 14:15, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * What referencing your talk page has to do with anything other than offering a sideshow for the passers-by is not clear, but hey, if doing so makes you happy, go for it.
 * In any case, The inclusion of a portion of the Declaration of Independence added nothing to the article -- in fact, it broke up the flow of the paragraph, as did the reworking/rewording of the autonomy/laissez-faire sentence. Besides, This is an international wiki, not just an American wiki.
 * If you want something from the Declaration of Independence in the article, why not start a section on famous documents espousing classical liberal policies? (Make sure you include La Déclaration des droits de l'Homme et du citoyen).   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  15:52, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I will, if you'll collaborate. --Uncle Ed 15:15, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The French Republic loses alot of liberal credibility after Napoleon declares himself 'emperor'. Mrdthree 16:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The (First) French Republic ceased to be even nominally a republic when Napoleon declared himself 'emperor'. The slow undermining of its credibility as a republic certainly begins no later than the coup of 18 Brumaire, but it had lost quite a bit of its credibility prior to that. As Napoleon himself apparently said in the course of the coup, "The Constitution! You yourselves have destroyed it. You violated it on 18 Fructidor; you violated it on 22 Floreal; you violated it on 30 Prairial. It no longer has the respect of anyone." But this does not particularly reflect on the Déclaration, which, unlike the U.S. Declaration of Independence, continues to be part of French law in the current (Fifth) French Republic. - Jmabel | Talk 22:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Definitions of classical liberalism
Several months ago while mediating a dispute about this article, I started a subpage with various online sourced definitions of classical liberalism. User:FloNight/classical liberalism Introduction (lead paragraph). FloNight  talk  16:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Nice work.Mrdthree 16:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * A lot of these definitions are superfluos to one another. Alas... Intangible 22:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Good use teh overlapping info to make a consensus definition because Slizor wants to contest reference #2 which is the basis of the current definition.Mrdthree 03:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The second explanation of the term given at the top of the article (the one that mentions Hayek and Friedman) is to Britannica's pay site. Could someone with access to that site please provide the precise quotation? It's not at all clear what portion of this is Britannica and what portion is someone's extrapolation. In particular, it is not clear to me whether the cited article even explicitly mentions "classical liberalism", Hayek, and Friedman in what is clearly a single context. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:20, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You already asked that. Look up above for the big block of text that I cut and pasted here from that site. It says "With modern liberalism seemingly powerless to boost stagnating living standards in mature industrial economies, the more energetic response to the problem turned out to be a revival of classical liberalism. The intellectual foundations of this revival were primarily the work of the Austrian-born British economist Friedrich von Hayek and the American economist Milton Friedman." C-Liberal 15:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Problem with FloNight's Sources
As I have said here many times, "classical liberal" as applied to a modern figure, is a bit of libertarian cant, used almost exclusively by libertarians. FloNight's sources are nearly all such libertarian sources. There should not be any article on Wikipedia called "classical liberalism."

Also, Amy Sturgis's college student essay is not an encyclopedic source.Kitteneatkitten 20:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)


 * What would you have someone call a supporter of a classical liberal figure's philosophy (similarly a supporter of an Aristotelean philosophy)? Mrdthree 02:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * An interesting question. If you mean an "early liberal's philosophy," It depends on what person or policy. A strong supporter progressive taxation and public education like Jefferson would probably best be called a liberal in the USA and a social democrat Europe.
 * Please sign in. when making comments. Perhaps a better semantic game is for me to sy that given Jefferson is a founder of the US someone that supports his Philosophy would be called an ultra-conservative.Mrdthree 17:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

A supporter of Marx, an important early liberal, would best be called a socialist or a Marxist. A supporter of Burke would best be called a conservative or a paleoconservative.Kitteneatkitten 23:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Please find a reference where Marx refers to himself as a liberal.Mrdthree 17:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

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

Did some work on the thinkers
Even if we can't agree what Classical Liberalism is, we can at least work on the parts of the page that don't require us to. I really don't think the thing at the top is helping. Slizor 12:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This again shows while this entire article should be merged with "libertarianism." Since the phrase "classical liberal" has become a bit of libertarian cant, the libertarians will not tolerate figures from history who were regarded widely regarded as liberals in their time, but were clearly not libertarians. I am thinking Burke, Marx, Malthus, Keynes, Bentham, Dewey, Roussau, Teddy Roosevelt, Russell, Marat, etc.

Furthermore, Bastiat's writings, in his own era, were considered reactionary, not liberal. His attacks on Montesqueue and his call for the abolition of public education are examples. He also attacked the July Revolution, which was considered to be a liberal revolution.

The only reason to include Bastiat on this list is if we are simply going back in time and looking for libertarian-sounding writers. If we want a lot of liberal thinkers in history, then Bastiat is out, and Malthus, Bentham, Marx, and Dewey are in.

Once again, I would like to ask people here if they would support merging this article with "libertarianism." Kitteneatkitten 05:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


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

Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive. He was a nationalist and a bit of a socialist. Not a liberal. Keynes was a liberal after the shift took place. Bentham was a liberal, but by no means nearly as close to what Americans would call a liberal today. Bastiat was most certainly a liberal capitalist. He was amazed at how trade improved the welfare of people and how little people recognized its effects. Don't mistake the belief in limited government intrusion to correct externalities for modern liberalism.(CosmopolitanCapitalist 06:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC))

With regards to the bit at the top.
The two definitions at the top of the page make no mention of Libertarianism. If this is the case and people accept these views can we please purge the Libertarian POV from the page? Slizor 12:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * What libertarian POV? C-Liberal 15:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You haven't noticed? Libertarian and Libertarianism has 18 uses on a page that is apparently not about it. Slizor 12:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * You will never be able to get rid of the libertarian POV, because the mere existence of this article presumes that the libertarian claim there was ever some "tragic break" in the history of liberal thought, in which modern liberals departed from the views of so-called "classical liberals. Kitteneatkitten 05:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * But there was such a break. It's commonly accepted among scholars. The meaning of the term was redefined (at least in America). Read this article by an expert on the history of liberalism, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. (who is hardly a libertarian) in Liberalism in America: A Note for Europeans from The Politics of Hope, Riverside Press, Boston, 1962. He says, "When a laissez-faire policy seemed best calculated to achieve the liberal objective of equality of opportunity for all -- as it did in the time of Jefferson -- liberals believed, in the Jeffersonian phrase, that that government is best which governs least. But, when the growing complexity of industrial conditions required increasing government intervention in order to assure more equal opportunities, the liberal tradition, faithful to the goal rather than to the dogma, altered its view of the state. The process of redefining liberalism in terms of the social needs of the 20th century was conducted by Theodore Roosevelt and his New Nationalism, Woodrow Wilson and his New Freedom, and Franklin D. Roosevelt and his New Deal. Out of these three great reform periods there emerged the conception of a social welfare state, in which the national government had the express obligation to maintain high levels of employment in the economy, to supervise standards of life and labor, to regulate the methods of business competition, and to establish comprehensive patterns of social security..." Or, here is another example from William J. Novak.....The Not-So-Strange Birth of the Modern American State: A Comment on James A. Henretta's "Charles Evans Hughes and the Strange Death of Liberal America", Law and History Review, Volume 24, Number 1, Spring 2006): "What explains the dramatic transformation in liberal ideology and governance between 1877 and 1937 that carried the United States from laissez-faire constitutionalism to New Deal statism, from classical liberalism to democratic social-welfarism? That question has preoccupied legions of historians, political-economists, and legal scholars..." C-Liberal 05:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Neither of those sources say there is a break, both of them say there was an evolution. Slizor 22:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Into socialism maybe. See the 1927(!) book by Ludwig von Mises, Liberalism . Intangible 22:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Mises writes: "John Stuart Mill is an epigone of classical liberalism and, especially in his later years, under the inﬂuence of his wife, full of feeble compromises. He slips slowly into socialism and is the originator of the thoughtless confounding of liberal and socialist ideas that led to the decline of English liberalism...In reading the more recent political literature in English, one must not ignore the fact that in England today the word “liberalism” is frequently understood as denoting a moderate socialism." Intangible 22:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Very funny. Well whatever you want to call it, the meaning of liberalism changed. C-Liberal 05:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)


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

Oh we could add more to the confusion, because socialism was originally envisioned to be limited central government where people were free to socialize in small communities and develop their rules and policies how they see fit.

Whether or not the reclaiming of liberalism is to be deplored or not is not the point of this article.(CosmopolitanCapitalist 04:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC))

Here is an example of discussion of the evolution of the term liberal written by non-libertarians (you need to have a google books sign in). Short summary is protoliberalism-->constraints on king; classical liberalism--> political authority springs from the individual and not the king or state. Split into social liberalism and conservative liberalism; social liberalism advocates strong democratic mechanisms and welfare. Conservative liberalism believes in constraining democratic mechanisms by cultural traditions and institutions. neoclassical liberalism is reactionary to social and conservative liberalism in that it argues for economic liberalism, but otherwise tends toward conservative liberalism (applied to american politics, democratic-republican party splits into democratic and republican parties which, using international terminology evolve into social and conservative liberal parties). In this broad international sense you are a liberal if you dont believe in authoritarian governments. There is a liberal book out about classical liberalism too, I forget the title; its theme is that classical liberals are closer to social liberals than conservative liberals or neoclassical liberals. Mrdthree 05:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC) Of course I should mention I dont consider myself expert on liberalism etymology I have read a little. Mrdthree 15:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Classical Liberalism and Modern Liberalism
"The qualification "classical" was added to distinguish this early conception of liberalism from the modern American/progressive interpretation. This article's purpose is to educate the reader on the distinction not to dictate which definition of the word Liberal is correct. The terminology is most applicable in the United States, since in much of Europe, "liberalism" does not refer to the modern American social welfare variant."

Can you please source this? Hopefully from some European source. I would say that it is called classical liberalism because it is how Liberalism was and no longer is. Slizor 11:21, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The first sentence is just common sense, but I don't think it would be too hard to find a source for that. About the European usage of the term. Here are sources: According to Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. (writing in 1962), "Liberalism in the American usage has little in common with the word as used in the politics of any European country, save possibly Britain." (Schlesinger, Arthur Jr, Liberalism in America: A Note for Europeans from The Politics of Hope, Riverside Press, Boston). According to Girvetz and Minogue writing in Encyclopædia Britannica, "contemporary liberalism has come to represent different things to Americans and Europeans: In the United States it is associated with the welfare-state policies of the New Deal program of Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt, whereas in Europe liberals are more commonly conservative in their political and economic outlook." (Girvetz, Harry K. and Minogue Kenneth. Liberalism, Encyclopædia Britannica (online), p. 1, retrieved June 19,2006) C-Liberal 23:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC) When you say you think it is called classical liberalism because it is how liberalism was and no longer is, I don't see how that's any different from what it says except for it goes on to say the essential difference. C-Liberal 23:23, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Slizor, let us put aside your burning desire to re-write the dictionary for a moment and think logically. Why would something aquire the lable Classical before its title. As you admit yourself the term liberalism no longer means what it once ment...at least to Americans. Then logically the addition of classical to the term liberalism would reflect the very outcome you just stated above. You've said it yourself. Please explain how you can logically delete it if you subconsiously admit its presence and meaning? (CosmopolitanCapitalist 20:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC))

I can logically delete the offending paragraph because it is ridiculously Americo-centric. "Modern Welfarist" Liberalism was started in Britain (which is part of Europe....if you hadn't realised)and a large number of European Parties are Modern Liberal parties. So the sentence about Europe is wrong (whatever Americans think.) The paragraph assumes the continuation of the ideology, whereas (as has been argued repeatedly) it has died out. Also, who "added" Classical to it? Did it not acquire the title by default? The paragraph appears to suggest that it was through concious effort. Slizor 12:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Where is it "argued repeatedly" that classical liberalism has "died out"? I haven't seen a source say that anywere. I can attest that it hasn't died out. I'm a classical liberal. C-Liberal 16:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Search through the history, I'm tired of having the same debates over and over again with people who claim the title classical liberal. Slizor 12:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Odd remark
From the article: "This article's purpose is to educate the reader on the distinction not to dictate which definition of the word Liberal is correct." As against other Wikpedia articles whose purpose is to bludgeon the reader into accepting a particular way of seeing things? - Jmabel | Talk 21:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I removed it. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 21:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Definition of Classical Liberalism
The two sources used consisted of: 1. A college student's essay posted to the web (now a dead link) 2. A definition by an ideologue who writes for the biased Cato Institute. The other problem with this citation is that it is very obscure and not available on the Internet.

I removed these and would like to see a better source for the definition the entry uses (which I have not changed). Kitteneatkitten 23:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Those sources are fine, so I restored them. Just because an essay is written by a college student, it doesn't make it illegitimate, so long it was published. It was published by Locksmith Institute. I did some checking and it has been cited in other published works (such as in Legal Aspects of Privatisation, Universal Publishers), so it's fine. The other source is one I put in. There is no problem with it. It's published by a reputable publisher. Just because it's not on the internet, it doesn't make it illegitimate. Go to the library if you need to check up on it. If we wrote articles only using sources that were on the internet, they would be some pretty bad articles. There is very little information on the internet. That's what Wikipedia is for...to bring information forth. C-Liberal 03:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * My problem with the citations is that they are of dubious value. Amy Sturgis's undergraduate essay, as far as I can tell, was not published except to the extent that her undergraduate college put it up on their website (and it doesn't appear to be there anymore. Kitteneatkitten 01:44, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * "Not on the Internet" should not be a problem. But weak citation from dubiously reliable sources should be. - Jmabel | Talk 04:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


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

Merger with Libertarianism
I propose that this article be merged with Libertarianism. "Classical liberal" is nothing more than a propaganda word that libertarians use to claim some of the greatest thinkers in West for themselves by calling both these figures and themselves "classical liberal."

If the two are not the same, as I say they are, I would like someone to post or link to a source that distinguishes them. Kitteneatkitten 00:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Why don't you read the "Classical liberalism and libertarianism" section? There is a source that says they're different: "Alan Ryan, professor of Politics at Princeton, argues that the claim from "contemporary libertarians...that they are classical liberals...is not wholly true. There is at least one strain of libertarian thought represented by Robert Nozick's Anarchy, State and Utopia that advocates the decriminalization of 'victimless crimes' such as prostitution, drug-taking and unorthodox sexual activities. There is nothing of that in John Locke or Adam Smith." C-Liberal 03:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I can probably find some more sources that say they're different, but are you going to delete them because they're not on the internet (like you did above)? C-Liberal 03:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Lots of non-internet sources are fine, but the one I deleted was very obscure and by a suspect (as in paid by Cato) author. Kitteneatkitten 01:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The view that classical liberalism actually existed is held by non-libertarians, too. In Andrew Heywood's Political Ideologies (2003) it states (p. 91): Libertarianism is sometimes distinguished from liberalism on the ground that the latter, even in classical form, refuses to give priority to liberty over order. Also, Roger Scruton's A Dictionary of Political Thought (1996) states (p. 315): It [Libertarianism] should be distinguished from classical liberalism, which merely emphasizes rights and liberties against the sovereign power and defends the free market only as part of the right of private property and not as the ruling principle of all social order.--Johnbull 03:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Johnbull, do you feel that this article as it stands observes that distinction? Because I see it as trying to have this both ways. - Jmabel | Talk 04:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the section "Classical Liberalism" and Libertarianism provides the two view points that there are people who believe they are the same thing and people who believe they are separate, although I don't think the section as it is details the distinctions between the two ideologies sufficiently.--Johnbull 04:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think there's a consensus either way. So it's probably just going to have to show arguments from both sides in that section. The rest of the article is sourced not according to what "libertarianism" is, but what "classical liberalism" is. That is, the sources are explicitly referring to "classical liberalism." C-Liberal 04:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Honestly, what I think happened is that when the meaning of "liberalism" changed in the U.S. and started referring to welfare-state policies, some of the old liberals chose to call themselves "classical liberals" and others chose to call themselves "libertarians." I think it's a simple as that. Here is a traditional liberal in 1955 pondering on what to call himself: "Many of us call ourselves "liberals," And it is true that the word "liberal" once described persons who respected the individual and feared the use of mass compulsions. But the leftists have now corrupted that once-proud term to identify themselves and their program of more government ownership of property and more controls over persons. As a result, those of us who believe in freedom must explain that when we call ourselves liberals, we mean liberals in the uncorrupted classical sense. At best, this is awkard, subject to misunderstanding. Here is a suggestion: Let those of us who love liberty trademark and reserve for our own use the good and honorable word "libertarian." (Dean Russell Who is a Libertarian?, Ideas on Liberty, May 1955) That article may in fact be the origin of the word libertarian being applied to traditional (classical) liberalism. And it looks like the term "classical liberalism" wasn't invented yet, or it was still to new for him to know about it. But, this is all original research, so don't mind me. C-Liberal 04:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, but you cannot edit this article from the American perspective all the time! The Classical liberal tradition essentially originated in Great Britain, and has been a major political force historically in France, Italy, Switzerland and Germany. In the European tradition, Libertarianism has anarchist roots that are NOT part of the liberal tradition. In Canada, Political Scientists make the distinction on this issue as between "business liberals" and "welfare liberals." TrulyTory 12:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Anarchist by what measure? Most people do not even know what an anarchist is let alone accurately differentiate between an anarchist and someone who advocates a night-watchman state. Interestingly enough these are often the same people who have trouble distinguishing anarchy from free market economics.Most libertarians in the United States are not anarcho-capitalists. Even the ones that are believe this to be a best option but not currently a viable option. To say that classical liberals are not libertarian is one thing but to suggest that libertarians are not classical liberals is wholly inaccurate. Libertarian just happens to be the closest word to describe an American whose ideas fit squarely with classical liberals…from whatever country they may have originated. In addition many of the world’s participating liberal policies have made concessions…sometimes against their better judgment or personal philosophy in order to get practical results…to get things done….or just to keep themselves in power for whatever reason (fear, power, security) but many accepted policies, perhaps even by you, are not really acceptable to classical liberals from whom libertarians might more accurately reflect.


 * Kitteneatkitten has a point of view and refuses to part with it. Kitteneatkitten must bear the burden of finding sources that support his claim "that there is no such thing as classical liberalism". Are there any souorces for your claim that meet your standards of objectivity? (answer is no its kitteneatkitten's POV) so respect this encyclopedic synopsis of research into classical liberalism and perhaps dispute points but stop trying to delete the article. Mrdthree 17:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

From my European point of view, "Classical Liberalism" and "Libertarians" are indeed two diferent groups. Of course, they have many things in similar, but libertarians are in fact much more nearby anarchists. Maybe libertarians in US like to claim they are descendents from the classic liberals, but this doesn't make them classic liberals. Mcduarte2000 11:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


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

Jefferson and Paine were not libertarians, and the article should not imply they were
My major problem with this article is that as it stands now it implies that early liberal thinkers like Locke, Jefferson, and Paine were libertarians by labelling these men as "classical liberals," and then defining classical liberalism as essentially the same as libertarianism. All or nearly all of them were supporters of imperialism, public schools, estate taxes, and income transfers to the poor. These are not libertarian ideas. There is a big difference between liberal egalitarian radicals like Jefferson and Paine and those who now call themselves "classical liberals."

To those that disagree with my suggestion that the article be merged, how do you suggest we address this concern? Kitteneatkitten 02:00, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Jefferson did not support welfare. He opposed it. Any one who is considered a "liberal" back then that supported a welfare state would be an exception to the rule. Classical liberalism is well understood to be opposed to a welfare state. Also, I think you may be associating libertarianism too much with anarchism. Some libertarians support public education. They usually advocate school vouchers. There are two types of libertarians. There are those that opposed all initiation of force and then there are utilitarians who will accept some limited initiation of force in order to maximize liberty. Milton Friedman, who describes himself as both a "classical liberal" and a "libertarian" defines libertarianism as "the least government compatible with the most amount of liberty" (or something similar). C-Liberal 02:27, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Jefferson supported slavery, progressive taxation, and public schools and was against free trade. He was no libertarian or modern "classical liberal." Many 18th century liberals such as Paine and Montesqueue clearly supported income transfers to the poor. Are they "classical liberals" then? Kitteneatkitten 03:10, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Jefferson did not support slavery. He had slaves but said it was wrong. Classical liberalism is a philosophy, not necessarily a way of life. One doesn't have to follow the philosophy one advocates. C-Liberal 06:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I would think that some classical liberals support public education and some don't. I'm not sure, but I don't think being opposed or in support of it is a defining aspect of classical liberalism. John Stuart Mill seems to be opposed to it: "A general State education is a mere contrivance for moulding people to be exactly like one another: and as the mould in which it casts them is that which pleases the predominant power in the government, whether this be a monarch, a priesthood, and aristocracy, or the majority of the existing generation; in proportion as it is efficient and successful, it establishes a despotism over the mind, leading by natural tendency to one over the body." C-Liberal 06:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The answer is to explain that Paine's ideas on the role of the state were at odds with what the majority of classical liberals believed in.--Johnbull 02:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Really? How do you know what the majority of people thought in the late 18th century?-- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kitteneatkitten (talk • contribs) 03:10, 4 September 2006.


 * I don't know what the majority of people thought in the late 18th century, I never claimed I did. I pointed out that some of Paine's beliefs were at odds with what the majority of classical liberals believed in. I haven't seen Locke, Smith, Burke, Hume or Mises (to mention just a few) advocating what Paine advocated about economics. All the definitions of classical liberalism I've read do not emphasise progressive taxation for redistributing wealth and a welfare state. I'm not saying Paine isn't a classical liberal but that some of his ideas were peculiar to himself and other classical liberals held different viewpoints.--Johnbull 03:39, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * From the secondary and tertiary sources who tell us. C-Liberal 06:01, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * In his letters Jefferson repeatedly favored both estate taxes and opposed free trade. Montesqueue in The Spirit of the Laws also called for progressive taxation, income transfers, and public education.


 * What we see here is that you libertarians pick and choose the parts of early liberal philosophy you like and ignore the parts you don't like (e.g., tariffs, slavery, state regulation of sexual practices and marriage, progressive taxes, internal improvements, public education, income transfers.)


 * What is the standard should be used?

Kitteneatkitten 02:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Some of the old liberals may have supported progressive taxation and some opposed it. John Stuart Mill opposed it. Again, just as in public education, being for or against progressive taxation is not what makes someone a classical liberal (at least I havent seen that in the sources). You ask what standard should be used? The standard to be used is the SOURCES who tell us what classical liberalism is. I don't know why you would expect early liberal to have an identical philosophy. Look at someone today is who is called a conservative. It shouldn't be any problem to find things that some of them support that would be considered inconsistent with conservativism. The conservative philosophy stands as distinct from the philosophy of every individual who is considered a conservatives. Defining conservativism isn't grouping together EVERY position that EVERY conservative has held. It would be a nonsensical and internally-contradictory definition. Likewise for classical liberalism. Secondary and tertiary sources tell us what classical liberalism is. I imagine they find the positions that MOST of them hold. Any given person that is called a "liberal" can have some positions that are uncharacteristic of what is considered to be "liberalism." C-Liberal 02:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

quote
actually the quote for "neo-liberalism" was not there. The referenced article states: "What is economic liberalism? Who are the economic liberalis? The answer to these questions have been confused by the advocates of laissez-faire capitalism, who have been attempting to reclaim the word "liberalism" as the designation of their philosophy. In Europe, Walter Eucken, Franz Bohn and other West German neoliberals have led this movement. In the United States, Henry C. Simons, Milton Friedman and other members of the "Chicago Group" have classified themselves as "liberals" and their philosophy "new liberalism." Friedrich A. Hayek, in my opinion is a liberal rather than a conservative." The article then references an article by Friedman in the Wall Street Journal called "The New Liberal's Creed" of May 18, 1961. Intangible 08:34, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, but "new liberalism" is not "neoliberalism." Hayek and Friedman also tried to promote the term "true liberal." The effort was to reclaim the word liberal, which in the US had been perverted to mean democratic socialism. At any rate, Hayek and Friedman were strongly opposed to government intervention, so "neoliberalism" is clearly the wrong term. "Libertarianism" is the term Friedman would use, and is what modern classical liberals use most often to describe themselves. If Eucken and Bohn are for governments forcing markets open using politics or military, then they are not classical liberals. Hogeye 15:36, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes and no. There is a reason why I used scare quotes there. If you want to say it is also libertarianism, you have to find a reputable source. I do no think many post-wwii classical liberals (like Hayek) have described themselves as libertarians, this is only from a more recent time. Intangible 15:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Just google "Milton Friedman libertarian" and get tons of supporting quotes. e.g.


 * "I am a limited-government libertarian, not an anarchist libertarian, though I have a great deal of sympathy for anarchist libertarians, including the fact that my son is one." - Milton Friedman, 1991 speech.


 * "I was persuaded at that time in the early 1960s that we were on the verge of developing a strong libertarian movement. These were libertarians, all of them, though Hayek would not have labeled himself a libertarian. As you know, he always avoided the term conservative, too. He would call himself an Old Whig. The others would have called themselves libertarians." Milton Friedman, interview in Reason Magazine.


 * There are many more quotes, and articles with names like "Milton Friedman - Libertarian" and "Milton Friedman - Libertarian Icon."


 * Now your turn. Can you find a quote that says neoliberalism is the new form of classical liberalism? "New liberalism" doesn't count. Hogeye 21:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, the reference that I used here was in direct conflict with a reference I used in the Ordoliberalism article, where Hayek (and Mises) are denied being part of "neoliberalism" by the Ordoliberals. About libertarianism, I am still not sure if Hayek or Mises would be happy with such a label...Intangible