Talk:Classical liberalism/Archive 6

Request to Stop the editing of this page.
Like it or not, it has become clear that a few editors are seeking to scuttle any information they can from this article, arguing basically against everything in it while refusing to adress the points against their responses in a substantial way. As a result, until this behavior can be sure to have ceased and we can continue giving benefit of the doubt to these editors, this article should be locked from editing.

It is undeniably clear that those common editors are seeking not to present facts as reported, but instead are attempting to challenge the ideas on a political level. This is not the forum for that sort of behavior. 74.128.56.194 (talk) 00:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That's my observation too. Looks one or two people think they own article, and have friends who aren't involved in the article they call upon to come in only to do reverts who have no idea why they're doing them and without any explanation. Leaving the article locked forever in symbolic protest is fine with me. Bullet Dropper (talk) 02:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * This is my first comment on this article. I have no affiliated with any previous contributors.  That said, there are serious concerns with this article.  I don't suggest malicious intent, but there are problems.  Locking the article effectively bars rational discourse. Aallpow (talk) 19:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Adam Smith
"He developed a labour theory of value to explain the prices of goods and services. To him the value of any good or service was determined by the labour required to produce it. He assumed that workers could be paid as low as was necessary for their survival, which was later transformed by Ricardo and Malthus into the "Iron Law of Wages".[38]"

This is ascribing a different context than Adam Smith was using, and in fact Smith's point was the opposite of the one inferred here. Smith was using it to demonstrate the high value of labor in driving economic success. It is true that Adam Smith came up with a labor theory of value, saying that labor was “the real measure of the exchangeable value of all commodities (36),” and “the only accurate measure of value (43).” But he did not use it to justify paying laborers as little as possible as is alleged, but the theory the writer described used Smith's principle of labor to say something different than Smith did. For Smith, the “liberal reward of labour (86)” is crucial to the success of society: "But what improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconveniency to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, cloath and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, cloathed and lodged." (83)

Smith actually defended high wages:

"Our merchants and master manufacturers complain much of the bad effects of high wages in raising the price… They say nothing concerning the bad effects of high profits. They are silent with regard to the pernicious effects of their own gains. They complain only of those of other people." (104).

Furthermore, Smith actually points out that investors, unlike wage earners and landlords, have interests contrary to the general society:

"But the rate of profit does not, like rent and wages, rise with prosperity, and fall with the declension of the society. On the contrary, it is naturally low in rich, and high in poor countries, and it is always highest in the countries which are going fastest to ruin. The interest of this third order, therefore, has not the same connexion with the general interest of the society as that of the other two" (219).

Why does Smith say that is, you say? Smith answers:

"But the wages of labor being lowered, the owners of what stock remains in the society can bring their goods at less expense to market than before, and less stock being employed in supplying the market than before, they can sell them dearer. Their goods cost them less, and they get more for them… The great fortunes so suddenly and so easily acquired in Bengal and the other British settlements in the East Indies, may satisfy us that, as the wages of labor are very low, so the profits of stock are very high in those ruined countries" (99). (All citations to the "Wealth of Nations" are page numbers from the edition published by Prometheus Books; Amherst, New York; 1991). www.medaille.com/the%20forgotten%20agrarian.pdf


 * This is good research. Please edit the article to include it, in so far as the article discusses Smith.  Of course, Smith came long before the ideas now called "classical liberalism", and the classical liberals seem to praise Smith more often than they read what he actually wrote. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree with Rick. There is a distinction between Smith and how his theories were interpreted later writers.  In fact the same oculd be said for all the economists in the article.  We should properly explain their theories and also ensure that we explain their influence on 19th century liberalism.  TFD (talk) 19:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Neo-Classical Liberalism
There is a segment of this article that states neo-classical liberalism as a wholly different concept to classical liberalism that came about during the "late 19th century". This is false. Statesmen and philosophers in the United States were talking of limited government as required to uphold individual liberty and property rights in the late 18nth century and before that: "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yeild, and government to gain ground." - Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, Paris, 27 May 1788* - a wise & frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry or improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labour the bread it has earned. this is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities." - Thomas Jefferson's First Inaugural Address * Tacitus famously stated "And now bills were passed, not only for national objects but for individual cases, and laws were most numerous when the commonwealth was most corrupt."*. The 10nth amendment in the US constitution makes it unlawful for government to make any laws outside of those specifically named "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."* The idea that more government always leads to less individual liberty, prosperity, etc far predates the late 19nth century - This should be fixed. 71.72.239.68 (talk) 01:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Please provide reliable sources. TFD (talk) 07:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources added - i sometimes forget these things are, unfortunately, not common knowledge. 71.72.239.68 (talk) 07:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It already says in the article, "classical liberalism built on ideas that had already developed by the end of the eighteenth century". Also, it does not say that neo-classical liberalism was a wholly different concept.  TFD (talk) 10:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

"In its most extreme form, it advocated Social Darwinism. Libertarianism is a modern form of neo-classical liberalism." This is analogous to saying something to the effect of "Jesus' teachings later were adapted into the mass genocide of the crusades" I don't think there is enough room nor is this the right place for me to explain why social darwinism is not compatible with free-market capitalism. Here is my primary concern: "In the late 19th century, classical liberalism developed into neo-classical liberalism, which argued for government to be as small as possible in order to allow the exercise of individual freedom." the italicized segment implies that a belief in small government was an invention of neo-classical liberalism. This is the primary flaw with the section because it introduces the small government belief as a new and defining characteristic of neo-classical liberalism. The only way it would be even remotely logical to include this information after already stating that neo-classical liberalism was based on classical liberalism would be to say that the classical liberal belief that expanded government power leads to less individual liberty continued in neo-classical liberalism. Otherwise the explanation is redundant and unnecessary.71.72.239.68 (talk) 21:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The article already says that classical liberals supported minimal government. TFD (talk) 02:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Which is why the section i just mentioned is out of place in the article and contradicts it. 71.72.239.68 (talk) 01:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Why? How?  TFD (talk) 02:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Neo classic lib is a radical form of classic lib where the state is limited to a more extreme. We call this libertarian in the US. The moderate form of classic lib where state intervention is more flexible with certain issues is known as conservatism in the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnbrian9 (talk • contribs) 07:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Can you provide sources that explain this? TFD (talk) 11:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from CWenger, 6 March 2011
Disambiguation: Manchester School → Manchester School, Joshua Cohen → Joshua Cohen. Thanks. –CWenger (talk) 23:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Agree The links are now to disambiguation pages and should re-direct to these pages. TFD (talk) 04:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅. JohnCD (talk) 11:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Section free trade and world peace - mention empirical evidence
I would like the editors to add the following sentence at the bottom of this section:

Contemporary empirical research, however, casts some doubt on the validity of the causal connection between trade and peace propagated by these authors. As Hyung Min Kim and David L. Rousseau report in an article in the Journal of Peace Research:

"Using a dataset of international disputes from 1960 to 1988, the authors find that there is no statistical evidence of the pacifying effect of economic interdependence. Findings in the existing literature appear to be due to the improper use of the classic logit (or probit) method despite the existence of the simultaneity problem' between the use of force and interdependence (i.e. reciprocal causation). In this study, the authors employ a two-stage probit least squares method to control this problem. Although Kant's prediction with respect to regime type is supported by the analysis, the claim that economic interdependence will decrease conflict is not. The two-stage results reveal that international conflict reduces economic interdependence (rather than interdependence reducing conflict)."

Min

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.82.1.40 (talk • contribs) 14:33, 13 March 2011


 * The section needs to be re-written in order to include analysis, just as the "Intellectual sources" section does.  Since neutrality however requires us to give greatest weight to mainstream views, recent (2010) research may not have the necessary weight for inclusion.  The abstract says, "Classical liberals such as Kant argued that expanding political participation and increasing economic interdependence would promote peace among states. Recent empirical support for both propositions has led to a growing consensus on the power of the ‘liberal peace’."  TFD (talk) 15:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree this is appears to be a current debate and some care is needed. "Opposing camps have clearly formed, and [there are] debates between and within those camps" . I think it would be good to give coverage to this debate (due respect to Kant, but he has been dead quite a while now). We would need, though, to cover it as a debate and include arguments on both sides. --FormerIP (talk) 15:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

True, there are arguments on both sides. Here is one recent study finding support for a causal connection: Dorussen, Han/Ward, Hugh 2010: Trade networks and the Kantian peace, in: Journal of Peace Research 47: 1, 29-42. Page 30 mentions a couple of other studies that are part of this debate. The article cited in preceding post (Keshk et al. 2011) would be "against". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.82.1.40 (talk) 15:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Reagan book
Two editors have taken exception to the sentence, "In the United States in the second half of the 20th Century, many classical liberals allied with social conservatives and attacked the very concept of liberalism, calling their beliefs conservatism". They have modified it to read "New Deal" or "modern" liberalism. But the meaning of the sentence is that U.S. classical liberals rejected "the very concept of liberalism", not modern liberalism per se. Since those editors do not like the passage, I will remove it. TFD (talk) 03:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It seemed biased to me the way it was originally written. Saying they rejected "the very concept of liberalism" seems to be hinting that they are hypocritical or something along those lines, even though I don't think modern liberalism has any more claim to the concept/term than classical liberalism. In any case, it was not a very important sentence, and I agree with its removal. –CWenger (talk) 03:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Please help
Currently creating Classical liberalism (political parties). Please help with translations and additions.--  Novus    Orator     02:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Not sure if there are any sources that classify modern parties as "classical liberal" or even if there is agreement on what that would mean. The conservative liberalism article lists parties and there is a list of Libertarian parties.  TFD (talk) 02:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * There are legitimate Classical liberal parties (the biggest being the Swiss FDP.The Liberals). Conservative liberalism is a contradiction that should be merged or deleted. The libertarian list is to broad because it includes anarchists and minarchists.--  Novus    Orator     04:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * What specifically makes the party classical liberal? TFD (talk) 05:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Is liberalism conservatism?
Some editors believe that this article should be included in the conservatism project because "modern conservative economic policy is largely based on classical liberalism". However all the major ideological groups - communism, socialism, greens, liberals, Christian democrats, conservatives and extreme right have embraced liberal principles to some degree. In fact conservatives have not embraced classical liberalism, but neoclassical liberalism, but then so have the other major ideological groups. This topic is better included under liberalism. The projects are not supposed to be lobbying groups but are there to support topics related to the subject. TFD (talk) 05:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

A list of classic liberal parties should be listed
I believe they are all right wing parties including the US Republican and Libertarian parties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnbrian9 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You would need reliable sources. And right-wing and classical liberal are not the same thing necessarily, certainly not historically.  TFD (talk) 17:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Historically classic liberalism was the predominate ideology encompassing both moderate (right) and radical (left) but with new ideologies emerging such as marxism/socialism which encompasses the far left, classic liberalism is now mainly in the center right, both moderate (conservative) and radical (libertarian). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnbrian9 (talk • contribs) 07:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Neo-classical liberalism
An editor has added to a sentence in the lead, which read, "In the late 19th century, classical liberalism developed into neo-classical liberalism...". It now reads, "In the late 19th century, all liberals supported laissez-faire liberalism and capitalism which then developed into neo-classical liberalism".... Although the added words do appear in the source,(Mayne, p. 124) (in a different sentence) the purpose of the sentence in the article is to explain that classical liberalism developed into neoclassical liberalism, rather than to explain what classical liberalism was (which is already done in the first paragraph). The addition is also ungrammatical, implying that capitalism developed into neoclassical liberalism. TFD (talk) 00:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, the addition is ungrammatical and seems to be trying to score points rather than explain things in an objective manner. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Score points in what way? Bullet Dropper (talk) 00:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * When good articles are written, it is impossible to determine the ideology of the editors. But this phrasing would impress a reader that the editor was a free market advocate who believed, contrary to what Ian Adams wrote, that modern liberals did not support laissez-faire and capitalism.  TFD (talk) 01:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't get what you're saying. Bullet Dropper (talk) 02:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Would it be a fair assessment to say that you are a proponent of what you would describe as "'laissez-faire' liberalism" and "capitalism" and that you consider modern liberalism to be misguided? TFD (talk) 02:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No it wouldn't be a fair assessment of me. Why? Bullet Dropper (talk) 20:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Laissez-faire liberalism
"It may be called "laissez-faire liberalism." While this statement may be true, I have problems with the sources used.
 * Since Adams' definition includes the modern Democratic Party of the United States as a classical liberal party, it is too wide for the subject of the article.
 * Mayne includes both classical and neo-classical liberalism as "'laissez-faire' liberalism".
 * Stetson, like Adams, also defines classical liberism widely, although not as widely. But it is clear that he is referring to neoclassical liberalism as well.

It might be better to say "Both classical and neoclassical liberalism are referred to as "'laissez-faire' liberalism"", and add it after the mention of neoclassical liberalism. Also, we should avoid multiple references for text. One good source is sufficient.

TFD (talk) 01:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You're making it overly complicated for frivolous reasons. Bullet Dropper (talk) 02:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I do not consider the accurate use of sources to be frivolous. TFD (talk) 02:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I wonder if "laissez-faire liberalism" has been used mainly to refer to groups or ideas from the 20th century to the present rather than to groups in the 19th century and before? If that is the case, it may be better to redirect to libertarianism or such page, rather than this page, which describes mainly the ideas, activies and groups from the 19th century and earlier.
 * I guess what I"m asking is, is the term "laissez-faire liberalism" commonly used to refer to liberalism of the 19th century. i.e. is David Ricardo ever refered as a "laissez-faire liberal"? Or is "laissez-faire liberalism" more commonly used to refer to Milton Friedman, who may be best described as a libertarian? LK (talk) 02:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * A problem with all the terms used to describe different types of liberalism is that they are used differently and there are no exact synonyms for various terms. I have not been able to find many sources explaining the use of terminology, and prefer to leave out information that is not well covered in the literature.  This article (which I cannot access) is used as a source for history in the article Laissez-faire.  Many sources object to the term laissez-faire.  TFD (talk) 03:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * If it is used by some, but objected to by others, perhaps something like, "... has also been called 'laissez-faire liberalism' by some, but others object to this description" should appear in the article (although not neccesarily in the lead). LK (talk) 04:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The term "laissez-faire" was not used by most of the writers mentioned in the article as it did not move into common usage until 1824. Many later writers (including Hayek) see it as an inaccurate description of their beliefs.  There is a piped link to Laissez-faire for readers interested in the term.  However, I think we need a source explaining the use of terminology in order to discuss the use of the term "'laissez-faire' liberalism" in the article.  (Mayne actually uses the scare quotes.)  In the meantime, I will remove it.  TFD (talk) 12:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Look. It's simple. There are two broad kinds of liberalism. The laissez-faire version and the version that supports the government intervening to promote social welfare. Classical liberalism falls under "laissez-faire liberalism." Bullet Dropper (talk) 20:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Classical liberals also supported the government intervening to promote social welfare, for example, labor and safety laws, education, and poorhouses. TFD (talk) 03:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I was talking about welfare state programs, such as social security, universal healthcare, etc. Bullet Dropper (talk) 03:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * They are also for free markets, unlike the newer liberals who are for government-regulated markets. Bullet Dropper (talk) 03:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What do your comments have to do with the topic under discussion? TFD (talk) 04:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That classical liberalism is a laissez-faire liberalism. What do your comments have to do with the topic under discussion? Bullet Dropper (talk) 04:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Your edit implied that only classical liberals were called "'laissez-faire' liberals" and not for example neo-classical liberals. But as mentioned, many writers, including Hayek, object to the term as an over-simplification.  TFD (talk) 04:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think it implies that. It says "It may be called 'laissez-faire liberalism'". That's the truth. Several sources refer to it as "laissez-faire liberalism." If you have a source that something else is called 'laissez-faire' liberalism, then you're free to add a note that it's not the only thing called by that term. And if there is a source that says it shouldn't be called that, again, you're free to note that. Bullet Dropper (talk) 16:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * When we have articles about topics where there is conflicting use of terminology, as is the case for all articles about liberalism, we need to ensure that the writer is using the term in the same sense. Clearly in this case he is not.  TFD (talk) 18:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Same sense as what? Bullet Dropper (talk) 18:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Same sense as used in this article. Also, adding "Some contemporary classical liberals call themselves "libertarians"" to a paragraph following one which says, "Libertarianism is a modern form of neo-classical liberalism" is contradictory and confusing.  TFD (talk) 19:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Doesn't matter if it's used in the same sense as the article. Ideas and terms don't fit into a nice tidy latticework. The article is not using it one particular sense anyway. It's just a hodge-podge. About this "neoclassical liberalism," that appears to be a kind of obscure term. Do a search in Google books, and you'll see the paucity of results. I think it's being given too much prominence and probably should be taken out of the introduction. On the other hand "laissez-faire liberalism" appears several thousand times. Bullet Dropper (talk) 19:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It matters because we need to be clear that they are talking about the same thing. The article is about the dominant liberalism c.1830-1848, and it really makes no sense to include comments that use wider definitions of classical liberalism.  And neo-classical liberalism is a widely used term.  TFD (talk) 20:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the article is about simply what it's about. It's about whatever is referred to as classical liberalism. What your sources are calling "neoclassical liberalism" is usually included as "classical liberalism." It's just a newer terminology, to attempt subcategorization, that hasn't caught on widespread yet. It's not anywhere nearly as common as "laizzez-faire liberalism" which for frivolous reasons you keep deleting. Bullet Dropper (talk) 20:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not about "whatever is referred to as classical liberalism" because this is not a dictionary. This article is about a topic, which is the main definition of classical liberalism. TFD (talk) 04:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Mentioning neo-classical liberalism in article about classical liberalism
Should the following sentence be included in Classical liberalism?"In the late 19th century, classical liberalism developed into neo-classical liberalism, which argued for government to be as small as possible in order to allow the exercise of individual freedom. In its most extreme form, it advocated Social Darwinism. Libertarianism is a modern form of neo-classical liberalism."The sentence is sourced to Mayne, Alan James. From politics past to politics future: an integrated analysis of current and emergent paradigms. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group, 1999 (p. 124) TFD (talk) 20:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Include Reliable source. Important to any topic to explains its influences.  TFD (talk) 20:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Include . But not in the introduction. It's not a very common term to describe the later evolution of classical liberalism, so doesn't deserve the prominence of being in the introduction. Bullet Dropper (talk) 20:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Include In the body of the article, with a short mention in the lead with appropriate weight, since the lead summarises the body. LK (talk) 03:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Include. But I've rewritten the sentence to avoid two implications that are not in the sources, first the implication that small government in fact always lead to greater liberty (it didn't, for example, in the American South dominated by the Ku Klux Klan) and secont the (I believe unintentional) implication that Social Darwinism is identical to Libertarianism. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Use only with great care. It seems simplistic, to be honest, and also it runs together a number of debatable points. Do most authors agree on the terminology distinguishing classical and neo-classical liberalism and the point at which this happened? Or is this a contribution to an ongoing debate? Is Social Darwinism really best seen as an extreme wing of liberalism, or does it have too many illiberal features for that? Is this source not an overview of all political thought over a long period, and wouldn't books specifically about liberalism be more useful? Itsmejudith (talk) 17:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Surprisingly there are very few histories of liberalism. The two most used are Guido De Ruggiero's The history of European liberalism (1927) and Anthony Arblaster's The rise and decline of western liberalism (1987).  Another problem is that all the terms related to liberalism, including the term itself, have conflicting meanings.  However, there is agreement that the liberalism of the early nineteenth century gave way to a division between the "true" liberals and the "new" liberals (as they described themselves), and most sources refer to the two strands as neo-classical and social.  I have found other sources and will enlarge the section about this period.  Social Darwinism may be illiberal but it was advocated by many neo-classical writers, including Herbert Spencer.  TFD (talk) 23:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Include in the lead - This sentence ties together several very critical threads of thought (Libertarianism, Social Darwinism, Liberalism).  For readers that only read the lead, it would be a shame to miss out on the insight provided by the connections between these topics.  Connections like these are the lifeblood of a great encyclopedia.  (PS: on  a related note: I would move the sentence that contrasts "social liberalism" with classical liberalism up to the first paragraph, so readers get the distinction very early ... perhaps a disambiguation template at the very top of the article?). --Noleander (talk) 03:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note I added details about neo-classical liberalism into the body of the article and put back a shortened mention in the lead. TFD (talk) 20:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment "Classical liberalism" is a very common term in academic papers. "Neo-classical liberalism" is quite rarely found, and often only with regard to specific positions.  The claim that this one source is sufficient to state implicity that "classical liberalism" is not currently extant is erroneous, and likely to harm Wikipedia.  Any comments on "neo-classical liberalism' should be in a separate section, and not conflated in this manner.  Decidedly an interesting topic, but one ill-suited for such cavalier simplification in the lede. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The most common terms used are neo-liberalism, libertarianism and (especially in Europe) simply liberalism. TFD (talk) 11:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * See The person who posts the greatest amount of repeated verbiage to a discussion, is least likely to be correct Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not constructive to post personal attacks. TFD (talk) 15:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not constructive to assert that someone made a personal attack for citing what was never called a personal attack in the past. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Removal of the term neo-classical liberalism
"1. In the late 19th century, classical liberalism developed into neo-classical liberalism, which argued for government to be as small as possible in order to allow the exercise of individual freedom.... The term classical liberalism was applied in retrospect to distinguish earlier 19th-century liberalism from the newer social liberalism. Some conservatives and right-libertarians use the term classical liberalism to describe their belief in the primacy of economic freedom and minimal government." "2. Some call the late 19th century development of classical liberalism 'neo-classical liberalism,' which argued for government to be as small as possible in order to allow the exercise of individual freedom, while some refer to all liberalism before the 20th century as classical liberalism. [Footnote:   is an example of an article that defines 'classical liberalism' as all liberalism before the 20th Century.]... The term classical liberalism was applied in retrospect to distinguish earlier 19th-century liberalism from the newer social liberalism. Some conservatives and right-libertarians use the term classical liberalism to describe their belief in the primacy of economic freedom and minimal government." Despite the response from the RfC, an editor has again removed reference to neo-classical liberalism from the lead and has accused me on my talk page of "violating NPOV policy". TFD (talk) 03:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC)  Could editors please review the two versions above. The source is Mayne's From politics past to politics future, p. 124. (While it appeared to me that the reference to neo-classical liberalism had been removed, it had in fact been changed.)  TFD (talk) 14:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The user above is stating an untruth. I didn't remove it. It's still there. I just merged a sentence from below with it and changed some wording around so it could be coherent. The user above is has been making POV entries to the article by asserting point blank that the later development of classical liberalism is called neoclassical liberalism, when some other writers call it simply classical liberalism. I made it NPOV by stating that some call it neoclassical while some others call it all classical liberalism. TFD, again, I suggest you read up on NPOV policy, as you don't appear to be understand it. Bullet Dropper (talk) 03:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It already says in the lead, "Some conservatives and right-libertarians use the term classical liberalism to describe their belief in the primacy of economic freedom and minimal government. It is not always clear which meaning is intended." That describes your position I get it.  But there is no need to overstate this, and beginning a sentence, "Some call the late 19th century development of classical liberalism "neo-classical liberalism", which is your judgment, is poor writing.  Your footnote, "[link to website of National Center for Policy Analysis] is an example of an article that defines "classical liberalism" as all liberalism before the 20th Century is redundant.  TFD (talk) 11:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Could someone post the two proposed alternatives side-by-side here so we can look at them and provide comments? --Noleander (talk) 13:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Now posted at top of discussion thread. TFD (talk) 14:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Considering the entire lead section, I think the material should be presented as follows: I think this would be most useful to readers. I'm not suggesting a total re-write, but instead a re-ordering, then adding clarity to (4) and (5). The particular question of this section in the Talk page revolves around item (4) and (5) in this outline. --Noleander (talk) 14:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Definition of classical liberalism, including origin (time/place) .. re-use first two paragraphs of existing lead
 * 2) Contrast with "social liberalism" ... important to establish this early because most readers will be familiar only with the modern term "liberal" in the "social liberal" context
 * 3) Introduce most common definition of term "neo-classical liberalism" (?government small as possible?), and mention the term "Neoliberalism" (which is what neo-classical liberalism redirects to).
 * 4) Provide TIME and PERSONS/SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT that originated the term "neo-classical liberalism" (?modern scholars who wanted to distinguish early 19th century concept from late 19th century concepts?)
 * 5) Explain any ambiguity or overlap about the multiple terms (? "classical liberalism" is sometimes used in a way that includes "neo-classical", and is sometimes used to the exclusion of neo-classical?)
 * 6) Mention relationship of classical liberalism with related concepts, such as Libertarianism and Social darwinism (provided supported by sources)


 * Note to Bullet Dropper. Please avoid personalities and discuss issues.
 * I agree with Noleander's proposal and would like to see him do the rewrite.
 * Rick Norwood (talk) 12:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Distinguishing the phases of developing social or intellectual movements is rarely a simple fact but rather a matter of opinion about which authorities will hold various opinions. The sentence cited appears an idiosyncratic view by a single writer, although a few others might possible have similar, and is referring to a different movement than one customarily meant by the term.  Not that our articles are authority, but it is significant that   our article "neo-classical liberalism" was changed to "neoliberalism" and   gives an altogether different meaning for the term,  as a form of liberalism derived from neoclassical economics, that developed in the last third of the 20-th  century, not the late 19th century. The distinction given in the sentence at the top of the article would appear to be a special use, and  to the extent that the sentence quoted describes anything specific, it would be indicating a  development within classical liberalism. The concepts behind Social Darwinism were part of most 19th century ideologies.   DGG ( talk ) 20:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I would not read too much into the fact that neo-classical liberalism is a re-direct to neoliberalism. The source says that both libertarianism and neoliberalism are forms of neo-classical liberalism.  And of course they relied on neo-classical economics.  I would question whether social darwinism, the idea that that the market alone should determine social outcomes wzs part of conservative, social liberal or socialist ideology.  TFD (talk) 20:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Europe vs Western Europe
The current text of the article contains: "Classical liberalism developed in the 19th century in Western Europe, and the Americas." I think that it is misleading: Western Europe did not exist in 19th century in the form used today (e.g., as the Wikipedia article on Western Europe shows): a large part of the Austrian Empire is missing from this classification. There were strong liberal movements in the early 19th century in the whole Austrian Empire, including those states that are classically not counted as Western Europe. The statement above is much more permissive with respect to America, since it gives the whole continent (not just North America) as a source of classical liberalism. I think that reducing the European part to only those countries which are considered Western Europe today is inappropriate, since Western Europe is a 20th century concept. Therefore, I am suggesting changing "Western Europe" to "Europe" (or to "Western and Central Europe"). -- Koertefa (talk) 07:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)


 * I have changed it to better reflect the source. TFD (talk) 13:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok and thanks. -- Koertefa (talk) 07:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Slavery
Classical Liberalism was the ideology that replaced ancient monarchies/authoritarian regimes, established constitutional republics/civil government, and ended slavery in Europe and the Americas. The word slavery is not mentioned once, and this is a disingenuous ommission. Classical Liberalism ended slavery, as this was a core tenet which they eventually achieved.

The replacement of the monarchies and oligarchies with constitiutional republics is another major event that has been ommitted. This was a master stroke of the classical liberals, particuarly in Europe where the stakes were high but also in the decolonization of the Americas, particuarly the United States and Gran Colombia.

These must be included as core tenets as well as achievements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.63.113 (talk) 19:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Can you provide any sources that explain the significance of slavery to classical liberalism. TFD (talk) 20:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Undue weight to E. K. Hunt?
The entire "core principles" section is sourced to a certain E. K. Hunt, previously unknown to me, but who seems obviously not to like classical liberalism very much. Shouldn't we balance this with a more sympathetic source? It's not as though they're not there in reliable sources. --Trovatore (talk) 02:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree. But we also need to avoid bias in favor of classical liberalism, so rather than a "sympathetic" source, how about an objective, academic source.  I'm sure there are many. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The source used was published by M. E. Sharpe, Inc., which is an academic publisher and therefore a reliable source. It is a textbook in its 7th edition.  The writer was honored by the International Confederation of Associations for Pluralism in Economics,  ICAPE argues that "that each tradition of thought (Austrian, feminist, old and new institutionalist, Marxian, neoclassical, Post Keynesian, social economics, Sraffian, etc.) adds something unique and valuable to economic scholarship".  ICAPE is supported by numerous academic institutions and economists.  Modern writers who draw inspiration from classical liberalism do not question the history, rather they are selective about the classical liberal writings they accept.  I have read a number of histories of the period and none that provide any substantially different narrative.  TFD (talk) 14:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * My objection is less to the narrative per se than to the words used to describe it, which I think are loaded. However I do question it on a substantive level as well &mdash; he seems to be saying that classical liberals really think that man is homo economicus at a fundamental level, rather than only in the economic sphere. --Trovatore (talk) 17:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)


 * See Thomas Malthus, An Essay on the Principle of Population (1798), chapter 18, where he asks us to "consider man as he really is, inert, sluggish, and averse from labour, unless compelled by necessity". TFD (talk) 19:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, some classical liberals said things like that. But to say that's a "core principle" of classical liberalism?
 * I think also that the "core principles" section treats classical liberalism excessively as a descriptive theory of economic (and more generally human) behavior, and ignores classical liberalism as a political, normative theory directed at the rights of man and the liberty of the individual. --Trovatore (talk) 19:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * ...or to put it another way, I'd like to see less focus on Malthus, and more on, say, Locke. --Trovatore (talk) 19:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The article is about the liberalism that "developed in the 19th century". TFD (talk) 20:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see how an article called "classical liberalism" can neglect Locke, but leaving that point for another day, OK &mdash; then, less Malthus, more Mill. --Trovatore (talk) 21:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It does not exclude Locke, there is a whole section that explains how he was interpreted. And J.S. Mill's influence came later.  TFD (talk) 21:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Trovatore: It seems to me the idea that "classical liberalism" is normative rather than descriptive, that absolute economic freedom is "right" no matter its consequences, is a 21st century idea rather than a classical liberal idea. TFD: Thanks for citing some of Hunt's credentials. They're impressive, but even so it would be nice to find a second source, even if that source says the same thing in a different way. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * But classical liberalism is not just about economics! Where are things like the rights of the accused?  Those are also "core principles" of classical liberalism. --Trovatore (talk) 22:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * A problem I find with all liberalism topics is the inconsistency of terminology. This article for example says, "Classical liberalism developed in the 19th century.... Some call the late 19th century development of classical liberalism "neo-classical liberalism...." The term classical liberalism was applied in retrospect to distinguish earlier 19th-century liberalism from the newer social liberalism.[8] Some conservatives and right-libertarians use the term classical liberalism to describe their belief...."  It might be better, per WP:DISAMBIG to rename the article "19th century" liberalism.  The rights of the accused for example had long been established in England and the classical period (1830-1848) concentrated on economics.  TFD (talk) 14:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a rename is in order, but then there should be an article on classical liberalism in the broader sense, which started with the Enlightenment if not earlier. --Trovatore (talk) 19:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That would be the main article on liberalism. TFD (talk) 19:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that that one includes reform liberalism. I'm talking about an article on liberalism pre-T. H. Green. --Trovatore (talk) 19:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Liberalism pre-Green is discussed both in this article and in the main liberalism article. TFD (talk) 20:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure, but there should be a dedicated article to it. Green changed liberalism so much that it's arguably not the same thing at all.  To me classical liberalism has always meant the sort without his changes; I don't think I'm in any way alone in that. --Trovatore (talk) 20:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you have any sources that would provide a guide for the type of article that you propose? TFD (talk) 20:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't at the moment; I'll keep an eye out. --Trovatore (talk) 21:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Liberalism is a belief in freedom and equal rights. Conservatism is a belief in preservation of social norms. In the Eighteenth Century, social norms were at odds with freedom and equal rights, and so liberals and conservatives were clearly opposed. Today, freedom and equal rights are social norms, and so the division between liberals and conservatives is largely artificial. When everyone favors the rights of the accused, that issue is not a defining one for any particular political philosophy. It's different in a country like Saudi Arabia, where the liberals want votes for women, and the conservatives oppose votes for women.

Rick Norwood (talk) 18:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)