Talk:Classical liberalism/Archive 2

Libertarianism?
Is it just me, or does "Classical Liberalism" sound nothing like Liberalism at all, and more like Libertarian ideals? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.188.244.208 (talk) 10:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Libertarianism IS Classic Liberal. Duh. 68.248.233.69 (talk) 05:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Undue Weight Given to Adam Smith
Reading this page, you'd think laissez-faire capitalism was the only thing to come out of the Enlightenment. And THAT would be a CONSERVATIVE viewpoint. Adam Smith only wrote two books, and the earlier one does a pretty good job of opposing Wealth of Nations. Liberalism went WAY beyond economic concerns and ALWAYS dealt with social issues, aka human/civil rights (by way of promoting democracy and denouncing monarchs/dictators.) And the folks who wrote on those issues were much more prolific. So why don't we expand the coverage a little, aye? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.70.99.101 (talk) 03:17, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It is important to note that there were two contemporaneous "enlightenments." As Arthur Herman points out in his masterful book How the Scots Invented the Modern World many think of THE Enlightenment as a bunch of effete French philosophs pontificating in the salons of the rich--that enlightenment ended in the guillotine and the Gulag. The enduring Enlightenment took place in Scotland with Hutchinson, Lock, Hume and ultimately Adam Smith. The French were disposed to emphasize equality, the Scots to think of liberty. Today’s statist, authoritarian and ultimately coercive form of liberalism is derived from the French model. Hence "classical liberalism" IS a reference to Adam Smith and the Scottish Enlightenment. Artraddad (talk) 14:01, 1 September 2009 (UTC)Artraddad

Help has arrived!
Look, I'm not going to ruffle myself in discussion below or flatter myself more. I've been going over the article and copyediting per the League of Copyeditors. Honestly, in the key thinkers list, it should be narrowed down to 3, with the others in a list. Baron's contribution, eg, belongs more for the democracy or seperation of powers pages. That's why he should go in the list. My method of narrowing it down is going to simply be who contributed more.
 * How did you determine who contributed more? Kant, for example, is a relatively minor figure in political philosophy in general, he's more known for his work on ethics. I think either Mill or Bentham should take his place here.SFinside 16:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Mill or Bentham was on the list? Of course, replace him (Kant). I took a course in political philosophy, and Kant was kind of the "golden boy," model if you will. So I guess its a bit of a systematic bias thing. Sorry. Go ahead, I read right over them if they were there. But "philosophers," like Jefferson-- sorry, but it was more of a hobby than his calling. Others, like Adam Smith and Locke, and Bentham, it was a calling. Go ahead and replace them. To satisfy Criteraeon 1A for New Jersey State Constitution, I'm trying to obtain "distance," so I'm limiting my contributions away from politics articles, which is, ironically, my main expertise. I would like some help copyediting it. Not like I'm asking anyone. Just like a sales pitch, you can slam the door on this one. P.S. If you want to know what I'm doing, I'm putting a week into Recent  Changes Patrolling. Evan(Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!) 22:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Article is contradictory, not NPOV anymore
The article, until several edits were made, was biased in favor of a Libertarian POV. It disproportionately cited Libertarian views (and sources) and doesn't reflect mainstream historianism. I pointed this out a while ago, however, I was too intellectually lazy to run to the library and pull out credible sources. But I can assure that there are a number of factual inaccuracies: mainly, that classical liberalism is too narrowly defined, when it was not so narrow of a movement. It is purposely narrowly defined in order to imply similarities with Libertarianism (and Neoliberalism) and exaggerate differences with American Liberalism. It was distinct from modern ideology in that liberals were often very free to disagree with eachother on even some of the most fundamental of issues. Today, virtually any American Liberal, Libertarian, or Neoliberal, could have been born 200 years ago and had the same views they have now, yet they still would not be considered any less "Liberal."

Anyway, the article is currently contradictory. It wouldn't make sense for an article to be both NPOV and contradictory, so I replaced the tag. After the contradictions are removed, the NPOV tag might need to go back up. For now, here is the list of contradictions that I can see:

First, there's the obvious: It doesn't emphasize that those are two different views which are disputed. It simply states both, without clarifying.
 * the philosophy developed by early liberals from the Age of Enlightenment until Herbert Spencer
 * the same philosophy, as revived in the 20th century by Friedrich Hayek[2] and Milton Friedman.[3] This contemporary restatement of classical liberalism is usually called "libertarianism."


 * It is a blend of political liberalism and economic liberalism[1] which is derived from Enlightenment thinkers such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Adam Smith, Voltaire, John Stuart Mill, and Immanuel Kant.
 * The French tradition included Rousseau, Condorcet, the Encyclopedists and the Physiocrats
 * The ideology of the classical liberals argued against direct democracy. For example, James Madison argued for a constitutional republic, with protections for individual liberty, over a pure democracy reasoning that in a pure democracy, a "common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party."

Hobbes advocated monarchism, John Stuart Mill had no preference for any particular system (he said in On Libert that a dictatorship is justifiable if it upholds liberty), and Rousseau advocated direct democracy.

I noticed that someone removed Rousseau from several sections in the article. Well, surely, if Hayek can call Rousseau a Classical Liberal, then it's credible, from any standpoint, for Wikipedia to make the same claim. Robocracy 16:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think we've been through this before. The sources cited in this article describing and defining classical liberalism are not from "libertarians." It is just the normal mainstream view that "classical liberalism" is a laissez-faire philosophy. Anyone that you're calling a classical liberal that supports a welfare state simply isn't a classical liberal. Classical liberals and libertarians both support laissez-faire. That is why they are so similar. Classical liberalism is not very similar at all to American modern liberalism (welfare liberalism), at least not in economic matters. C-Liberal 03:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how the article is contradictory. There is classical liberalism, or just liberalism as it was then known. Limited government divided authority, free markets, capitalism, negative liberty. It began changing slowly, starting with JSM (who still believed in free markets but wanted limited provisions for the poor) to the opposite meaning under FDR in the 1930s where liberalism became known for big government, centralized authority, managed trade. Hayek and Friedman tried to, and Friedman continues to this day, to revive the original usage of the word liberal. In fact, they referred to themselves as liberals. What is more contradictory is how modern American "liberals" call free market, limited government advocates conservative, when it is these "conservatives" who are attempting to dismantle the regulatory big government welfare state...aka disrupt the status quo. That is not contradictory.

Next the debate over who is a classical liberal is a long one. Hobbes is at the beginning of the transition to liberalism, JSM is at the beginning of the transition out of liberalism. The lines are not always clear. The article should note that. But this does not mean it is contradictory.

Finally, the article is not POV simply because the sources are libertarian or classical liberal oriented. That is not a POV violation. The sources used are well documented and respected. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.120.4.1 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 17 October 2006.

This complaint looks dead.

POV, My view of this Article
Robo, I agree most of what you say, except that an article can't both be slanted and self-contradictory. It can, and this article is. Look at my other comments as to why this article is slanted. I've given up trying to edit this article. The ultra-aggressive libertarian editors of this article have a lot more time on their hands than I do, and have without fail reverted every change I have made.

The unchecked aggressiveness in which they revert changes that don't accord to the libertarian viewpoint is a structural problem of Wikipedia: extreme partisans and fringe groups like libertarians care more about their pet articles, and have more time to defend their views. If you want to take the time to mediate/arbitrate go right ahead, but be warned I've spent at least ten hours of my life trying to fix this abomination of an article with close to nothing to show for it.

So in summary, the article is uninformative libertarian propaganda, has been for at least a year, and there's nothing you can do about it in the face of its aggressive libertarian editors.

If all that seems gloomy, let me put it in a more positive way: Your time is much better spent improving the 99.9% of Wikipedia articles that don't have aggressive editors pushing a fringe ideology.Kitteneatkitten 08:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'll get around to the library, eventually, and find several credible sources. I already know, offhand, that Classical Liberals were not primarily laissez-faire Capitalists. Anti-mercantilists, yes, but not necessarily anti-Socialist. They were also Georgists and in some cases, proto-Socialists. Quite a few weren't concerned with economics at all, whether laissez-faire or interventionist, and even among those that did, not all or even most advocated total laissez-faire, to the point that most of them, had any of them been alive today, would be ostracized by Libertarians for advocating some forms of economic intervention. Adam Smith advocated central banks -- on the contrary, Austrian economists and Libertarians reject them --- John Locke advocated a state-run church and communally-owned well-water. And John Stuart Mill advocated the abolishment of whorehouses and opium businesses. And Jeremy Bentham advocated animal rights and feminism -- but of course, Jeremy Bentham has since been removed from this article. It's fortunate Rousseau's name is even still left here, though the section on Rousseau has been removed. This article represents Libertarian revisionism, not mainstream historianism. I mean, the article cites Hayek four times and, until recently, the Cato Institute. Robocracy 08:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * JSM was a self-described "Democratic Socialist." Intangible 11:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

To quote the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

'''John Stuart Mill... ...was the most influential English-speaking philosopher of the nineteenth century. His views are of continuing significance, and are generally recognized to be among the deepest and certainly the most effective defenses of empiricism and of a liberal political view of society and culture...'''

...On the whole Mill supported the laissez faire economic policies that had been defended by earlier economists such a his father and David Ricardo....

'''...He came increasingly to re-examine the objections to socialism, and came to argue in later editions of the Principles that, as far as economic theory was concerned, there is nothing in principle in economic theory that precludes an economic order based on socialist policies. He therefore made the radical proposal that the whole wage system be abolished, and that it be replaced by a cooperative system in which the producers would act in combinations, collectively owning the capital necessary for carrying on their operations, and working under managers who would be responsible overall to them.'''

...In his economic theory Mill no doubt appears to the modern socialist to be a follower of Ricardo and the classical liberal economists, but to the latter, and no doubt to himself, he was clearly a socialist.

He's still usually considered to be the last "classical liberal," because of the views he had when he was young and still considered "liberal," because he was primarily influenced by liberals and primarily influential to liberals. Robocracy 04:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I added John Stuart Mill's name back to the front of the article and cited a source:


 * Classical liberalism stressed not only human rationality but the importance of individual property rights, natural rights, the need for constitutional limitations on government, and, especially, freedom of the individual from any kind of external restraint... ...The writings of such men as Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Jeremy Bentham, and John Stuart Mill mark the height of such thinking.


 * Robocracy 04:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. Herbert Spencer died in 1903, John Stuart Mill in 1873. What gives? If one is going to talk about JSM and Bentham in this article, you could as well rename it to "19th century liberalism," because that's what we are talking about then... Intangible 14:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

And Carl Menger died in 1921. Where does "Classical Liberalism," end, then? Herbert Spencer was an anti-Marxist reactionary and marked the beginning of the split between economic and social liberalism, rather than the "end," of Classical Liberalism, because others (including the Austrians) continued work around the same time as Herbert Spencer. It doesn't make much sense to call Herbert Spencer a "classical liberal," when he existed in a time side-by-side with social liberals. I mean, are you going to assert that only economic liberalism is "true" classical liberalism, that "classical liberals" and modern liberals existed side-by-side? That can't be the case when figures such as Rousseau, Mill, Bentham, and Hobbes are called classical liberals by credible sources. And, as I've clarified, even those most frequently cited for their laissez-faire views -- Locke and Smith -- both had quite a few striking differences with modern libertarians. Now, I know that there are articles claiming Spencer was a Classical Liberal, but it needs to be clarified here that there's a scholarly dispute about it.

Do you agree with this, from the Columbia Encyclopedia?

'''The growth of industrial society, however, soon produced great inequalities in wealth and power, which led many persons, especially workers, to question the liberal creed. It was in reaction to the failure of liberalism to provide a good life for everyone that workers’ movements and Marxism arose. Because liberalism is concerned with liberating the individual, however, its doctrines changed with the change in historical realities.'''

The article certainly doesn't reflect any agreement with it, because it only reflects one view. And certainly, the Columbia Encyclopedia has more credibility than either Friedrich Hayek or the Cato Institute. Robocracy 20:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not agree with this. It's holistic hogwash. Intangible 23:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You're using the term "holistic" as a euphemism for "NPOV." Robocracy 22:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

1. That Menger refuted the labour theory of value, and Bawerk Marx's capital formation ideas, does not make them classical liberals, they were actually quite a-political, and mixed more with the social democratic kind of types. Hayek became a liberal (he was a Fabianist in his early years) under the influence of Mises; Mises became a liberal because of his experiences at the Front in World War I.

2. Bentham and Mill should more properly be seen as philosophical radicals. Even that source about "Illiberal Libertarians" talks about the division (Freeman calls it "high liberalism") between classical liberals (Gauthier, Buchanan, Hayek) and other liberals (Kant, Mill, Rawls). Brebner writes:Conceivably, British laissez faire was a political and economic myth in the sense formulated by George Sorel half a century ago, that is, a slogan or war cry employed by new forms of enterprise in their politico-economical war against the landed oligarchy. This seems the more likely when one discovers from their writings that Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, who have been commonly represented as typical, almost fundamental, formulators of laissez faire, were in fact the exact opposite, that is, the formulator of state intervention for collectivist ends and his devout apostle...let us start from the fact that Bentham and Smith were fundamentally contradictory of each other in their ideas of how to secure the general good. Bentham argued that individual interest must be artificially identified or made one by the omnipotent lawmaker, employing the felicific calculus of the "greatest happiness of the greatest number"...Smith...argued that the identification or unification would be a natural one, that is, that if each individual was left free to pursue what he regarded as his own interest he would be "led by an invisible hand" and by "more familiar causes" to collaborate in the achievement of the general good.

If there is a fundamental conflict between Smith and Bentham (and thus Mill) how can they be united in a article which makes the suggestion of no conflict?

3. About Spencer, you might indeed call him a little bit reactionary, he only became a laissez faire liberal at the end of his life, simply because it was indeed the end of classical liberalism thought in Britain. In other countries, such as France, there were some classical liberals who lived into the 20th century, like Leroy-Beaulieu, Guyot and Molinari. I wonder about your sources though. Are they saying Spencer was not a classical liberal because he did not accept laissez faire in his earlier years?

4. Economic liberalism is indeed part of classical liberalism. Social liberalism started with Bentham, so classical liberals did live along them. However, in the first part of the 19th century these fractions both agitated against landowners, which was their chief political concern first. Only in the 1850s this difference between social liberals and classical liberal became more apparent (after the Corn Laws were repealed). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Intangible (talk • contribs) 23:42, 14 October 2006.

Intangible, please don't alter my comments. It is confusing for you to post your unsigned reply in the middle of my comment. I've moved it, for easier readability. Now, to respond:

1. I never claimed refuting the labor theory of value would be a reason for Menger to be a Classical Liberal. In fact, your assertion that that's even a potentially rational assertion shows your total ignorance of the subject matter. The labor theory of value was invented by Classical Liberals, not Marx. So, your assertion, "He's not a Classical Liberal just because he disproved the labor theory of value," doesn't make any sense at all. Nor would being anti-Marxist necessarily imply Classical Liberal status. Ideological movements do not begin and end with people's lives, but with ideas, which shift and carry over. And so, Mill was the beginning of modern American Liberalism and the end of Classical Liberalism. It is trite to argue that Spencer was the last Classical Liberalism solely because he died after Mill.

Wikipedia acknowledges, in several articles, that Carl Menger was a "Liberal." My point is that if you're going to argue that Classical Liberalism is defined as being Liberals who advocated laissez-faire economics in the 19th century, then Carl Menger would fit the bill. I used him as an example to demonstrate why that kind of classification is poor. If I am wrong -- then are you going to say that Carl Menger was not a Liberal? Or Carl Menger was "reviving" Classical Liberalism while Herbert Spencer was still alive?

2. All Liberals were philosophical radicals. Anyone who calls Mill a "collectivist," hasn't read On Liberty. Smith, as I said, also supported central banks, and acknowledged in Wealth of Nations...

Whenever the legislature attempts to regulate the differences between masters and their workmen, its counsellors are always the masters. When the regulation, therefore, is in favour of the workmen, it is always just and equitable; but it is sometimes otherwise when in favour of the masters.

3. No sources to cite as of yet, as I still need to go to the library (hence, I haven't yet edited the article). However, Spencer's beliefs were defined by Social Darwinism and Social Darwinism is totally incompatible with Liberalism, and thus has been rejected by both Libertarians and modern Liberals. And so, even if he held laissez-faire economic views, holding laissez-faire economic views and support for minarchism in the 19th century does not automatically equate with Classical Liberalism, if he believed it was for the sake of the collective rather than the individual. Furthermore, his "organic," view of society was distinctly Burkean Conservatism, not Liberalism.

4. But it is not the most poignant aspect or more essential than their regard for equality or the conditions of the poor. With the laundry list of Liberals which disagreed upon even the most basic fundamentals of politics and economics, Liberals were not a monolithic group of activists, like Libertarians, but were united solely by their regard for liberty, according to how each scholar defined it. They advocated both social and economic liberty, and until the Industrial Revolution, no one considered that those two were in any way at odds.

Robocracy 23:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * 1. There is nothing in Menger's writings that would make him a liberal or anything else.
 * 2. Sure Mill was a collectivist. He wanted to use state powers for his activism.
 * 3. Social Darwinism has two parts. The first is a theory that those fittest to adapt will survive (without any implication on how many are fit). The second is the use of biological principles in sociology, which is just as holistic hogwash as historicism and its children.
 * 4. Are libertarians a monolithic group? I think libertarianism is as "ambiguous," if you like, as liberalism. Intangible 15:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Freeman
Just before the quoted text, Freeman writes in his article: "It is commonly held that libertarianism is a liberal view." Which means the text in ""Classical liberalism" and libertarianism" is incorrect. Freeman is representing a marginal view here. User:Slizor seems to have made some drastic changes recently to the article, not for the good alas. Intangible 11:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Drastic changes that removed the majority of the bollocks on the page and all of it irrelevant or biased.

I would be happy for how "marginal" each view that a source espouses to be reviewed. If you think that is a good criteria for encylopedia articles. So, shall we start by deleting this entire article and starting again? Wiping away the Libertarian (a marginal view, btw) bias? Slizor 19:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This article has no "libertarian bias." The sources referenced defining and explaining classical liberalism are not from libertarians. Classical liberalism is much more similar to libertarianism than it is to welfare liberalism. That doesn't mean that the article is biased toward libertarianism. It's classical liberalism itself that is biased towards libertarianism. C-Liberal 04:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Your binary thinking shows your lack of clear thought on this subject (because it's not like welfare liberalism it must be like libertarianism.) There are important differences (including such basic things as time, how mainstream they are and how influential they are (not to even get on to the philosophy)) between Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism that are ignored or, in this article, revised so as to make them look the same. Slizor 11:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, they are pretty much the same. Libertarianism (in the U.S.) is based on classical liberal philosophy. That's rather a well-known fact. Doctors without suspenders 22:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There are no political facts. Slizor 10:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes there are. How about this.  Countries with more open economies are more wealthy, have more equality, more rights for women, higher literacy rates, lower infant mortality rates, higher life expectancies.  Or this, minimum wages increase unemployment.


 * Or this. Paying people to do nothing means people will do nothing and get paid.  See US TANF reforms in the 1990s or Englands poor law reforms in the early 1800s.  See France today with there bloated unemployment rates thanks to government overregulation and protection of current labor.  There are political facts and like gravity, politics does have its own laws.  Politicians and some academics still ignore them, however. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.120.4.1 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 17 October 2006.

How about this - countires that are more wealthy have more equality, more rights for women, higher literacy rates, lower infant mortality rates, higher life expectancies and have more open economies (because they are in a better position to "compete")?

OMG, I turned your "facts" on their head and they still makes sense! How is this possible!? If you want a further response you'll have to come up with a better counter-argument. Slizor 00:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Easy answer...I'll get this one, countries that are more wealthy also have the most open economies. :P


 * Slizor and the anonymous user with the IP address, 129.120.4.1, this is a discussion about how to properly write an article on Classical Liberalism, not a debate about Capitalism vs. Socialism. Wikipedia is not a battleground. If you're going to discuss things relevant to Classical Liberalism, then fine. This isn't a medium, however, for you to debate economics. For that, I suggest a political forum.

Discussion forums. Please try to stay on the task of creating an encyclopedia. You can chat with folks on their user talk pages, and should resolve problems with articles on the relevant talk pages, but please do not take discussion into articles. There are a number of early-stage projects that attempt to use a wiki for discussion and debate...

...Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. You can also use Wikinfo which promotes a "sympathetic point of view" for every article...

...Also, do not create or modify articles just to prove a point.

Robocracy 11:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Sarcasm, after the amount of time I have spent on this article, is not indicative of a battling mentality. If you hang around here a bit longer you may find the constant propaganda a tad irritating.

BTW, when did I mention socialism? Slizor 12:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The two of you are arguing about whether or not Capitalism reduces poverty, decreases unemployment, etc. That argument is irrelevant to this discussion. Robocracy 12:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The Libertarian Series
If the Libertarian Series doesn't belong here Silzor, you might want to consider editing the Libertarian Series template to remove Classical Liberalism from it. Harvestdancer 18:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Classical Liberalism did influence Libertarianism, I do not deny that. The reason I deleted the Libertarian series from the page is that Libertarianism is only one of the many philosophies influenced by Classical Liberalism and it is a minor obscure philosophy that has no mass support. It doesn't deserve to be on the page. Slizor 12:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

15% of the American voting population can be identified as libertarian. In fact, if Democrats had of pushed a more economically libertarian agenda they could have snatched a meager 9% of the libertarian vote from Bush in 2004 and carried the electoral votes in three states, thus allowing Kerry to win the election. That is hardly obscure. Little l libertarians have also been growing over the last 30 years and represents a sizeable portion of the under 30 voter. This movement world wide is hardly obscure and the fact that something has no mass support does not mean it must be deleted. Otherwise we'd need to delete a whole host of half baked left wing ideas like anarcho-communism...or hell, just communism. Your claims are arbitrary and represent your dislike of libertarian philosophies more than your commitment to truth and accuracy.

The fact is libertarianism is heavily influenced by classical liberalism, and if any modern philosophical wing can claim to be the closest to classical liberalism it is the libertarian movement. Little l libertarian philosophy and classical liberalism are not popular among right wing religious persons and statist left-wingers (Epstien 2006).

It's against my better nature to respond to posts like this...but I do. I'm not sure why. In fact I'm not sure why I come back to this page and allow fucking propaganda spewed at me all the time.

I'm sure 15% of the American voting population can be identified as libertarian........but who by? And who calculated the 2004 election thing? And where is your "evidence" of it being a worldwide movement? Libertarianism has no mass support AND is not even considered in respected academic circles.

It is a minor ideology and what is most closely related to Classical Liberalism is hugely disputed. Slizor 20:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Libertarianism "is not even considered in respected academic circles"? That's bunk. In academic circles is where you find the most libertarians. It's in the general population that there are less libertarians. What is your point anyway? Is it your contention that there are more classical liberals than libertarians? You say that libertarianism "is a minor obscure philosophy that has no mass support." Do you consider classical liberalism to be a major philosophy that has mass support? How are you defining libertarianism anyway and how do you think it differs from classical liberalism? C-Liberal 22:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I did a search on one of the ejournal search engines that my Uni subscribes to (SwetsWise, if you have access to it.) The result of the search through peer-reviewed academic articles on the keyword Libertarianism was "searched 21803245 articles - found 86 articles" and the first two were about left-libertarianism! It really is not big in academia. And, as you admit, it has no mass support. Thus it is a minor philosophy. It is also one of many philosophies that consider themselves to be the the heir of classical liberalism. By including the Libertarian series we are overemphasising a minor issue and appearing to validate on-going and disputed arguments. Slizor 10:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I love how slizor demands sources for someone trying to debunk his own unsourced claims. Interesting. Here:http://cato.org/pubs/pas/pa580.pdf Read it before you make any more outlandish and unsourced comments.


 * Please stop quoting CATO, it really does not help your argument. Slizor 10:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * And ignoring what they say while providing no sources of your own, does not help your own.

Why would there be a source on how obscure and minor Libertarianism is? How would that work? Slizor 16:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There won't be, because its not. Eitherway you have to prove it with a source.

A Source for something does not mean it should be included
The use of sources (continual references to the CATO institute) as we have just seen does not provide a NPOV. The issues dealt with on the page are DISPUTED and that needs to be shown, not papered over with biased sources. Slizor 20:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah it does, that does not mean it has a POV. Read the rules again.


 * No it does not. Don't be so ridiculously idiotic. If I was to fill the Holocaust page up with sources from revisionist historians it would not be NPOV. Slizor 11:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

1. How is this guy not blocked? 2. You happen to be the revisionist here. 3. Libertarian sources and libertarian sections remain a minority of this article. 4. Articles can remain NPOV by citing respected sources and presenting the information as information according to that source. THis article has done just that. 5. You are reaching to delete things you do not like.
 * Maybe that section should just be renamed "Liberal Peace". Cobden et al were very much anti-imperialistic and very cosmopolitan. Intangible 15:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Intangible, have you seen the recent additions to the "Lassiez-faire to Interventionist" bit? It quotes two articles repeatedly, both from the CATO institute website. Unless this section becomes more balanced I'm reverting. This Anon is clearly agenda-pushing. Slizor 16:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No you are agenda pushing. You have no counter sources to make your arguement and you are deleting and reverting out of frustration.  These are books you have problems with are published by the Cato Institute, not the cato website itself.  Cato is also a publishing house like Brookings Institute.

"Governs least"
From the article: "Thomas Paine's famous forumulation 'that government is best which governs least'". Is there a citable basis for attributing it to Paine? According to Civil Disobedience (Thoreau), "One of the most famous quotes mistakenly attributed to either Thomas Jefferson or Thomas Paine, 'That government is best which governs least', actually came from this essay," that is, from Thoreau's Civil Disobedience. Clearly one of the articles is wrong. I strongly suspect that it is this one. - Jmabel | Talk 05:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * A google search of the quote suggests Thomas Paine or Thomas Jefferson. In fact, any websites that list the quote with HDT reveal that he is not coining, if you will, the phrase, but repeating it in support (which then leads you to wonder, again, who quoted the phrase originally).  There seems to be lots of debate and little agreement.  At any rate, it does not matter, at the very least HDT could be added to this page...if not already.


 * A Google search suggests why this would be described as [often] mistakenly attributed. The citation from Thoreau is clear. The others appear so far to be hot air. - Jmabel | Talk 01:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The quote has long since been removed from this article, but I'll address it anyway. The Civil Disobedience (Thoreau) article is correct. The Civil Disobedience article also states what Thoreau was paraphrasing: The motto of The United States Magazine and Democratic Review. (Thoreau uses quotation marks, but it was actually a paraphrase of the magazine he wrote for.) Monticello.org lists it as a "spurious quote" misattributed to Jefferson. --JHP (talk) 05:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I emailed the professors who wrote about Liberalism for Stanford
A couple weeks ago, I emailed the two authors of the article on Liberalism in Stanford's philosophy encyclopedia, to ask them their opinion regarding Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism. I essentially gave them my argument regarding Classical Liberalism in the form of a list of questions and asked for their responses.

One said that it would be a mistake to assume, "American Liberalism = Socialism and Classical Liberalism = Libertarianism," because Classical Liberalism was very multi-faceted, but that, yes, Classical Liberalism also had some kind of a regard for liberty, which manifested itself as a regard for property or a regard for equality. He said he didn't think one could accurately determine who was the "rightful heir," to Classical Liberalism or why it was even important.

The second author had a different view, suggesting, "There is some truth to this," when I mentioned the claim that American Liberalism = Socialism and Classical Liberalism = Libertarianism. And he went on, discussing how European Liberalism is very pro-market, unlike American Liberalism. Britain's Liberal party is not very much anti-market, though, and Australia's Liberal party is very Conservative (weak on civil rights), and so, he said it's a mess. He said that the tradition of social liberalism breaking away from economic liberalism began with Mill and nothing more can be said other than that. About Hobbes being a liberal, he said that Hobbes is an interesting figure, because it's only been recently that Hobbes has been considered a liberal. For most of history, Hobbes has been considered an anti-liberal authoritarian. He also expressed uncertainty, too, about Rousseau being a liberal. In response to the question about the "rightful heir," he asserted that the question stands within Liberalism, not outside of it. So, in that sense, American Liberals and Libertarians are both 'liberals' of a different tradition. Whichever one truly supports liberty is a matter for discussion, rather than labeling one side as authoritarian. T.H. Green and Rawls saw themselves as the rightful heirs to Liberalism, whereas Milton Friedman and Robert Nozick disagreed. The author's concluded by saying that Liberalism has a number of essential concepts (personal rights, property, concerns for the general well-being, democracy, justice, etc.) that can be organized to yield different versions, but that any article on Classical Liberalism should not try to address these questions.

Now, you can see that there are differing views, but there is a view shared by both authors: that the "rightful heir," to Classical Liberalism is somewhat ambiguous but property right was somewhat of an important part of Classical Liberalism. And so, though I concede that Classical Liberalism should undoubtedly be defined as having a regard for property right, the way that the article and other articles present Classical Liberalism as being synonymous with Libertarianism is false.

As said before -- I'll get to the library eventually and work on improving this article. As it stands now, it's sort of a mess, because it looks exactly like an article that was written by Libertarians, but then, American Liberals have tried to place in their own edits, so that now, the tone and some of the exact statements are inconsistent. Robocracy 06:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Well one "welfare liberal" writes: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. The classical economists advocated "the obvious and simple system of natural liberty" and opposed unjustified or excessive governmental intervention into economic affairs. Their political economy was essentially negative, because their policy proposals were generally limited to the removal of external restraints and restrictions upon human action. Classical economics implicitly assumed the existence of a teleological natural order governed by natural laws. Therefore, it appeared to be necessary only to repeal the unjust man-made laws and other restrictions imposed upon man by man, in order that the infinitely just natural laws might impose upon man that perfect order which was ordained by nature and by nature's God. Liberty was thought to be the natural state of affairs which required no positive action. It was believed to be necessary only to remove the unnatural restraints from man in order to insure that liberty would naturally result. Classical liberalism was based upon a strong commitment to economic liberty and an overpowering fear that the government might impair or destroy this precious liberty.

Although I not totally agree with what is said here, it makes for a good argument that classical liberal is based on a natural law tradition, and not utilitarianism. Intangible 00:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No arguments here. However, I still think Mill ought to be cited because he is the transitionary figure, not necessarily that he's a Classical Liberal (he was when he was young), but that ideologically, he marks the end of Classical Liberalism and the beginning of economic liberalism vs. social liberalism. Robocracy 14:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think you will find many social liberals who object to calling pre-Mill liberals "classical". The issue is whether this term can be appropriately applied to the Austrian School, the libertarians, etc. - Jmabel | Talk 01:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

1. i don't see why not, they are certainly closer than anything today. 2. This does not even make up a large segment of the article, why worry so much? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.15.112.129 (talk • contribs) 6 November 2006.


 * 1) Again, this is not about one Wikipedian's opinion or another, this is about citing the range of how scholars actually use these terms.
 * 2) So if some Islamist put a (nicely small) segment in an article saying that Al Qaeda are truly doing the will of God, that wouldn't bother you because it wouldn't make up a large segment of the article? The issue isn't whether the material makes up a large or small portion of an article; the issue is whether matters on which there is a difference of opinion are expressed as fact in Wikipedia's narrative voice. - Jmabel | Talk 02:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

If you are attempting to relate this to our article here your proper story would go like this " So if some Islamist put a (nicely small segment in an article saying that Al Queda believes they are truly doing the will of god" and provides a source, then NO, there would be no problem, because this is what Al Queda believes. Just as this article, in the small segment has provided quotes and sources that suggest libertarians are classical liberals (or most closely aligned to them), or that modern liberals deviated from classical liberalism then stole the term.    Everything is presented as it should be.  Your complaint is not legit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.15.112.129 (talk • contribs)

Classical Liberalism, Libertarianism, and the Quality of the Article
In the interest of preserving the scholastic quality of this article, I move that we attempt to preserve the distinction between liberalism and libertarianism. Some posters appear to be using this wiki as a springboard for their political ideologies by conflating the two theories of government and promoting libertarianism as the school of the original liberals. It's fairly clear that the early liberals (e.g. Locke, Kant, Rousseau) believed that the role of government is to secure liberty. Libertarians appear to equate this with the idea that the smallest government is the best one. These doctrines do not entail one another, nor is either necessary for the other.

Here are some suggestions for making this a good article, which, I hope, is the primary interest of all posters:

--Clean up the definition/introduction of Classical Liberalism(CL). I suggest Locke's The Two Treatises of Government (1689) as a primary source. --Put CL in proper historical context. Locke, in the above mentioned article, criticizes the divine rights of kings put forth by Sir Robert Filmer in Patriarcha. --The revived economic liberalism of Hayek and Friedman is out of place here, as is any "liberalism", including contemporary libertarianism, that seeks to trace its roots to CL with the hope of securing its legitimacy.

In general, more discussion of Locke and the historical context of his political philosophy is the right direction for this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shawn Fitzgibbons (talk • contribs)

Actually, Kant did say that the smallest government was the best government. Check in Perpetual Peace, I believe its the 1957 translation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.15.112.129 (talk • contribs)

>If accurate, non sequitur, although I highly doubt that Kant said that the smallest government is the best, simpliciter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shawn Fitzgibbons (talk • contribs)


 * If classical liberals, Kant being one of them, said, limited government is best for defending liberty (each with different ways of telling us this), and libertarians say the same, you think that does not make them classical liberals? Or at least so closely related making the claim is not a big jump?  According to the libertarians they use the term because liberalism had changed so dramatically (this is documented here), otherwise they would have used the term.  Schumpeter, Hayek, and Friedman continued to call themselves liberals and they existed before, during, and after this transition.  Friedman today still calls himself a liberal (and welfare liberals, socialists).


 * I also disagree with you that you believe securing liberty and small government are two separate issues. I believe they are one in the same as did the classical liberals and today's libertarians.  Small limited government secures liberty.  Large intrusive government, as libertarians argue, destroy liberty and make people ends rather than ends in and of themselves (i.e. servants of the state).  The fact that classical liberals did not make this argument overt is only because there was no welfare state at the time, thus no reason to make the counterpoint or distinction between protecting negative freedoms rather than protecting positive freedoms (which libertarians argue destroys real freedom).  To say they are distinct issues is to already promote the idea that you believe in positive freedom as the means of securing liberty.  At least that is what can be logically derived (but not even that is necessary, you state "These doctrines do not entail one another, nor is either necessary for the other."  This simply is not true.  I don't believe you can ever make the argument that classical liberals believed a welfare state could secure liberty by providing  positive freedoms.  To them, I would say, this was just a new face for an old game.  At the very least, classical liberals make no mention of positive freedoms being necessary to secure liberty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.15.112.129 (talk • contribs)

>Here's where you go wrong, you interject libertarian beliefs into the content of an article that is on classical liberalism--you have to first show that CL and libertarianism are identical before you can justly edit the article based on these ideals. There are several thinkers of the period who did not advocate any particular form of government, let alone make the claim that the smallest government is the best one. Your comment about why liberals of the time did not make this argument is highly speculative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shawn Fitzgibbons (talk • contribs)

>There is already an article on libertarianism. If CL and libertarianism are the same view, then we wouldn't need two separate articles. But, given the nature of the controversy, we do need two separate articles, hence, they are not the same view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shawn Fitzgibbons (talk • contribs)

<-PS SFG, that is bad logic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.15.112.129 (talk • contribs)

>It's in the form of modus tollens, which makes it a valid argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shawn Fitzgibbons (talk • contribs)


 * I disagree, you are asserting that if something is the same (or in this case considered the same) then there is no need for two seperate articles. You are saying this is true, without it necessarily being true.  It is not true because these are two valid terms that mean one thing for some and two seperate things for other.  The libertarian article, I believe, does mention that libertarians also think they are classical liberal.  As does a small section in this article.  I do believe you used bad logic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.120.4.1  (talk • contribs)

>Modus tollens is a valid form of reasoning--the only reason why you think it is "bad logic" appears to be that you disagree with its conclusion. That doesn't make the argument invalid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shawn Fitzgibbons (talk • contribs)


 * What you are saying is this. CL and L are not combined.  Articles that are similar are combined.  Therefore CL and L are not similar.  This is ONLY true if 1) Articles that are similar are ALWAYS combined.  This was true for lassize-faire liberalism, classical liberals, and market liberalism.  They were all combined with classical liberalism. But, it is also only true if 2) CL and L are NOT similar which is your conclusion.  Clearly libertarianism was created in the 1960s.  This is noted in the libertarian article.  In the classical liberalism article we note the early liberal scholars, this is the primary focus of the article.  The libertarian article also mentions them.  So far we have differences and similarities.  We also note in the Classical Liberalism and Liberalism article (no one is arguing they should be merged, in fact this was created because people on the liberalism page kept deleting refrences to liberalism implying free markets and limited government) notes that there was a change in the meaning of liberalism, specifically in the United States and to a lesser degree in Europe (todays liberals accept a lot more government intervention in the economy than earlier liberals, for sure.  Now we have this split occurring from JSM to FDR (in US, perhaps Churchill in England who was a bit of a waffler on liberalism and toryism anyway).  Yet to say that no one "held fast" to early liberal ideas is nonsense and untrue.  Here way have Schumpeter, Hayek, Friedman, your early Mont Pelerin Society if you will...the good eggs as they called themselves.  The people who did not sit back and re-invent liberalism to sell it to the voting populous.  We now have 2 claims which, depending on where you sit can be one meaning or two.  These two claims are this.  1)  Classical liberalism existed from Locke to Mill.  Mill helped developed modern liberalism which evolved from classical liberalism, but this ends the period of classical liberalism.  The other interpretation suggests that classical liberalism never ends, that there is only one liberalism, and they continue to this day.  Late Mill et al. represent a perversion of classical liberalism, for good or bad, but are not true liberals.  True liberals had to rename themselves to avoid confusion with the public who now had a corrupt understanding of the word liberal.  Much in the same way we all have a corrupt understanding of the word democracy.  Your argument is not valid, nor is it correct.  Your premise is not correct, nor is your conclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.15.112.129 (talk • contribs)

>You don't appear to understand the argument, so I'll be nice and spell it out for you

1. If CL and L are the same view, then we don't need two separate articles.

2. We do need two separate articles.

3. Therefore, CL and L are not the same view. (3 follows from 1&2 by MT)

The rationale for 1 is that if we have one topic with two names for the same topic, we don't need two pages for the same topic with different names attached to them. That would both be a waste of space and nonsensical, since the same view entails the same content, and identical content entails the same article. Stylistic differences are irrelevant here.

The rationale for 2 is that there is obvious disagreement about whether 'libertarianism' and 'classical liberalism' are synonymous. Such disagreement demands separate articles--to make them one article would be simply to give one side of the debate all the points for nothing. I daresay that the onus is on the pro-side here, and I have seen little to nothing in the way of an argument that they are the same view, and at least two professors of history (cited in the article and on the talk page) who claim that they are not. It's only fair to have two articles, and thus we need two articles until it is at least shown, with a great deal of scholarly work, that libertarianism and classical liberalism are identical doctrines.

The conclusion follows from the premises by modus tollens which makes this a valid argument.

Now, if you want to show that the argument is unsound, you need to "pick a line". That is, pick one of the premises and tell the rest of us why it is false.Shawn Fitzgibbons 10:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This is an old and tired argument…see Slizor. There is no need for two separate articles. There is no interjection of libertarian belief into the content of the article.  In fact any reference to libertarianism is cited as such.  References to them being identical is also cited as such.  The article does show the similarities between classical liberalism and libertarianism, it is also cited.  Your claim that limited government and the provision of liberty are separate issues is highly speculative...and yet to be demonstrated.  You will not find a classical liberal arguing for an expansion of government power, they almost always viewed government power as something to be watched, divided, and limited.  They also spoke of freedoms in the negative sense, thus protecting liberty was allowing people to act free absent from coercion of others and the state.  Not positive freedoms, thus the expansion of government roles to provide for all sorts of goods the market can provide.  Some, such as Adam Smith make recommendations that the government can provide public goods when externalities arise in the market distribution of those goods, but NEVER the elimination of the markets ability to provide those goods (as advocates of large government and positive freedom maintain).  Please make a case now.

Nevertheless, today's libertarians do believe smaller government protects liberty while big government destroys it. I still do not how or why there is such confusion the article clearly states the facts and makes the distinctions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.15.112.129 (talk • contribs)

>It's highly inappropriate to put "libertarianism" in the first heading of the article given the controversial nature of the claim that classical liberalism and libertariansm are synonymous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shawn Fitzgibbons (talk • contribs)


 * It appears to be cited that certain people and groups use the term interchangeably. The only conflict seems to be with modern welfare liberals who want the term for themselves, naturally.  Disagreement is noted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.15.112.129 (talk • contribs)

>It's not enough say at the beginning of the article that 'classical liberalism' and 'libertarianism' mean the same thing (per use theory), and then, at the bottom of the article mention that it is a controversial claim. Controversial claims do not belong at the beginning of an article. Shawn Fitzgibbons 17:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Where does it say it is a controversial claim? The only reason I could think of for someone to call oneself classical liberal instead of libertarian is that classical liberalism seems to be more conservative, and not stressing the hedonism that is sometimes part of libertarianism. Intangible 17:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Saying that "libertarianism" and "classical liberalism" are terms that are sometimes used as synonyms isn't a controversial claim at all. All Male Action 18:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It is only controversial to big government welfare liberal propagandists, for example New Deal supporters who waged war for the term in the 1930s. The article only claims the term is controversial for the benefit of these complainers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.15.112.129 (talk • contribs)

Locke and the tyranny of the majority.
There is this bit in the Locke section:

To Locke, property was a more compelling natural right than the right to participate in collective decision-making: he would not endorse direct democracy in government, as he feared that the "tyranny of the majority" would seek to deny people their rights to property.

This needs to be referenced. It also appears to be contradictory to the following from Locke's Two Treatises

And thus that, which begins and actually constitutes any political society, is nothing, but the consent of any number of freemen capable of a majority, to unite and incorporate into such a society. And this is that, and that only, which did, or could give beginning to any lawful government in the world. p386

It might be that the author is confusing Locke with Mill. Shawn Fitzgibbons 00:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The second quote is not necessarily an endorcement of direct democracy, in fact, I don't believe it is at all. Therefor it may not actually be a contradiction. I do not know who the author was of the Locke section however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.120.4.1 (talk • contribs)

>Regardless, Locke doesn't reject direct democracy--I was trying to be polite. In fact, in Two Treatises, Locke lists several forms of government in para 132 that are legitimized by majority consent, one of them "perfect democracy". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shawn Fitzgibbons (talk • contribs)
 * Actually direct democracy would be counter to Locke's arguments. In a sense, Locke's governments are all majority rule, because if they were not, these governments could not have come into being at all. Intangible 23:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The claim that Locke would have opposed direct democracy may be true or false, but the claim that his arguments run contrary to direct democracy is at best a fanciful interpretation of Two Treatises. Without a citation, it should be removed for being original research. I'd argue that even with a citation it should not be included, because scholars frequently put forth their own fanciful interpretations that are disputed by others. What Locke would've thought about direct democracy is one of them. Why not discuss Locke's views on gay marriage? Because it is a minute scholarly issue, there's no scholarly consensus (as Locke's writings are few, difficult to read, and not totally sincere), and so it certainly isn't relevant to include in an article on classical liberalism. This article will be vastly improved as soon as people start editing the article to describe Classical Liberalism, rather than to compare and contrast it with Libertarianism. Robocracy 00:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The comparing and contrasting to libertarianism is such a small segment of this article. I find it so fascinating that some want to destroy this little piece of factual information.  It is true there are a great deal of similarities between the two.  It is also true that libertarians call themselves liberals or classical liberals.  It deserves mentioning. It gets it, and so does the criticism of this view.  But the main point of the article is the classical-classical liberals.  Everyone needs to stop getting hung up on this little point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.15.112.129 (talk • contribs)


 * After re-reading the paragraph on classical liberalism and libertarianism I realize the part claiming libertarians may be classical liberals is 1 freaking paragraph + one sentence at the top. WHAT THE HECK!  You people are complaining about NOTHING!  There is more in the article claiming that the two are different than the same.  Give it a rest already. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.15.112.129 (talk • contribs)


 * Ok there are 2 paragraphs. My bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.15.112.129 (talk • contribs)

Could you please stop editing others' comments?
Could the users who like to edit in their comments into other users' comments please stop? It's bad wikiquette and it's damn near impossible to read because it's a conversation where we have NO IDEA where one person starts talking and another person begins. Please, make your comments beneath others' comments and sign your comments. Thank you. I am going to move some of the comments on this page for better readability (nothing will be removed or edited, but just properly formatted). Robocracy 00:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Wealth of Nations and Laissez-Faire economies
Everyone knows Adam Smith advocated a laissez-faire economy and believed that an invisible hand would regulate the economy. Little is known that Adam Smith also recognized that monopolies would form, companies would try to collude and coerce, and externalities would arise. The generalized concept of Adam Smith's hands off economy is that there should be NO REGULATION what so ever. But Smith never actually says this. The believes that there are legitimate actions that governments should take to avoid externalities, prevent collusion and coercion etc. In fact, it is safe to say that Smith is a better and harsher critic of capitalism than Marx. Nevertheless he believes it works quite well without much intrusion from the government. The invisible hand laissez-faire economy requires no direction, no wage and price controls, no barriers to trade, no subsidies, or any protections.

The following quote which I removed is based off the incorrect interpretation of Adam Smith's laissez-fair but with an understanding that Smith recognized there could be problems in the market.


 * Adam Smith, one of the most famous classical liberals, however, was not an advocate of pure capitalism: "Adam Smith should be seen as a moderate free enterpriser who appreciated markets but made many, many exceptions. He allowed government all over the place."

Adam Smith was certainly no moderate, not then and not today. His acceptable levels of regulation in the hands off economy is far less than members of the left, or moderates, would be willing to accept. I believe these concepts should be cleared up and addressed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.15.112.129 (talk • contribs)

Walter Block's opinion of Adam Smith is particularly of note, because he is a well-respected Libertarian attacking Adam Smith. Walter Block's assertion is sourced. Your claim right now isn't. And even if there were a source, we should still include both points-of-view, rather than removing a scholarly observation solely because you, personally, disagree with it. See WP:OR. Also, please don't make substantial changes to the article without first seeking a consensus in the talk page over disputed edits. Robocracy 01:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

>The reason why I added the quote was because the original paragraph cited nothing but secondary sources, yet when I required primary sources for its justification, was told that secondary sources are prefered. Of course, any reputable historian will tell you that idea is ridiculous, and the fact that one cannot find primary sources to support one's claim is telling about its speciousness. Nevertheless, rather than trying to fight that battle, I cited a quote making an important exception using a secondary source. The quote is, therefore, legitimate. Shawn Fitzgibbons 03:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The quote is legit as a criticism of Adam Smith, not of classical liberalism. The quote is also misleading if not appropriately put into context.  Adam Smith believed in a hands off free market economy.  Allowing "government all over the place" is a baseless opinion.  All over the place is a major exaggeration that distorts the idea of a free market laissez-faire economy Adam Smith talked about...but at least it notes that a laissez-faire economy has exceptions to correct externalities.  This needs to be noted.  We don't need out of context blanket statements to confuse readers.


 * We are not here to discuss your opinion of the content of the article.Shawn Fitzgibbons 20:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * We are not, we are discussing the context of this quote, I question your usage of it. The quote is probably intended in one of two ways.  1) To address critics of laissez-faire capitalism to inform them that they are mistaken on their own definition of the term and to inform them that laissez-faire allows for government regulation to correct externalities.  Or 2) He is critical of laissez-faire capitalism, as described by Smith, believing that externalities are correctable without government (even given the low level of technology in the 18th century...this would be a position of a unrealistic hard core anarcho capitalist...I've never met one).  I then think that you are attempting to use the quote in another fashion, to misguide readers into believing that Smith and classical liberals were did not desire or approve of laissez-faire economic systems, again being based on a poor understanding of that term.  Even if I am mistaken on your intentions, I think the quote might be out of context.


 * The purpose of the quote is to show that not all classical liberals advocated pure capitalism. According to the professor who is cited, Adam Smith was a moderate when it came to the free-market. Readers are mislead when we make false generalizations, which was apparently a problem with the original paragraph. Nevertheless, I can see how the wording might be inflammatory to more libertarian viewpoints, so I have revised the expression of the content.Shawn Fitzgibbons 22:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That WAS "PURE" Capitalism. Readers are mislead by left of center advocates of state control who paint a straw man of what free market laissez faire capitalism is.  Adam Smith's real premise is that people act in their own self interest, this sometimes creates externalities, corporations attempt to collude, etc, etc.  Government, or for anarcho capitalists, some authority, corrects these externalities through incentives and punishment under the rule of law.  I know not one anarcho-capitalist in the world who believes that capitalism without any incentives or punishment would result in perfect harmony.


 * We are not here to discuss your opinion of the content of the article.


 * And we are not here to bring you up to date on what classical liberalism is and what defines capitalism.

Quoting "classical liberals" or referencing their ideas is original research unless a source says those particular ideas are part of "classical liberalism"
I'd like to point out that that "classical liberalism" is not the summation of every individual's ideas that was called a "liberal." It is original research for us to point out positions of any particular "classical liberal" and assert that those ideas are part of classical liberalism. Different liberals had some positions that contradicted each other. Some ideas of some "classical liberals" may not be consistent with "classical liberalism." What "classical liberalism" is must be left to scholars, and we have to reference those scholars. We have to rely on sources that specifically refer to "classical liberalism." The whole "Classical liberals" section should probably be removed. Maybe they could be moved to an article called Classical liberals. Economizer 02:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

>This is an interesting distinction you bring-up, but it's hard to tell what implications it has for this article. Should anyone who lays claim to the term 'classical liberal' be granted authority to say what a classical liberal is, or should we refer to thinkers of a certain era, or should we first define what classical liberalism is and then seek to draw non-trivial claims from classical liberalism? There are historical, political, and philosophical lines that cross each other here, making it difficult to give any particular group rights to it.Shawn Fitzgibbons 03:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it might indeed be best to remove the list of "classical liberals" in this article. I believe such a list is also present at Contributions to liberal theory. One can just put a see also note to that article. I'm more concerned with the concept of classical liberalism. The problem is that the concept seems to be generic, an ideal type, in some cases. Intangible 10:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I partly agree. Unfortunately, there is dispute over which doctrines are central to the concept of classical liberalism. In my opinion, the best way to resolve those disputes is to refer to primary sources of classical liberals from Locke to Mill. If we rely only on secondary sources, we are one step removed from the original ideas, and run the danger of promoting revisionism. There is simply too much politicizing going on to rely on secondary sources.Shawn Fitzgibbons 13:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Are you aware that there is a policy against "original research" on Wikipedia? If you take things that an old liberal said and present it as if it has anything to do with "classical liberalism," then you need a source saying that what is said is representative of "classical liberalism." We as Wikipedia editors are not free to make such a determination. That's a crucial rule in Wikipedia editing. Everything has to be sourced. Economizer 14:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say. So, which sources are unreliable or indirectly related? Nothing written by a classical liberal or about what he said would be (indirectly related). There's nothing in the original research clause that stipulates that citing a document by a figure taken as representative of any genre, field, school, etc. is original research.Shawn Fitzgibbons 17:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

This is an interesting point and I agree with removing the list of classical liberals, solely because every source I've found so far provides a different list of "classical liberals." There's generally less disagreement over what constitutes "liberals," with Rousseau and Hobbes being the only two contentious figures. As I mentioned above, the scholars for Stanford mentioned that Rousseau and Hobbes haven't been considered liberals until recently. However, I disagree with Shawn: As someone else remarked, what constitutes a classical liberal is subject to dispute. Interpretating primary sources would be original research. Even if we could cite words from texts written by so-called classical liberals, we could take them out-of-context, miss other relevant primary resources, and just simply using primary resources doesn't guarantee a better article. An article based upon good secondary sources will still be better than an article based upon bad primary sources. Though I understand why you'd want to seek primary resources with the abundant of biased sources currently cited (the CATO Institute, Hayek, Friedman, Tocqueville, and Block, to name a few off-hand). Robocracy 08:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Biased as apposed to what, left of center democrat voting academics from wherever? Come on. Don't throw the bias word around, everyones got it. Cut the crap.  The article is good.


 * If we remove the list based on your reasoning that would mean we couldn't allow mention of any person considered classical liberal--that doesn't seem likely to happen. On sources: there is a difference between interpreting a primary source and using a primary source as evidence. If you have a general claim (e.g. all classical liberals believed in "that which governs least governs best"), and you have a primary source by a classical liberal (i.e. a member of the category of people that supposedly hold the above) that appears to violate the doctrine, you then have evidence that some classical liberals hold the contrary. As long as the source is cited, preferrably directly so that people can read it, then people can determine/discuss whether it is original research. That's basically what the original research clause says. But if the powers that be come right out and say citing primary sources in an article is original research, then by all means we should remove them all. Until that time, however, I will feel free to use them. But if we have further disputes over whether primary sources are allowed, we should perhaps seek moderation at a higher level to make that decision for us. On who is a classical liberal: it's uncontroversial that Locke and Smith belong to the category of classical liberals.Shawn Fitzgibbons 13:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem, though, is that there are so many primary sources for Classical Liberalism that selective usage of primary sources could still yield articles with different POV. I.E., writers could highlight Mill, Hobbes, Rousseau, and the Socialist tendencies of other classical liberal figures. Or, on the other hand, someone else could do the exact opposite and ignore Mill, Rousseau, and the non-laissez-faire beliefs of various classical liberals. If we sat here and went through every primary source imaginable, then yes, we could all work together to write a thesis which accurately represents classical liberalism. But we're writing an article. Because this is such a short article about such a broad subject, it's going to involve broad generalizations. In order to get the most 'correct' generalizations (or at the very least, generalizations which all parties find most agreeable) it's best that we stick with reliable, neutral, and mainstream secondary sources. Robocracy 15:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What defines primary then? Is Joseph Schumpeter or FA Hayek not primary themselves? Oh right, again it depends on your definition of classical liberalism.  SF, your rework isnt going to work.  PS, my changes so far have been great, inclusive, and most logical.  Your reverts have not been conducive to improving this article.

changes
I put in blockquotes to make it look better instead of the double in some places. I also moved the criticism of classical liberalism as neo liberalism to the section on classical liberalism and neo liberalism. That CERTAINLY makes MORE sense. I also deleted a redundant statement on Arthur’s belief that modern liberals became more pragmatic, that is already in the quote. Its untrue, but its in the quote, so I will leave it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.15.112.129 (talk)

Your changes have been reverted. You need to discuss them and reach a consensus before editing content, specifically.Shawn Fitzgibbons 20:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

How bout you discuss the MINOR changes I made and logical changes I made before you make a revert. You're the ONLY one complaining.

Hey wow look at this, here is the section that discusses the changes. And see Shawn reverting the changes without discussion. YOU DONT NEED TO HAVE CONSENSUS before editing content. Especially if the changes are things like block quotes. IF that was the case then WE'D GET NO PLACE!


 * The term 'classical liberalism' may today often refer to the liberalism of the Jeffersonian phase, but many classical liberals do not state the necessity of the doctrine that the smallest government is the best one, and it is difficult to extract it from the rejection of feudalism in favor of representative government.

The above quote needs to go. It is unsourced, pov, and original research. I think everyone would agree on this one. The Schlesinger Jr. quote should also be moved, it does not fit in the front. In fact loading it the front appears to be someone pushing a POV, especially with the redundant, if not incorrect claim of "pragmatic" not methodological. If its not removed, and the quote not moved where it is more appropriate, such as the section discussing the change of the term liberalism, then I will put up a quote that demonstrates that the change of the term liberalism during the industrial revolution had everything to do with ideology and nothing to do with pragmatic concerns. I have them.


 * Just make sure your quote comes from a peer-reviewed source and I won't have a problem with it.Shawn Fitzgibbons 17:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

A General Guideline for Editing--a Proposal
Since I'm not an arbitrator or a moderator of any sort I can't demand that any of these guidelines be followed, but I think they make sense and would appreciate any concerns or comments you might have.

When adding content, be sure it is referenced to sources respectable by all concerned. When deleting content someone else has contributed, be sure you have reached a consensus on this page before doing so. Otherwise, if someone merely deletes or hacks something I have added, I'm tempted to revert the article or re-add the content, whichever is easier. If you wan't to revise the article for style, that is generally acceptable without any discussion. If you wan't to make umpteen changes to the article in one sitting, you should make sure that whatever content you are editing is by consensus, otherwise, all your work might be undone by a reversion. When discussing issues on this page, do not state your opinions about the content of the article, that is, do not say things like 'Everyone knows blah blah blah' or 'Only communists think that' or anything else that isn't backed up by respected sources. We aren't experts on classical liberalism, we are merely improving an article in the interest of making it an informative, well-written read for people interested in classical liberalism.Shawn Fitzgibbons 20:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Shawn, most of us have been relatively civil and this has been a fairly constructive discussion. In response to the edit-warring, I've requested that the article be semi-protected. For now, all that needs to be done, I think, is for somebody to go to the library, dig out the Encyclopedia or Almanac of Liberalism and dig up more resources on the subject. Robocracy 11:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. Several encyclopedia-like sources should be sufficient. How do we contribute to the article if it's locked?


 * Good question. I requested that it be semi-protected, but the admin thought it was a good idea to just fully-protect it. If you want to have edits made, we need to look at the article as it is and make one suggestion at a time, then build a consensus. After we have a consensus on all of the issues, we can either make a request for significant edits to a protected page or make a request for unprotection. To keep a record of what edits we want to make, you and others could copy the article to your user-page(s) and we could make edits to it there. Once we have a version which we all agree with, we just make one of the requests mentioned. Robocracy 03:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Block
http://www.jeetheer.com/politics/smith.htm The block quote is from here. As you can see the article starts out with an interpretation of a "conservative" interpretation of Adam Smith. This builds a straw man that the lef itself holds, not the right, and that is of completely deregulated with no government interference to correct externalities. FA Hayek, NEVER noted that Smith said there could be NO government intervention, neither did Friedman, who was certainly more familiar with the conservative Reagan and Thatcher governments. In fact, Friedman has been quoted as saying that Smith is a greater critic of capitalism than Marx, nevertheless, Friedman asserts that Smith believed capitalism and free markets would work. Smith was no moral believer in human rationality, as this article asserts, he was as cynical as Hayek. In fact, the reasons he criticizes capitalism is precisely because of human failings. Human self interest, will at times, drive us to do bad things to other humans, especially if we can get the backing of government to do it. But with the right incentives, such as the protection of private property, the rule of law, and competition, self interest benefits humans positively. Human self interest, greed, or as Smith called it self love, would be positive.

This article gets it wrong in so many ways. I doubt a libertarian would be making the same mistake, he was probably misquoted. Mostly likely this libertarian was attempting to educate the interviewer that laissez faire does not, nor did it ever mean, complete anarchy.

PS, ironically, this article makes supposed left wing claims of Smith that are consistent with other classical free market liberals such as Cobden, Schumpeter, Hayek, and Friedman. They all believed that free markets would lead to peace, end poverty, create equality, bring humanity together, and of course, they opposed military drafts and wars. Nevertheless, people like SF and Slizor want to eliminate the libertarian as classical liberal, or classical liberal never ended interpretation completely...even though they supply evidence that it does in fact exist. Hmm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.15.112.129 (talk • contribs)

Let me remind you that the article is about Classical Liberalism, not Libertarian Perspectives on Classical Liberalism. If it were the latter, I could understand your contempt for the Walter Block quote. Your citing the article above, in fact, bolsters Walter Block's claim because it shows that three scholars, two extremely well-respected, agree with Block's assertion. And so, it is a scholarly assertion, one clearly relevant to the subject. Feel free to include a qualifier asserting that most of Block's contemporaries disagree with him, but the quote is still relevant. It's also very doubtful that Walter Block was taken out of context. Murray Rothbard of the Austrian school has made the same points Walter Block did. See this article by Rothbard too. Also, when the quote is added back in, I think it's relevant to also point out that the controversial Liberal economist, Alan Krueger, has made the same claim too. Robocracy 08:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me remind you that 95% of the article describes what a classical liberal is, not that libertarians are today's classical liberals. You both seem to forget that, more to the point, don't care. Its not that these guys agree with Block, (Naturally they do, Adam Smith allowed for government intervention, all classical liberals did, but there is a difference between their idea of government intervention and today's!) I've said this about a dozen times!  Almost all libertarians and classical liberals will tell you that Adam Smith said this. Friedman, as I said, stated that Smith was a harsher critic of capitalism than Marx. Neither of you are listening to me on this. What you are doing is taking the BLock quote OUT OF CONTEXT.  YES this is a fact.  Neither of you seem to understand that Laissez-faire unregulated free market capitalism ALLWAYS HAD A LITTLE BIT OF "REGULATION".  You are attempting to misquote Block and take a shot at modern libertarians who think they are classical liberals.  Nevertheless, this does not negate the fact that 95% of the article is about classical liberalism, NOT libertarianism.  The libertarian section is minor and small, but does represent, at the very least, the fact that libertarians do think they are classical liberals.  The quote could be useful to educating readers and improving the article, but NOT in the way it is currently presented which is highly POV thanks to being misquoted.

Since Block works at the Misses Institute perhaps we should go to the Misses website for information on what classical liberalism is. Let us read these together and try to put together the meaning of Block's quote. http://www.googlesyndicatedsearch.com/u/Mises?hl=en&submit.x=0&submit.y=0&q=Classical%20Liberalism


 * Block is an anarcho-capitalist, I believe, therefore we should understand from a classical liberal standpoint/spectrum, Smith would indeed appear left of him and subsequently, government all over the place is more subjective based on this anarcho-capitalist view.

This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.Shawn Fitzgibbons 15:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It is a good idea to understand where a writer is coming from...that way you don't misrepresent what they say. Hint hint.

Sections POV, unsourced.
Here are some selections that are POV or unsourced:

Classical liberals place a particular emphasis on the sovereignty of the individual, with private property rights being seen as essential to individual liberty. This forms the philosophical basis for laissez-faire public policy.
 * This can be sourced because this is historically acurate. (guy)

Classical liberalism is a political philosophy that supports individual rights as pre-existing the state, a government that exists to protect those moral rights, ensured by a constitution that protects individual autonomy from other individuals and governmental power, private property, and a laissez-faire economic policy.
 * this also could be sourced (guy)

The qualification "classical" was applied in retrospect to distinguish the early 19th century laissez-faire form of liberalism from modern interventionist social liberalism.
 * never heard of this before (guy)

The qualification "classical" was apparently coined by Mussolini:

It [Fascism] is opposed to classical liberalism [which] denied the State in the name of the individual; Fascism reasserts the rights of the State as expressing the real essence of the individual. fr. The Doctrine of Fascism (1932)(http://www.constitution.org/tyr/mussolini.htm)

Early in the 20th century, classical liberalism took a backseat to the ideas of modern liberalism which embraced central planning of the economy by the state and social welfare.
 * this is true, it is also sourced already in the article. For someone who likes redundant information you shouldn't be opposing this. (guy)

Modern classical liberals trace their ideology to ancient Greek and medieval thought. They cite the 16th century School of Salamanca in Spain as a precursor, with its emphasis on human rights and popular sovereignty, its belief that morality need not be grounded in religion, and its moral defence of commerce.


 * this one never had a source on it, but it may be attributed to Rothbard? A source could be used.(guy)

Adam Smith, (baptised June 5, 1723 O.S. (June 16 N.S.) (the exact date of his birth is unknown) – July 17, 1790) believed that the government had three and only three roles to play: 1.) "protecting the society from the violence and invasion of other independent societies...which can only be performed by means of a military force" 2.) "protecting, as far as possible, every member of the society from the injustice or oppression of every other member of it..." and 3.) "erecting and maintaining those public institutions and those public works, which...though most advantageous...are such that the profit could never repay the expense to any individual or small group of individuals" which implies that governments should work to provide some public goods and correct market externalities. Smith, advocates the state should not interfere in domestic or international trade through protectionism and that prices for goods, services, and labour should be set through the mechanism of a free market. He believed that if individuals pursue their economic self-interest that the good of society will be achieved indirectly by maximizing the stock of wealth.

Several liberals, including Adam Smith, Immanuel Kant, and Richard Cobden, argued that capitalism and trade could lead to world peace.

Kant died in 1804. He didn't say anything about "Capitalism" a term derived by Marx, who was born in 1818. The same is true of Smith, who died in 1790:

Adam Smith argued in the Wealth of Nations that as societies progressed from hunter gatherers to industrial capitalist societies the spoils of war would rise, but the costs of war would rise further, making war difficult and costly for industrialized capitalist nations.
 * Kant did not use the word capitalism, he said trade, and implied free trade. However, even this is sourced...by American academics no less. The above is directly from Michael Doyle "Ways of War and Peace" the other above that one is from Gartzke, Russet and Oneal.  You know for someone who wants sources other than Cato you do pull some stunts against academic sources; oh right they say something you dont want to see. Something tells me you won't ever be happy.  We had a guy like that around here awhile ago, he disapeared...then you showed up.  Sockpuppet?(guy)

Classical liberals had a concept of freedom that is entirely at odds with the modern liberal conception.

POV, unsurprisingly sourced to CATO, the same holds for the following.


 * Turns out this is true and not even up for debate. Cato or not.  (guy)

Classical liberals understood liberty to be a negative freedom, that is a freedom from the coercive actions of others. Modern liberals include positive freedoms in liberty, which are rights to the provision of goods.

I might continue with this later, but I think you see the point: this entire article is an abortion of research, filled with propagandized commentary. Much of it needs to be eliminated.Shawn Fitzgibbons 17:28, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Abortion of research? I've never heard of that phrase.  Sorry but you are showing your own bias here, don't go pointing fingers.  Most of what you point out already has a source you are just selecting sentences outside the source.  You are denying historical events and philosophical standpoints.  For example, there is a very clear difference between concepts of positive freedom and negative freedom.  There are also very clear instances of classical liberals desiring a smaller form of government and were more interested with the idea of free trade than modern social liberals.  Shwan F is a historical revisionist attempting to corrupt the term classical liberal with hack research of his own.  Nevertheless, some things could use citations.  But the page does not need deletion…or abortion.  *rolls eyes* (guy)


 * Maybe we should all just take a break and come back to it next week?

If anyone would like to look at the early history of editing this page you will find that breaks do not work. Slizor 10:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

this article is great, few changes are needed
In fact SF is so wrong on many accounts. Here are some non cato sources which support the cato position. One is even a marxist.

Teaching Classical Liberalism in an Undergraduate Theory Course, by Brad Lowell Stone. Teaching Sociology, 1992.

-Locke, Smith, Montesqueie. Hobbes is a pre-liberal. -Liberals accepted the "essense" of Hobbes state of nature (as a rejection of Aristatilian government, ie government isnt needed to promote human virtue) but assumed that under a limited government, human vices would become public virtue. -Locke, Montesqueiu, and Madison believed in popular sovereignty based on mixed governments, separation of powers, some such as Smith prosing free markets.

On Laissez faire capitalism and liberalism. By Lewis E. Hill. American Journal of Economics and Sociology. 1964.

“In the United States, Henry C. Simons, Milton Friedman and other members of the “Chicago Group” have classified themselves as “liberals”….we may sympathize with these distinguished contemporary laissez-faire economists, because the “liberal” designation belonged to their predecessors, the laissez-faire economists of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.” Despite recognizing their claim to the title, Hill disagrees with their attempt to take back the term because it adds to the public confusion when scholars such as John K. Galbraith and Milton Friedman use the term liberalism to define opposite policies (393). Hill observes that the term “liberal” means to completely different things between 18th-19th century liberals and 20th century liberals (393).

Hill states that the term “classical” is used to distinguish 18th-19th century liberalism from 20th century liberalism, the first implying laissez faire economies and limited government, the latter implying state intervention in the economy (393-394). Hill distinguishes between the two, noting that the classical liberal economy was “negative” implying that the government was restrained to removing coercion and removing “unnatural restraints on man to ensure liberty.” (394). In contrast, 20th century liberalism, or welfare liberalism uses government for “positive” or active, efforts to “augment the public welfare” (394)

Cato or not, the facts are clear. There is a major distinction between classical liberalism and modern liberalism. Even then, many scholars also recognize that modern scholars such as Friedman are themselves classical liberals. Hill is one, and he disagrees with Friedman's attempt to reclaim and restore the term to its original meaning. (Guy)

Sorry, but who is arguing for there being no difference between modern liberalism and classical liberalism? I was under the impression that people were arguing for a difference between classical liberalism and libertarianism. Slizor 10:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Page now semi-protected
I've lowered this from protected to semi-protected. It seems that the talk page discussion has been constructive, let's see how it goes. - Jmabel | Talk 19:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation area
I suggest moving the top heading to a disambiguation area which will link to: this article, Friedman and Hayek (or economic liberalism), and the libertarian article (or the minarchism article). Discuss. The most rational answer wins.Shawn Fitzgibbons 13:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * On second thought, this might not be such a good idea. After all when someone clicks on 'classical liberalism' they shouldn't need to be forwarded to a page that asks them whether they really meant classical liberalism, or whether they meant libertarianism.SFinside 16:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Key thinkers
I suggest removing the key thinkers section--these folks already have their own wiki pages so we can just link to them from here. Discuss. The most rational answer wins.Shawn Fitzgibbons 13:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, maybe a select few who have contributed the most is a good idea.SFinside 18:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Britannica source on Friedman and Hayek
Here is the full quote:

"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."

Notice it doesn't say anything like "ahistorical", or "encompassing the 19th century liberalism and what is seen as its revival in the 20th century". It says that there was a revival of classical liberalism, and that Hayek and Friedman were responsible for it. Therefore, Friedman and Hayek don't get special mention at the beginning of the article. What they revived was classical liberalism, which already existed.Shawn Fitzgibbons 18:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The reason for that little pre-into was because some Wikipedians were claiming that the philosophy of Friedman and Hayek is not classical liberalism, but that classical liberalism only applies to the philosophy of the much older liberals. So that intro is trying to point out that it can apply to the philosophy of the old liberals, but can also apply to the philosophy of the old liberals as well as to that of Friedman and Hayek. If the second bullet point says it is the philosophy of Friedman and Hayek, that is incomplete beacuse those who say it is that philosophy also say it is the philosophy of the old liberals. In other words, some think is applies to a particular time period but others think it applies to the philosophy itself. In other words still, some think that to be a classical liberal you have to be from the 19th century. They think that classical liberals can't exist today. All Male Action 18:23, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The heading as it is now doesn't suggest that classical liberalism refers only to any philosophy of any time period.Shawn Fitzgibbons 18:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, it used to. We need to include Friedman and Hayek then. All Male Action 18:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * They are included in the introduction. Why do they need to be referenced in the heading? The way you have them referenced is misleading because your source doesn't go with the other source.Shawn Fitzgibbons 18:34, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Simply becaues they were left out. Classical liberalism is not simply the philosophy of pre-20th century liberals. It is also the philosophy of contemporary theorists. I don't see anything misleading about it. If someone wants to add a name, then they link it to a source. All Male Action 18:36, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The point is that you are just tacking names onto another source--it's bad writing. It's misleading because the source you are using discusses a revival of classical liberalism, but that's not evident from the written text. It's also misleading because it looks like the previous text refers to Hayek and Friedman, which it doesn't. But classical liberalism doesn't refer to a revival of itself--that just doesn't make any sense--that's a historical aspect of classical liberalism.Shawn Fitzgibbons 18:46, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Classical liberalism is a philosophy. That means it does not apply to any particular time period. Friedman and Hayek were classical liberals. Do you disagree? All Male Action 18:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * That pre-intro should probably be deleted. It's redundant. The purpose now simply seems to be to point out that it is also a synonym for minarchist libertarians. That can by pointed out with a simple sentence in the intro. All Male Action 18:55, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, Friedman and Hayek espouse classical liberalism, or their own version of it, but that in itself doesn't justify anything. There are many other people that like classical liberalism; should we include them as well? I don't see the point other than your concern that people might think classical liberalism is a dead doctrine. But it doesn't say that so I think your concern is bordering on paranoia. Anyway, the entire introduction needs to be rewritten, so I agree that the heading should be merged into it.Shawn Fitzgibbons 19:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No, you've got me all wrong. The reason I asked that was to find out your position on that. My concern is justified. If you doubt that, go through the archives. This article has been through a lot of conflict because people come here claiming that classical liberalism only applies to pre-20th century individuals. All Male Action 21:00, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * All you appear to be saying is that we should include something in the article because someone might think otherwise--that's not a good premise for writing an article.Shawn Fitzgibbons 21:45, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear god
The article's gone from slightly to bad to horrible.

What the hell is this, guys?

''* a doctrine stressing: the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, constitutional limitations of government, the protection of civil liberties, laissez-faire economic policy, and individual freedom from restraint as exemplified in the writings of Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill. , Friedrich Hayek, and Milton Friedman
 * the political philosophy of libertarianism in its minarchist form. ''

I'm reverting to an earlier version until these new edits can be discussed. People are making substantial changes without even noting what they're changing on the talk-page. Stop trolling, please! Robocracy 21:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Nevermind. I've changed my mind. I'm going to retain the current version, but I am definitely going to find sources for this subject immediately, if only to save this article. Also, for those citing the Italian source, please tell me exactly where it says such in Italian or else the source shall be removed. I've noticed that some editors here seem to be finding single-sources which support their claims and then citing those sources redundantly. Robocracy 21:39, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not in Italian. If you click on "Preface" on the link, it's in English. It says "It is often difficult to distinguish between "Libertarianism" and "Classical Liberalism." Those two labels are used almost interchangeably by those who we may call libertarians of a "minarchist" persuasion: scholars who, following Locke and Nozick, believe a State is needed in order to achieve effective protection of property rights." All Male Action 01:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

FWIW, besides this particular source not actually being in Italian, while there is a preference for English language sources, you will see from WP:RS that the preference is by no means absolute. Please do not go around removing sources because they happen to be in a language that you personally do not know. It is perfectly reasonable to ask for translation; it is not reasonable to say "I'm removing this because I don't know the language it is in." - Jmabel | Talk 08:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Prior to-do list
What follows is the previous to-do list, archived for your enjoyment:


 * The POV dispute needs to be resolved. I attempted to figure out what issued remained from a scan of the talk page, but its length and organization makes that impossible.  I attempted to track down the edit that put the  into the article, but the edit history is too long.  IMHO, statements of dispute should be listed in a separate section, then crossed out when rough consensus determines they no longer apply.  That would permit those of us without a horse in this race but an interest in helping to resolve POV disputes would have something to work with.  I will add such a section.  User:66.167.137.237 (talk • contribs) 21:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC).
 * Aquinas and the Scholastics -- has it been considered to add this as well? Certainly Suarez, Aquinas, John of Salisbury (to name a few) were the genesis of natural law theory, and therefore one half of the classical liberal tradition not addressed here?


 * Just a few thoughts (and yes, I have considered posting and no, I refuse to have it mangled here). :)


 * Regards,
 * —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.227.91.153 (talk • contribs) 08:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC).

Serial comma
Avoids ambiguity: "...human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, constitutional limitations of government, the protection of civil liberties, laissez-faire economic policy, and individual freedom from restraint as exemplified in the writings of Adam Smith, David Ricardo,..." Without the comma after "restraint", it appears that Smith, Ricardo, et al. advocated only the freedom from restraint ("...freedom from restraint as advocated by Smith..."). The final comma clarifies that Smith et al. advocated the entire preceeding list. It clarifies the lengthy sentence. -- Unimaginative Username 01:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

POV, requiring more from the source.
This section is highly contentious:

"Many laissez-faire economists felt that these problems of industrial society would correct themselves without government action. In fact, this was occurring, just not in the manner and style hoped by progressive reformers."

What I'm concerned about is the "this was occurring" bit. I see the section sourced to two CATO areas, which is hardly reliable for NPOV. I'm not removing it, yet, but I would like to see something on that bit of info sourced to some independent historical source. If you would like to volunteer to look at where the CATO documents source this information to, I would be most happy to see it.SFinside 16:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, what needs to be moved or deleted is the part about liberalism taking a "pragmatic turn" the quote that follows should be moved to a section describing why liberalism changed requiring the word liberalism to precede it, NOT the first sentence in the overview discussing what classical liberalism is.  It just does not make sense to have it here...unless you are pushing a pov. Hint hint.  And as far as your concerns are concerned CATO is NPOV, it is a cited reputable source which is in turn citing data that demonstrates how progressives were wrong about the economy.  Besides, many of these CATO sources are simply CATO institute as the publisher, much in the same way as the Brookings Institute publishes or any other publisher like University of Chicago.  At any rate, working hours were diminishing, wages were rising, child labor was decreasing, literacy rates were increasing, life expectancy was increasing, poverty was decreasing...BEFORE GOVERNMENT HELP arrived.  This goes contrary to your "pragmatic turn" comment above...which is why you want it deleted.  If Cato is NPOV so is your quote saying liberalism took a pragmatic turn, both your O.R. and the quote itself. (signed)


 * Do you have the sources the CATO articles use to justify this claim or are you going to continue to blabber on endlessly about irrelevant topics?SFinside 16:37, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I assume that you mean to write "If Cato is POV…" Of course the Cato Institute is POV. They are an overtly libertarian think tank. They are exactly as POV as Brookings, Heritage Foundation, etc. These are citable source for their opinions, but must be handled with care for claims about fact. - Jmabel | Talk 08:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
 * What source is not POV? Is there such a thing? All Male Action 02:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Let me answer that question with another question: do you think there is a difference between an editorial/opinion piece and a peer-reviewed journal article?SFinside 16:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. One is in a peer-reviewed journal, and one is not. All Male Action 00:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If that is sincerely the only difference that you see, I seriously question whether you could possibly have read and understood Wikipedia's own NPOV policy. There is a large difference between writing whose primary purpose is to persuade and whose primary purpose is to inform. There is a continuum from one to the other, and few works are truly purely one or the other, but there is a lot more difference between the two than their review process. - Jmabel | Talk 21:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Then I doubt you've read many peer-reviewed papers. They're just as likely meant to persuade. Everybody has a POV. All Male Action 21:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've read a vast number of peer reviewed papers. And I suppose you are right that many are intended to persuade. But they are also held to a standard in terms of their factual claims that is simply not there for piece published by a group such as Cato. As Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said "You are entitled to your own opinions, but you are not entitled to your own facts." - Jmabel | Talk 01:24, 10 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Here is a problem I've noticed. The reason you want peer-reviewed articles is because peer reviewed articles (your definition) are left of center.  Academics are generally, left of center (more than 70% vote democrat in the departments studied....including history and political science which this subject studies), so including ONLY their articles will likely lead to an outcome you would like.  But I hate to break it to you, Cato, Heritage, Brookings...ALL DO PEER REVIEW!  Some, on this page, want to exclude them because they are right of center (Brookings is actually left of center though).  Please remember there is a difference between history and political science and real science where politics plays a less prominent role (unless you are receiving government funds). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.249.100.227 (talk) 18:48, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

Considering the fact the peer reviewed journals have published articles claiming that you can decrease crime by decreasing incarceration rates I think you may have more faith in peer reviewed journals than otherwise should be...or perhaps too little faith in Cato. Cato, like Brookings is highly reputable and not to be dismissed.

laissez-faire
From the article lead: "sometimes erroneously referred to as laissez-faire liberalism". Why is this erroneous? And who says it is erroneous? - Jmabel | Talk 00:58, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I would point out that this is saying that The American Prospect, Alan Dawley , William Novak , and Antonio Gramsci have erred, so it would need to be quite an authority. (And those were found in about 10 minutes.) - Jmabel | Talk 01:04, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Format adjustment?
I came here looking for information about classical liberalism and I was shocked at the level of disarray. There needs to be a history section and a modern section, because it's all mixed up. The whole introduction is a jumbled mess. Now, I would do it, but I stumble through edits, sticking mainly to fixing broken links and misspelled words, and cross my fingers that I did the right things if I try anything else. For the sake of knowledge, somebody with more courage in editing, who knows more about this subject than I do, and who knows more about Wikipedia for that matter, should frankly rearrange the whole thing.Heatherfire 00:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This page looked a lot better about 3 months ago before left wing critics came in here and tried to mess it all up. Content is largely the same but it just looks uglier than before.


 * The level of disarray is due to a fundamental disagreement over the nature of classical liberalism. I would fancy a revert to about a year or two ago....before right-wing nutjobs came along and shat all over everything. Slizor 16:40, 23 January 2007 (UTC)


 * More like left wing nut jobs can't leave well enough alone. This page has more citations than dozens of other sources, yet certain ideologically driven individuals won't quit despite the overwhelming evidence that proves their position wrong on all accounts. This article said the same thing before you even came along. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.249.100.227 (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC).


 * The above is proof that left-wingers are terrorists and mama humpers. 61.2.65.74 15:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Key thinkers
Anyone against spinning the Key Thinkers section off into its own article? It seems to be a waste of space and you could go on forever creating a section for another "key thinker." All Male Action 08:00, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I waited and no one objected, so I've done it. There is Key thinkers in classical liberalism now. I think this will make the article more orderly. All Male Action 05:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

here are several key thinkers in classical liberalism. From the page, to be saved just in case it is deleted and it should be put here.

That page was deleted just three days after this was pasted here. I say, put it back up on the Classical liberalism page.: —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.227.91.153 (talk • contribs) 08:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

John Locke


As the industrial revolution began in the United Kingdom, so did the first conceptions of liberalism. John Locke (1632-1704) defended religious freedom in his important work A Letter Concerning Toleration. It was published with his other important work Two Treatises of Government in 1689. However, Locke would not extend his view on religious freedom to Catholics.

Locke's views on the relationship between government and its "subjects" are a historical turning point in political thought. In Two Treatises of Government, as a response to Sir Robert Filmer's Patriarcha which defends the divine right of kings, Locke describes how, from his natural state, man forms a civil society with little government.

Locke goes on to claim that such a society is incompatible with absolute monarchy. Beyond this, however, Locke's only apparent restriction on government is that it be derived by consent of the majority (§132). Further, his discussion of the nature of this consent (to government) is fairly robust--as we reap the benefits of government we give our consent to it and should be obedient to its laws.

Locke completes the Two Treatises with a chapter on the dissolution of government. Previously it was held by monarchists that such a dissolution was unjust when undertaken by ruled subjects, but here Locke argues against that claim and allows for such a dissolution when a pre-determined limit has been agreed upon in the forming of government (e.g. a term-limit), or when the elected representative(s) have allowed or caused some injury to the public trust. Both of these situations, claims Locke, forfeit the supreme governmental authority, which then reverts back to the civil society in which the people can decide again on a new form of government "as they think good" (§243).

Immanuel Kant
Immanuel Kant (22 April, 1724 – 12 February, 1804) further advanced the idea of a liberal peace by demonstrating conditions and requisites for international peace among states in his work Perpetual Peace: A Philosophical Sketch (1795). As an early liberal, Kant opposed the concept of majority rule over the individual. In opposition to democracy, which in his time meant direct democracy, he advocates a constitutional republic. He says,
 * "Democracy is necessarily despotism, as it establishes an executive power contrary to the general will; all being able to decide against one whose opinion may differ, the will of all is therefore not that of all: which is contradictory and opposite to liberty."

Kant's moral philosophy, from the Critique of Pure Reason states,
 * “No one can compel me (in accordance with his belief about the welfare of others) to be happy after his fashion; instead, every person may seek happiness in the way that seems best to him, if only he does not violate the freedom of others to strive toward similar ends as are compatible with everyone’s freedom under a possible universal law.”

The "universal law" that Kant speaks of is the categorical imperative, the general formula of which is to act only in accordance with those principles that can be consistently willed as a universal law, which is impossible for principles aimed merely at material ends.

Further, Kant held that the most valuable liberty we have is autonomy, yet for Kant autonomy is when our free choices are consistent with the categorical imperative, not having free choice simpliciter.

Finally, Kant's conception of the Cosmopolitan Law, which was the free movement of individuals to do business in foreign nations. The cosmopolitan law, according to Kant, was to be the economic portion of human liberty. Liberal states would therefore foster free international trade between them.

Adam Smith
Adam Smith, (baptised June 5, 1723 O.S. (June 16 N.S.) – July 17, 1790) believed that the government had three and only three roles to play:
 * 1.) "protecting the society from the violence and invasion of other independent societies...which can only be performed by means of a military force" 2.) "protecting, as far as possible, every member of the society from the injustice or oppression of every other member of it..." and 3.) "erecting and maintaining those public institutions and those public works, which...though most advantageous...are such that the profit could never repay the expense to any individual or small group of individuals"

which implies that governments should work to provide some public goods and correct market externalities. Smith, advocates the state should not interfere in domestic or international trade through protectionism and that prices for goods, services, and labour should be set through the mechanism of a free market. He believed that if individuals pursue their economic self-interest that the good of society will be achieved indirectly by maximizing the stock of wealth.

Milton Friedman
Credited as being co-responsible with Friedrich von Hayek for providing the intellectual foundations for the revival of classical liberalism in the 20th century, Milton Friedman was known for his work in monetary economics: specifically the quantity theory of money. He co-authored, with Anna Schwartz, "A Monetary History of the United States", which sought to examine the role of money supply in explaining macroeconomic fluctations in US history. He was also well-known for this work on the consumption function especially the permanent income hypothesis. Other important contributions include his critique of the Phillips curve and the concept of the natural rate of unemployment. Friedman, like Hayek believed that economic freedom created and protected civil and political freedom and that the loss of economic freedom led to a loss in civil and political freedom. His most famous popular works include Capitalism and Freedom and Free to Choose where he advanced the ideas of laissez-faire free market liberal government. Friedman classified himself as both a "libertarian" and a "classical liberal."

Other classical liberal thinkers

 * Baron de Montesquieu
 * Voltaire
 * Thomas Paine
 * Friedrich Hayek
 * Frederic Bastiat
 * Grover Cleveland
 * Marquis de Condorcet
 * Gustave de Molinari
 * Denis Diderot
 * The Founding Fathers of the United States
 * David Hume
 * Karl Popper
 * Herbert Spencer
 * Ludwig von Mises
 * Mary Wollstonecraft
 * Joseph Alois Schumpeter

Defining classical liberalism
In research for a paper I came across some published academic work, and I will find it and post the source, which determined that the change in definition of Liberalism occurred in America because it had taken strong roots, and had been very popular relative to its opposition. Socialism, became a pejorative term in the U.S., thus usurpation of the term liberalism was a tactical move to gain acceptance. In Europe, he claimed, liberalism was not very strong. Reactionaries and socialists held great power, especially on the continent and liberalism did not take a strong root. The opposition, be it monarchists, tories, or socialists, found that they were not described in the negative by their labels, therefor liberalism, not being very popular, would retain its original meaning.

I also found another academic source which lists Hayek and von Mises (and maybe Friedman, though I can't remember) as liberals. Admits the original term of the word and that the definition had in fact change, though concludes that redefining an already redefined word would had to confusion and deplored those attempts.

I will post those as soon as I find them in my stack of papers (later this evening).

The last sentence in the first paragraph, which comes across as partisan disinformation, should be removed -- or at least heavily disclaimed. As appealing (and even possibly technically correct) as it may be to harken back to historical definitions, an empirical assessment of the proven acts (as opposed to rhetoric) of practicing, self-labeled "conservatives" in the United States today unambiguously shows that they are definitively < > "classical liberals." One merely needs to tabulate/correlate NSA wiretaps, Guantanamo, voter ID, signing statements, government deficit spending, corporate and agricultural welfare, the Wall Street mortgage bailout/intervention, stem cell research controversy, judicial support of corporate eminent domain - and more - against the explicit, defining doctrinal criteria ("... individual freedom and limited government. This includes the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, constitutional limitations of government, free markets, and individual freedom from restraint"). There may be advocacy for stating that "classical liberals" are closer to modern-day Libertarians; that characterization would, at least, be rationally defensible. Dstlascaux (talk) 08:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Milton Friedman
The article states Freidman (and others) were responsible for the 'revival of classical liberalism'. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that Freidman was a neo-liberal not a classical liberal. --Filippo Argenti 11:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You might want to compare classical liberalism with neoliberalism. __earth (Talk) 12:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * That's a biased cultural notion, to equate neoliberalism with classical liberalism. You see that a lot in France for example. Intangible2.0 01:08, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

criticism of libertarians as classical liberals
Someone deleted the last paragraph but let's think about the Princeton professors comments for a moment. 1) They are useless. This is because A) There is no reason to write about making narcotics legal since they were already legal, B) there is no reason to write about legalizing prostitution since this too was already legal.  This professor misses the point entirely, however if his general criticism is to be made (i.e. that there are argument/policy differences between classical liberals and modern libertarians) then the true criticism available is the difference between a libertarians concept of suicide and a classical liberal, notably Kant who specifically addressed the issue.  This singular difference (or the few others one may find) should not, as the last sentence states, negate a relationship between classical liberalism (or just liberalism) and libertarianism, especially considering the drastic differences between classical liberalism (aka liberalism) and modern 20th liberalism.

The paragraph should be kept, or at the very least deleted along with the irrelevant criticism of the Princeton professor.


 * I agree that Ryan's criticism isn't very good - but he would seem to be a reputable source; I would have no particular objection to it being deleted or, preferably, replaced with a better/more detailed quote about policy differences between libertarians and classical liberals. The paragraph that followed, though, which I deleted, doesn't give us a sourced objection to Ryan's account, but just the opinion of a Wikipedia editor, and in that sense is OR. Quite possibly some academics have discussed this issue (Anthony Flew mentions it in passing here, for instance), but we'd need to find those references to include it in the article. VoluntarySlave 20:08, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The Ryan criticism should stay (though I don't think it's a criticism so much as simply the guy's attempt at definition) because it is from a published source. I'd like to point out though that Adam Smith discusses the economics of prostitution in Wealth of Nations. And I warn that a discussion about the the difference between classical liberals and libertarians can only go so far because classical liberals sometimes call themselves libertarians. If a classical liberal calls himself a libertarian then his libertarianism is the same as classical liberalism. It's kind of a futile discussion, because there are libertarians of many different shades. VersaWorka 22:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Looking back at that Ryan quote, it's good because it acknowledges that he's only referring to "one strain of libertarian thought" anyway. VersaWorka 22:42, 17 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I still don't understand why some people find it so offensive that libertarians sometimes call themselves classical liberals and that some classical liberals occasionally call themselves libertarians. There has been a gross amount of effort on the part of some people here to eliminate any references making such suggestions, even to the point of deleting this page. I honestly think both should stay, perhaps we can find sources that demonstrate the points made.  Finding references to the legality of drugs and prostitution in the 18th century should not be hard, finding Kant's segment on suicide should also not be difficult.


 * I think it's because most people in the U.S. and U.K. that call themselves "liberals" today hate free markets and love welfare, so they don't want "liberalism" associated with "libertarianism" which supports free markets. But, it's futile because classical liberalism is well established to be a free market and anti-welfare state philosophy. Of course this only applies to Wikipedia editors from the geneeral public and not to more educated people who are familiar with classical liberalism. VersaWorka 20:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Modern liberals are not socialists either - there is quite a difference between the center-left and the left-wing. FYI: 63% of economists identify as liberal, yes, modern liberal (left-of-center) - so educated people clearly use the term as in left-of-center as well.  Signature brendel  02:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Kant quotation
I've removed this quotation from Kant:

"By virtue of their mutual interest does nature unite people against violence and war…the spirit of trade cannot coexist with war, and sooner or later this spirit dominates every people. For among all those powers…that belong to a nation, financial power may be the most reliable in forcing nations to pursue the noble cause of peace…and wherever in the world war threatens to break out, they will try to head it off through mediation, just as if they were permanently leagued for this purpose"

What's hiding in those missing bits? It looks very much like this quotation has been altered to misrepresent Kant's views.-- Nydas (Talk) 19:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Its not, have you ever read Kant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.123.139.248 (talk) 06:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

OR & POV
The "Redefinition of liberalism from laissez-faire form to interventionist form" section is OR and POV.

OR It is very apperant that the editor(s) used the section in order to prove the laissez-faire capitalism works. Yet, that is not the purpose of this article and clearly not of the section. Much of the section is dedicated to how the laissez faire capitalism of the industrial period benefit, not hurt, the proleteriat, not its intended subject. Please note that citing references does not make a section NPOV or rid it of OR. OR stands for Original Research, i.e. writing a research paper. A WP editor must not use his/her sources to prove his/her own hypothesis, as is being done in the section I tagged.

POV The section almost exclusively cited classic liberals. In order to be balanced some modern liberal should be cited. Only using quotes that describe how the proleteriat benefited from the industrial revolution is not NPOV; quotes from describing the hardship of its members or other contradicting theories are needed. Since this section talks about the difference between modern and classic liberalism, there should be roughly as many modern liberal sources as classic liberal sources.

Regards,  Signature brendel  02:25, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

This is really easy to claim when people keep removing the quotes and references which support those claims. I should also note that the only people disputing this section are the same people who fail to demonstrate how the article is wrong with sources of their own.


 * Please read my post again, you completely failed to address any of it. I did not state that there are sources missing - I stated that the sources were used in such a manner as to violate WP:OR; they represent someone's own research.  Signature brendel  05:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The claim that liberalism has been redifined is real. It is supported by facts, not editor opinions. No one has bothered to actually show the claim is false. There are numerous sources, both right of center and left which agree that liberalism has been redefined. There is a reason for this. Only people who don't know what they are talking about make this claim. The vast majority of educated people right and left tend to understand that liberalism has been redifined. There are no ifs ands or buts about it. There are just no credible people making the claim you want! I really don't get why you people keep up about this.

In fact, I remember putting a quote in from a progressive professor who basically said "Yes the meaning was about free trade, limited government, but since the change has been made you're out of luck" I looked but its not there anymore. Ironic. -_- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.123.139.248 (talk) 07:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Invalid argument
From the article: "However, if one difference remains between modern libertarians and their claimed classical liberal ancestors, it lies in suicide. According to Immanuel Kant's categorical imperative, a person may not take his or her own life, even if it is rational to do so. Modern libertarians believe suicide and assisted suicide should be legal."

1. Immanuel Kant is only one representant of the classical liberalists, if one at all. He is not "their claimed classical liberal ancestors" (plural). 2. The categorical imperative is primarily to be viewed upon as a moral standard, not a state-enforced law. Many, perhaps including Kant for all I know (I am not an expert), do not want all of their own moral standards enforced by the law. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehasl (talk • contribs) 18:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. There are some pretty irrational arguments being made in this article. I have highlighted another one below. --JHP (talk) 04:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

WHO First Used the Actual Phrase When?
I searched around here and in article and saw no reference to who used the actual phrase "classical liberal" first and when. That is an important point. Please clarify. Thanks. Carol Moore 12:48, 25 May 2008 (UTC)Carolmooredc {talk}

The reason why it is used is because of the debate over the term Liberal. As the article states the term liberal meant one thing and today, especially in the US it means another. Classical libereal was created to reflect that. Sadly, some revisionists here don't seem to get that point despite the overwhelming evidence supporting those points. This article has stood strong for more than 2 years on that point despite constant attack. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meltwaternord (talk • contribs) 17:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

"Market liberalism"
Either "market liberalism" is a synonym (and should simply redirect here, and the term should be mentioned in the lead where it was recently added) or it is not (and it should have a distinct article, and the distinction should be explained here and/or there).

I would say (but I'm not citable!) that the two concepts are closely related, but not interchangeable. The term "market liberalism" emphasizes economic aspects. One could argue that the present-day Chinese government practices "market liberalism"; however, the market is about the only place where they practice liberalism. "Classical liberalism" shares with other forms of liberalism a respect for individual liberties in matters of speech, beliefs, etc., that have only a tangential connection to markets. I can see using the term "market liberalism" or "free-market liberalism" to distinguish classical liberalism from forms of liberalism more inflected by social democratic ideas, but on its own in isolation the wouldn't connote to me these other shared aspects of liberalism. - Jmabel | Talk 18:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Libertarianism as a specific type of classical liberalism
This is original research on my part so I won't add this to the article, but I would argue that libertarianism is a specific type of classical liberalism. Thus, all libertarians are classical liberals, but not all classical liberals are libertarians. Based on this interpretation, Alan Ryan's argument (cited in the article) fails basic logic:

"[The claim of] 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."

According to Ryan's flawed reasoning, because Locke and Smith were not libertarians, libertarians cannot be classical liberals. (e.g. Because some animals are not cats, cats cannot be animals.)

Also, while Ryan cites Locke and Smith, he ignores John Stuart Mill's assertion in On Liberty: "That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." That sure sounds like an argument against victimless crimes to me. Ryan also ignores Jeremy Bentham's belief in the decriminalization of homosexual acts. Homosexuality was certainly considered an unorthodox sexual activity back in the 1800's. --JHP (talk) 04:29, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * But your definition of "victimless crime" is almost certainly different from what Mill (or Locke or Smith) would consider a "victimless crime". Modern-day libertarians and social liberals, while sharing certain classical principles shared by Mill like the test on the just use of power to prevent harm to others as you mentioned above, disagree with one another on the extent to which practices like heroin trafficking, possessing automatic firearms, and usury constitute harm to others. This is why it's critical to make the distinction between historically influential schools of thought and modern schools of thought. Andrew Levine (talk) 20:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Samuel Freeman
Who is Samuel Freeman, and why is he cited so heavily upon for ideas concerning "liberals" vs. "libertarianism?" It seems like someone interjected his own barely-known essays as citations for an opinion of his to me...

Voltaire?
Can we get some harder evidence that Voltaire was a "classic liberal" thinker? The man advocated AGAINST Democracy, in favor of a philosophical monarchy. That is most certainly not classic liberal. 68.248.233.69 (talk) 05:44, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Two meanings of classical liberalism.
You make two assertions: that liberals before the 20th Century favored free trade and that they favored small government. Some did, some didn't. Neither was the core of classical liberalism in the first sense, though both are the core of classical liberalism in the second sense. I'll give just two examples. John Adams favored free trade but favored a strong central government. Adam Smith favored free trade but also favored progressive taxation. A claim that classical liberals (in the first sense) favored free trade has more going for it than a claim that classical liberals (in the first sense) favored small government. But you should argue the case for small government on its own merits, not with false implications that the Founding Fathers favored small government. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Classical liberalism is the philosophy of limited government and laissez-faire economics as first presented by the early liberals. It's as simple as that. You haven't given a source for the claim that it has two different meanings. What do you mean by a "strong central government." You mean a strongly interventionist one? Why are you bringing up taxation? Taxation is not inconsistent with laissez-faire. Taxes are what is necessary to finance the existence of the government. Adam Smith never argued against taxation. I think you may be equating laissez-faire economics with anti-taxation. It's not the same thing. Taxes are not considered regulation of the economy. It's regulation that classical liberals were against, not taxation as long as it's not excessive. Anyway, you need a source for your claim that classical liberalism has two different meanings. Introman (talk) 22:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

But, as I've pointed out, with examples, the early liberals did not believe in limited government.

You agree that "classical liberalism" is used to mean "liberalism before the 20th Century". You agree that "classical liberalism" is used to mean "limited government and laissez-faire economics". Those are two different meanings. I don't need a reference to count up to two. Rick Norwood (talk) 23:06, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Early liberals didn't believe limited government? WHAT?! LOL! That's sourced all through this article man! Look up classical liberalism in the sources. Yes it refers to the philosophy of the early liberals. And their was a philosophy was a philosophy of limited government. What do you think they were rebelling against? Intrusive government. Ever read the Declaration of Independence? Again, you need to have a source for your claim that "classical liberalism" has two different meanings. Introman (talk) 23:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

The American Revolution rebelled against a monarchy and founded a republic. The question of strong vs. weak government was another question, discussed extensively in The Federalist Papers and many other sources. Also, note that "limited government" is not the same as unintrusive government. The question is whether, under limited government, the rights of minorities will be protected. A government can be strong but unintrusive. Our government is. Except every April 15, it leaves me almost entirely alone to do absolutely anything I want to do. (Oh, and I have to go through a metal detector at the airport. Big deal.)  By comparison, the American government in the 18th Century could put a man in the stocks for missing church, and John Adams, one of your "classical liberals" signed the Alien and Sedition Acts. Talk about intrusive government!

I'm always glad to provide sources. "The fate of this government depends absolutely upon raising it above the state governments." John Adams, quoted in David McCullough's John Adams p. 397.

Rick Norwood (talk) 00:02, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * "Limited government" certainly does mean non-intrusive government. It means the government whose power is limited from intervening in the private sphere. It's held back. It's retrained by a Constitution. And it doesn't mean it's not strong, but that it's strong in protecting liberty but weak in interfering with it. Anyway, you say you're "glad to provide sources." So where's your source that classical liberalism has two different meanings? Introman (talk) 00:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

You've admitted that classical liberalism has two different meanings! Why do you insist on the phrase "classical liberalism"? And now you are using "limited government" in two different ways, a) minarchy b) restrained. Rick Norwood (talk) 00:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? I'm not using "limited government" as a synonym for classical liberalism. I just said classical liberals supported limited government, which means one restrained from interfering with liberty, both personal and economic. A "minarchy" and a "restrained" government would be the same thing, i.e. a government that doesn't restrict liberty. Introman (talk) 00:23, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I've put in your point that it refers to the philosophy of the early liberals. That's a very non-controversial claim. But your claim is that the rest of the article is discussing a philosophy that those liberals didn't share. You're going to have sources to claim THAT. Who knows, you might be able to find one or two. But if you are able to, then it would have to be shown to be more than a fringe view. Introman (talk) 01:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The liberalism of 1776 and the liberalism of modern libertarians are not the same, and saying they are doesn't make them so. A minarchy and a "restrained" government are not the same. The current government of the United States is restrained by the Bill of Rights, but it certainly isn't a minarchy.

Because you use words with two meanings, and switch back and forth between those meanings, sometimes claiming the meanings are the same and sometimes saying they are different, as suits your arguement, it is very hard to discuss this with you. Barack Obama, who most people consider a liberal, and who describes himself as a liberal, got more than sixty million votes. The libertarian candidates, where they were on the ballot, got how many votes? And yet you continue to portray libertarianism as the mainstream of liberalism, and call standard liberal views "fringe" views. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The "liberalism of modern libertarians" is not what the article is about! It's about the liberalism of classical liberals. You're the one claiming that the term has two meanings. Everyone else says classical liberalism refers to the philosophy of the original liberals. Again, you don't have a source for your claim that it has two meanings. Introman (talk) 15:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "Everyone else says classical liberalism refers to the philosophy of the original liberals." Yes. But whether "classical liberal" also refers to contemporary laissez-faire liberals is a matter of debate, as reflected in the article. I don't think the intro should definitely say that these are two different things, but it shouldn't equate the two either. Maybe we could start the article with, "Classical liberalism is the philosophy of 18th and 19th century liberals," describe the main features of classical liberalism, and then add "Some people in the 20th and 21st century who identify with this earlier liberal tradition are also referred to as classical liberals" (or something like that, obviously that's a bit clumsily phrased).VoluntarySlave (talk) 18:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree, and I think that's pretty much was before this guy changed it. Modern libertarianism was only mentioned in the sentence at the end of the intro, as it should be. It could be tweaked in some way or another of course. But this article should be about the philosophy of the early liberals, and I think it is. I think you're right on with your suggested statement "Some people.." Introman (talk) 18:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

So, Introman and VoluntarySlave agree, classical liberalism refers to the philosophy of the original liberals. Then you cannot possibly object to the lede saying that. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Who wouldn't agree with that? But what you're trying to do is make it look like these early liberals didn't subscribe to what is described in the article. The articles is pretty well sourced. Introman (talk) 21:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

If you agree, why did you revert my edit? If you want to state that these early liberals believed what modern classical liberals believe, say so. But the references you have given do not establish that. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Because that's not the only edit you made. What you did is made edits giving the impression that the article is not about the philosophy of the early liberals. Everything in the article is sourced for what the early liberals believed. Apparently, you disagree that the philosophy of the classical liberals was a laissez-faire philosophy, which is bizarre, because that's where the term itself came from even. But again, this stuff is sourced and what you're doing is unjustified. Introman (talk) 22:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Now look what you've done. You've put this in the first sentence: "Classical liberalism is the philosophy of the early liberals in the 17th and 18th Centuries, a philosophy generally credited to John Locke." You can't single out John Locke. What about Adam Smith? Classical liberalism is the general philosophy of all the classical liberals combined. Introman (talk) 22:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

If you agree with part of an edit, and not other parts, you should change the parts you disagree with, not revert. And most of the sources are about what modern "classical liberals" believe rather than what early liberals believed. As I've mentioned before, early liberals were more likely to agree with laissez-fair than with no government except the most minimal possible government, which the article says modern classical liberals believe. Doesn't the fact that there are modern classical liberals show that "classical liberal" has two meanings?

If you want to add Adam Smith, by all means do so. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The sources in this article are not for what "modern classical liberals" believe, but all classical liberals. Classical liberalism refers to the philosophy of the early liberals. Those today who subscribe to that philosophy are known as classical liberals as well, naturally. It's as simple as that. Introman (talk) 22:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not as simple as that, because you have not established that the beliefs of modern classical liberals have much at all in common with the beliefs of the older liberals. You've said it, but you have not found any reputable source that has said it. From what I've read of the beliefs of modern classical liberals and the beliefs of older liberals, they have very little in common. Certainly their main points are entirely different. The modern classical liberals stress small government and classical economic theories, the older liberals were primarily interested in overthrowing the class structure, and in freedom of speech and of religion. The economic side was a relatively minor thread in their writing. Even those who concentrated on economics, such as Adam Smith, had little to say that corresponds to the beliefs of modern classical liberals. Or, so it seems to me. All you have to do to prove me wrong is to find a major author who agrees with you. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:57, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no need to "establish that the beliefs of modern classical liberals have much at all in common with the beliefs of the older liberals." The reason is because this article does not reference the ideas of "modern classical liberals"! This is what you're not understanding. This article is about the ideas of the original classical liberals. Introman (talk) 16:52, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Question
This is probably a bit of topic, but is the misspelling of "pursuit" in the opening ("life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness") a direct quote? If so shouldn't it have (sic) after it? Soxwon (talk) 23:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * My bad. I'll fix it. Rick Norwood (talk) 00:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Citation of "Merriam-Webster".
For the time being, I've left in the "Merriam-Webster" citation, but it is not a proper citation. If you want it to stay in the article, you need to put it in proper citation form: edition, publisher, date, and (if available) ISBN. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

POV
All reliable sources consider "classical liberalism" to be a version of liberalism that developed in England following the Reform Act 1832 and was copied in the US following the Civil War but by the end of the 20th century the social disorder and suffering caused by the dogmatic adherence to classical liberalism led to its reformulation both in Britain and the US. But this article makes almost no mention of classical liberalism. Instead it focuses on 18th century liberals who were its precursors and adherents of the Austrian economists, who found inspiration in classical liberal writings. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * That's not true that this article makes almost no mention of classical liberalism. Nearly every source specifically uses the term "classical liberalism." Introman (talk) 16:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Most books I've read do not use the phrase "classical liberalism" at all, and those that do use it in the way The Four Deuces mentions above, not the way Introman uses it. For example, in a recent edit he cites http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/lhr/24.1/novak.html to justify the statement "There are two versions of liberalism in the U.S., classical liberalism and modern liberalism." His source for this statement says: "The tale begins with a portrait of the old regime—nineteenth-century laissez-faire liberalism." But if you follow the link to classical liberalism, and go to the last version edited by Introman, you find this in the lede: "Classical liberalism (also known as traditional liberalism[1], laissez-faire liberalism[2], and market liberalism[3] or, outside Canada and the United States, sometimes simply liberalism[4]) is the philosophy of the early liberals in the 17th and 18th Centuries." Which is it? 19th century? Or 17th and 18th centuries? Evidently a few hundred years doesn't matter, taken out of context it seems to agree with Introman.

We have our work cut out for us. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't put 17th and 18th centuries in there. You did. Introman (talk) 17:54, 23 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The article named people from those centuries. You claim "classical liberalism" is the original liberalism.  Liberalism as we know it began in the 17th and 18th centuries.  You claim "classical liberalism" has only one meaning.  Is that meaning the liberalism of Locke and Jefferson, or the very different Jacksonian liberalism? Rick Norwood (talk) 19:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you're trying to say. Classical liberalism is classical liberalism. Whatever the sources say is "classical liberalism" is classical liberalism. If you're trying to say that everyone's liberalism is different, that's true. No two classical liberals have the identical philosophy, just like no two people are alike. But what constitutes classical liberalism is the GENERAL philosophy.  If you want to claim that there's two different definitions of "classical liberalism" then you need to find sources that attest to your claim. Introman (talk)

(out) Here's another link to an explanation of classical liberalism in Contending liberalisms in world politics. Unfortunately the section on social liberalism is excluded but the full text is available on Questia. As I mentioned above this article contains almost nothing about classical liberalism, rather it jumps from early liberalism to modern attempts to revive classical liberalism. It gives the misleading impression that neoliberals and libertarians are trying to restore the liberalism of Locke, Jefferson and other great thinkers of the Enlightenment, when they are really trying to restore the classical liberalism of Cobden, Malthus and Ricardo. There is also the implication that people who disagree with their versions of liberalism are either heretics or renegades. The Four Deuces (talk) 14:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So? What's your point? Introman (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My point is: As I mentioned above this article contains almost nothing about classical liberalism, rather it jumps from early liberalism to modern attempts to revive classical liberalism. It gives the misleading impression that neoliberals and libertarians are trying to restore the liberalism of Locke, Jefferson and other great thinkers of the Enlightenment, when they are really trying to restore the classical liberalism of Cobden, Malthus and Ricardo. There is also the implication that people who disagree with their versions of liberalism are either heretics or renegades.  The Four Deuces (talk) 16:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Who is claiming that "neoliberals and libertarians are trying to restore the liberalism of Locke..."? I'm wondering what your point of bringing that up is? Introman (talk) 16:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I said: It gives the misleading impression that neoliberals and libertarians are trying to restore the liberalism of Locke...  The Four Deuces (talk)
 * THIS ARTICLE gives that impression? Or are you just talking about the source itself? Introman (talk) 16:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Why have the names of the most notable classical liberals been deleted out of the intro?
What Rick Norwood appears to be trying to do is changing the intro to make it appear this article is about what he calls "modern classical liberals" but that's not what it's about. It's about classical liberalism, the ideas of the early liberals. He's also giving the impression that classical liberals were not of the laissez-faire persuasion, that only "modern classical liberals" are which is absurd. Does he know know the history of the term "laissez-faire" itself? It didn't come from "modern classical liberals." Introman (talk) 16:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You have inserted John Locke, Adam Smith and Frédéric Bastiat as "classical liberals". The first two were not in fact classical liberals although they were great influences, especially Smith.  While Bastiat was a classical liberal, it makes no sense to mention him while ignoring Richard Cobden and other more influential classical liberals.  So please correct your edit, because as it stands it is inaccurate and misleading.  The Four Deuces (talk) 16:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You deny that Locke and Smith were liberals???? Do you realize how easy it's going to be for me to find sources saying that they are? Introman (talk) 16:58, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I wrote they were not in fact classical liberals. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You still don't get it. Look at the very sentence in this article. "Classical liberalism is used in standard academic sources to mean liberalism before the 20th Century." Adam Smith was in the 18th century. If he was a liberal, then by default he was a classical liberal. Introman (talk) 17:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and added some sources spefically using the term "classical liberal," since for some odd reason you don't consider a liberal in the 18th century to be "classical" liberal. I'll had sources for the others as well. Introman (talk) 17:41, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

(out) That's a non-standard use of the term although used by a minority of academics. For example, Patrick M. Garry wrote in ''Liberalism and the American Identity (1992):
 * In the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, as partisan polictics matured, two strands of political dialogue developed out ot the American classical liberal philosophy and formed the basis of the modern conservative and liberal creeds....Consequently, both modern liberalism and modern conservatism have roots in classical Jeffersonian liberalism.

Ian Adams in Political ideology today {2001} uses the term slightly differently:
 * Ideologically, all US parties are liberal and always have been. Essentially they espouse classical liberalism, that is a form of democratised Whig constitutionalism plus the free market.  The point of difference comes with the influence of social liberalism.  How far should the free market be left alone; how far should the state regulate or manage and how far should government at federal or local level provide social security and welfare services?

But this article does not use this definition at all. The statement about a revival of classical liberalism in the twentieth century for example would be meaningless.

The Four Deuces (talk) 18:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you're saying. Introman (talk) 18:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What's the problem? I don't see a definition in your first quote. In your second quote there is a definition that says classical liberalism is political liberalism and economic liberalism (free market philosophy) together. That's the definition used in this article. Introman (talk) 18:23, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

(out)The lead says:

(1) The phrase Classical liberalism is used in standard academic sources to mean liberalism before the 20th Century.

(2) The phrase "classical liberalism" is also used to describe a form of liberalism in which the government does not provide social services or regulate industry and banking....

These are contradictory definitions and the article uses the second definition exclusively.

If you use the definition of classical liberalism as democratised Whig constitutionalism plus the free market then the mainstream ideology of the United States is classical liberalism, which includes both American liberals and American conservatives.

The Four Deuces (talk) 18:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * First of all (1) is not really a definition. It's just pointing out when the classical liberals practiced. But anyway, they're not contradictory. The classical liberals, the OLD liberals, supported, as your source says "constitutionalism plus the free market." Introman (talk) 18:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * All liberals support constitutionalism plus the free market. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No they don't. Introman (talk) 18:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, they do, which is why among other things they are called liberals and not for example conservatives or socialists. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Do modern liberals not support government intervention in the free market? That by definition is not support of a free market. A free market is one that government does not regulate. How about one glaring example, minimum wage laws. Obviously modern liberals don't support a free market in wages, but a government regulated market. Classical liberals don't support regulated markets. Introman (talk) 18:56, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You can make that argument about modern American liberals, but it is a fringe view, unsupported by mainstream writing. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No it's not. Everybody knows that modern liberals support regulation. But you apparently. Introman (talk) 19:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

(out)Modern American liberals support regulated free markets in some cases, unregulated free markets in most. Therefore they fit your definitiion of being classical liberals. You may believe that there is a contradiction between free markets and regulation, but that is a personal view, which has no place in this discussion, unless you have a mainstream source to support your views. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * First of all, there is no such thing as a regulated free market. A free market is by definition an unregulated market. If you support a free market in, say, television sets but not a free market in labor, then you don't support an overall free market. You support a controlled market. There is no such thing as a regulated market that is a free market. They're two contradictory things. That is, unless you mean something by "regulation" that I don't mean. By "regulation" I mean the government setting pricing and production policies, rather than the market itself. A free market does not have that. Introman (talk) 19:40, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That is a personal view, which has no place in this discussion, unless you have a mainstream source to support your views. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So you just want YOUR personal views said here. I see. Introman (talk) 20:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * My views are unimportant. What is important is what is said in sourced material.  I have provided two sources for my statements while you have provided none.  It appears that no mainstream sources support your views and for that reason they are irrelevant to the discussion.  The Four Deuces (talk) 20:10, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If you feel your views are unimportant then don't bring them up as you have, and no one will reply to them. No problem. Introman (talk) 20:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have not brought up my views here, I have brought up the views that are presented in mainstream sources and request that you do the same. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes you have: "These are contradictory definitions." Personal view of yours. "If you use the definition of classical liberalism as democratised Whig constitutionalism plus the free market then the mainstream ideology of the United States is classical liberalism, which includes both American liberals and American conservatives." Personal view of yours. "Yes, they do, which is why among other things they are called liberals and not for example conservatives or socialists." Persona view of yours. "Modern American liberals support regulated free markets in some cases, unregulated free markets in most. Therefore they fit your definitiion of being classical liberals." Personal view of yours. I don't need to bring up sources for what I say here. The only place sources are required are for what's in the article. Introman (talk) 20:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

(out) I was explaining the views presented in the sources. But the point is you are presenting fringe views and expecting them to receive the same respect as mainstream reliable sources. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think they're your personal views. If they're not in the sources you gave, which from I can tell they're not, then they're your personal views. Introman (talk) 20:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It does not matter what you think. What matters is what is in reliable sources.  The Four Deuces (talk) 21:34, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Same to you buddy. Introman (talk) 22:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Keeping the article referenced
Introman just sent me a personal message calling me dishonest and asking how I can sleep at night. I have wasted more time than I care to think about checking Introman's references, which often do not say what he says they say. I'll try one last time, and if he still doesn't get it, I don't see any point in trying to get through to him.

When Britannica uses the phrase classical liberalism, they mean liberals who lived in the 17th and 18th centuries. When living people who self-identify as classical liberals use the phrase they mean that they think the government should not provide social services or regulate industry and banking. Introman claims that, as a general rule, liberals who lived in the 17th and 18th centuries believed that the government should not provide social services and should not regulate industry and banking. This claim requires evidence. Rick Norwood (talk) 00:11, 27 August 2009 (UTC)


 * One thing at a time. That has nothing to do with what you just deleted. You deleted the names of classical liberals, multiply sourced, and had the nerve to claim that you were "restoring referenced version" in your edit summary. Introman (talk) 00:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have filed a Wikiquette alert. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Dishonest edit summaries are the worst! Introman (talk) 04:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Introman repeatedly claims without evidence that when an author says that the modern liberals who call themselves "classical liberals" have a certain belief, that is evidence that the liberals of the 17th and 18th century shared that belief, and vice versa. He claims without evidence that these beliefs are the same. Evidence is needed. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No such claim is being made in information I put in articles. Classical liberalism is classical liberalism. It's the philosophy of the liberals prior to the advent of modern liberalism. Someone who calls himself a classical liberal today may or may not share that philosophy. If not, then he's not a classical liberal but is just calling himself one. Now lets go back to what the source say. Contrary to your claim, the source does not differentiate between you call "modern classical liberals" and just regular "classical liberals." So stop misrepresenting sources by amending the text to say "modern classical liberals." It's not what the sources say. Classical liberalism is classical liberalism. Introman (talk) 22:02, 28 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Explain why you are deleting referenced information with the edit summary that you are "restore referenced version, see talk." Why are you putting in false edit summaries? And why are you deleting amply sourced information? Adam Smith and John Locke are multiply sourced to be classical liberals. Who in their right mind would deny that the father of classical economics, Adam Smith, is a classical liberal? What you're doing is very disruptive, not to mention ridiculous. Introman (talk) 22:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

somewhat misstates positions on provisioning public goods
The classical liberals varied rather widely on the extent to which the government ought to provide public goods paid for via taxation. The position presented here—that they opposed all but the most limited forms—describes 20th/21st-century people who identify as "classical liberals", but is much more problematic to apply as a generalization to earlier-period classical liberals. For example, both Adam Smith and Thomas Jefferson were in favor of universal, government-provisioned public education, Jefferson being particularly strongly in favor. --Delirium (talk) 07:02, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That is a good point. Classical liberals were not as doctrinaire as some portray them today.  The Four Deuces (talk) 21:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Education is not a "public good," in the way economists use the term. A public good is a non-excludable non-rivalrous. National defense is a public good, for example. However, some might want to call education a public good if they're using the term really loosely. Regardless, it says that provision of public goods is "limited," not that they're against them all. To be against government provision of them all public goods would make them anarchists. So I don't see the problem. Introman (talk) 22:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The article says, "Classical liberals are suspicious of all but the most minimal government". Does, say, the establishment of public universities (Jefferson heavily lobbied for the University of Virginia) count as "the most minimal government"? If so, then there's no problem, but it doesn't seem to comport with what most people mean by "the most minimal government". More generally, historical scholarship of the classical liberal period makes more distinctions than this article does to illustrate the range of opinion, e.g. between laissez-faire liberals like Bastiat and more pro-government-provisioning liberals like Jefferson and Mill (and on occasion Smith). --Delirium (talk) 23:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's sourced for those exact words "minimal government." Whether it's true or not shouldn't be an issue. I would consider a government that taxes to provide public education but not much more than that to be "minimal government." I guess someone else wouldn't. Maybe you can find a source that says otherwise to counter that statement. Introman (talk) 01:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, then maybe it's an issue of how the source is being paraphrased. The phrase "suspicious of all but the most minimal government" reads to me as considerably stronger just "minimal government", since it includes the "most" superlative. I'll take a look for alternative sources as well, though. One primary-source possibility is Adam Smith's famous 3-part prescription for government's role, from The Wealth of Nations: 1) providing defense against foreign invaders; 2) "protecting, as far as possible, every member of society from the injustice or oppression of every other member of it"; and 3) "erecting and maintaining certain public works and certain public institutions". --Delirium (talk) 04:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Be careful about citing the views of one classical liberal though, unless a secondary source says that that view is representative of classical liberalism in general. Introman (talk) 04:19, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Introman's claim
Introman claims that liberals before the 20th century, specifically John Locke and Adam Smith, believed in "the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, individual freedom from restraint, equality under the law, constitutional limitation of government, free markets, and a gold standard to facilitate global free trade and place fiscal constraints on government." The Four Deuces and I have provided a number of quotes to show that John Locke did not believe in "human rationality", but rather believed that humans were irrational, that he did not believe in "individual freedom from restraint", but rather feared that freedom from restraint would lead to mob rule, that he did not believe in "equality under the law", but thought that Blacks were not equal under the law. We have provided references to show that Adam Smith, while he thought that free trade, in comparison to the protective tariffs of his time, would lead to greater prosperity, did not believe that free trade was an absolute good. Introman has not established that the other items on the list were generally accepted by liberals before the 20th century, much less that they where a major part of liberalism before the 20th Century. But he claims that he has demonstrated that. To support that claim, he should be able to offer a quote, in the same way that The Four Deuces and I have offered quotes.

Introman, if you want this article to make this claim, you need to find a major source that says something to the effect that liberals before the 20th Century generally believed in the importance of human rationality, individual freedom from restraint, equality under the law, free markets, and a gold standard. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:00, 1 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I made no such claim. I only claimed that Adam Smith and John Locke are sourced to be classical liberals. I've given multiple sources. Apparently you think you've found some kind of inconsistency somewhere. If you find inconsistencies in some things among sources, that's life. That's the real world. In Wikipedia, you simply note that source X says this, however source Y says that. Introman (talk) 21:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We discussed this before. Adam Smith and John Locke are sometimes referred to as "classical liberals", but the term normally refers to 19th century liberalism.  The source you gave for classical liberalism includes Edmund Burke but also German ordoliberalism who set up a cradle to grave welfare state, nationalized industries and planned the economy with big business and labor unions.  Of course Edmund Burke is considered to be the founder of English conservatism.  My suggestion is that we do not datamine to find people who might have been called "classical liberals" but instead focus this article on the subject.  The Four Deuces (talk) 23:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's sourced. If Burke is sourced as a liberal, and it's a mainstream view that he is, then feel free to put him in. Note that Smith and Locke are sourced by multiple sources. And there's plenty more where they came from. Introman (talk) 23:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * To your suggestion that no classical liberal thinker be mentioned, there's no reason I can see to not name people who are not disputed by sources as being liberals. Smith and Locke are mentioned several times in this article. Introman (talk) 00:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Introman, are you aware that there is a difference between a liberal and a conservative? The Four Deuces (talk) 00:45, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Duh. Introman (talk) 01:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

(out)Well apparently not, because you think that Edmund Burke who was a conservative was a liberal. Again do you understand that conservatism and liberalism are different concepts? The Four Deuces (talk) 01:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Where did I claim that Burke was a liberal? Introman (talk) 02:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The source you gave for Locke and Smith as classical liberals states: Furthermore, the combination of Freiburg-style Ordnungspolitik and sociological neo-liberalism following Roepke and Ruestow can be regarded as a continuation and reformulation ot the classical liberal tradition in the lineage of ADAM SMITH, Edmund Burke and Alexis de Tocqueville.  If you relying on this source then you are claiming that Burke was a liberal, not a conservative.  The Four Deuces (talk) 16:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not claiming that. The source is claiming that. Introman (talk) 16:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In other words, the sentence you used as a source is inaccurate. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Inaccurate? It's irrelevant whether you think the sentence is inaccurate. That's not for you to say. If something is reliable sourced, it's reliably sourced. I've seen him referred to as a liberal in some other sources too. Apparently you don't understand that aspect of Wikipedia. What's true or not is not for the editor's to decide, but just whether something is sourced or not. Introman (talk) 16:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

(out) You are the one who is inferring that your own source is inaccurate. Do you agree with your source that Edmund Burke was a liberal? If you do not then you are using a source that you consider to be in error. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:30, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't infer that the source is inaccurate. I don't claim it's inaccurate and I don't claim it's accurate. That's not relevant to my position as a Wikipedia editor. And, it's not yours either. If Burke is reliably sourced to be a liberal, then it's permissible to note that in Wikipedia that he's sometimes regarded to be a liberal. Introman (talk) 18:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

LOCKDOWN!
So let's get this intro worked out. Introman (talk) 03:42, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

A statement not represented by the source
A couple people keep putting in this statement: "The phrase "classical liberalism" is also used to describe a form of liberalism in which the government does not provide social services or regulate industry and banking, and followers of this brand of classical liberalism today often claim that early liberals shared these beliefs. "

But where in this source does it say that "followers of classical liberalism today" claim that early liberals had these beliefs? All I see is the source itself, John Goodman, saying that these were the beliefs of early liberals. And I don't see any evidence that HE'S a classical liberal, if that's what's being used a source for the statement. Introman (talk) 20:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Your comment is inaccurate. Two editors have restored a position that you have attempted to delete or amend.  Whether Goodman is a classical liberal or not is irrelevant, his article is the reference authority for what I for one think is a reasonable paraphrase.  -- Snowded  TALK  20:24, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you think it's accurate then can you give a quote from the article that says that CONTEMPORARY FOLLOWERS of classical liberalism claim that the early liberals supports this position, rather than Goodman just saying that classical liberalism supports that position or that classical liberals support that position? Introman (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you challenging the authority of the citation? -- Snowded  TALK  20:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No. Did you not read what I wrote? I'm challenging the statement in the Wikipedia article, as not being represented by the source. Introman (talk) 20:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well you have a confusing way of making a simple statement.  As I said my view is that its a good paraphrase.  Lets see what other editors think.  -- Snowded  TALK  20:54, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand you're saying it's a good paraphrase. I'm asking if you have any evidence for saying that. Can you give a quote from the article that's saying that contemporary followers of classical liberalism say that early liberals had this philosophy, rather than just Goodman saying that early liberals had this philosophy? Without evidence, your saying that it's a good paraphrase doesn't hold much weight. Introman (talk) 20:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd query whether this is a good source in any case. It comes from a site with a very definite POV and it really reads like an opinion piece rather than a piece of scholarly research. It gives us no clue as to how commonplace or mainstream the views expressed are. --FormerIP (talk) 21:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Hence my earlier question. I am trying to find out what the objection is -- Snowded  TALK  21:07, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Snowded: It is clear that the paragraph accurately represents the reference.

FormerIP: This discussion has been going on for a long, long time. The citation of the POV source is on the same basis that a POV Scientology source may be cited as evidence of what Scientologists say they believe. This source is cited as evidence of what people who call themselves Classical Liberals say they believe. Introman has made literally hundreds of edits, to this article and to most of the other articles on liberalism, to the effect that what these people believe is correct, not POV, and that any source that disagrees with them is POV. When he removes the paragraph he repeatedly removes, the next paragraph, which beings "Classical Liberalism in this sense..." refers back to an earlier sense of the phrase "Classical Liberalism", instead of to the sense reflected in the text that follows. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Stop trying to make this about me. Either the source backs up what you're saying or it doesn't. Where is your evidence? Or are you saying that Goodman is a contemporary classical liberal? If so, where is your evidence for that? Introman (talk) 21:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Introman: this is about you because nobody else who is editing these pages agrees with you.

When you remove the paragraph you repeatedly remove, the meaning of this later paragraph changes. With the paragraph in, it gives the beliefs of the people in the reference. With the paragraph out, it attributes these beliefs to Jacksonian liberals, who held some of these beliefs but certainly not all.

"The philosophy of classical liberalism in the latter sense includes the importance of human rationality, individual property rights, natural rights, the protection of civil liberties, individual freedom from restraint, equality under the law, constitutional limitation of government, free markets, and a gold standard to facilitate global free trade and place fiscal constraints on government,[5]."

Rick Norwood (talk) 21:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * All classical liberals subscribe to classical liberalism. There is not two different definitions. Introman (talk) 21:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

User Snowded's reversion
I expanded the first sentence of the intro, to say "The phrase Classical liberalism is used in standard academic sources to mean early liberalism, whose adherents argued for government by consent of the governed and for an end to state interference in the economy. (What I added is in italics) Snowded reverted it claiming in his edit summary that "The source does not say that, this is another attempt to impose a political agenda."  So, I'll give a quote from the source: "''Liberalism originated as a defensive reaction to the horrors of the European wars of religion of the 16th century (see Thirty Years’ War). Its basic ideas were given formal expression in works by Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, both of whom argued that the power of the sovereign is ultimately justified by the consent of the governed, given in a hypothetical social contract rather than by divine right (see divine kingship). In the economic realm, liberals in the 19th century urged the end of state interference in the economic life of society. Following Adam Smith, they argued that economic systems based on free markets are more efficient and generate more prosperity than those that are partly state-controlled.''" Snowded, are you still going to deny that the statement I added is backed up by the source? Introman (talk) 22:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Introman, you appear to have inserted a defintion which is partial, in both senses. Also, I may not be fully understanding, but if liberalism originated in the 16th century, surely the thoughts which emerged in the 19th century are not "classical" in the ordinary sense of the word (?) --FormerIP (talk) 22:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you mean by "partial in both senses." But, to your other point, it doesn't say it originated in the 16th century. It said was a reaction to the horrors of the 16th century. It came after those "horrors" as a reaction. Just like social/modern liberalism is a twentieth century reaction to the state of affairs in the 19th and 18th centuries. Introman (talk) 22:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)


 * By "partial in both senses", I mean that the definition you give is only part of what ought to be a fuller definition (the opposite of "complete"), and that it looks to have been selected in order to promote a particular world view (the oppoisite of "impartial").
 * Regarding the 16th century, you give an interesting interpretation of the source, but what the source actually says is corroborated by other sources. For example, the Oxford Companion to Philosophy says: "Liberalism first emerged as an important movement in Europe in the sixteenth century". That seems very clear to me.
 * Economic liberalism is a much later concept. In On Liberty, JS Mill is quite clear that Free Trade is not to be seen as a liberal doctrine. He supports Free Trade, but it "rests on grounds different from" his own view of liberalism: "The question of individual liberty is not involved in the doctrine of free trade". If the leading exponent of liberalism in 1859 thought that, I think there has to be at least some doubt as to the extent to which certain economic freedoms actually are a feature of "classical liberalism" at all. --FormerIP (talk) 22:59, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The source says what it says. The statement is clearly backed up by the source. Introman (talk) 02:07, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * No it isn't. --FormerIP (talk) 08:33, 15 September 2009 (UTC)