Talk:Classical liberalism/Archive 8

shorten the lede?
Classical liberalism is a political ideology that advocates limited government, constitutionalism, rule of law, due process, individual liberties including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets. shortened this to Classical liberalism is a political ideology in liberalism in which it advocates individual liberties under the rule of law and stresses economic freedom. I reverted partly because of a grammar problem – the apparent antecedent to it is liberalism, so "a political ideology in which liberalism advocates..."? — and partly because it's not obvious to me that adding liberalism is worth dropping limited government, constitutionalism and due process. —Tamfang (talk) 22:46, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the change and thank you for reverting. We are supposed to report what sources say about subjects.  TFD (talk) 05:36, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Any objection to beginning with "Classical liberalism is...."? —Tamfang (talk) 05:47, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Isn't that how it began before? TFD (talk) 05:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Was the word liberalism linked before? —Tamfang (talk) 07:58, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I do think the first sentence could be shorter. I'm going to make an attempt to say the same thing in fewer words. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

We need to resolve this issue of philosophy and geography.
Looking at the history of article I think there’s an immediate need to understand what this article is. Classical liberalism is political philosophy derived from economic science. While its history is important this is not an article on geography. It is an article on ideology. I hope this clarifies some of the issues raised.

E.G. The inclusion of historical figures. I can see in the above history an issue came up about Bastiat and people proposed to resolve it by creating a separate heading called "French classical liberalism". This is completely unnecessary. Frédéric Bastiat was a significant figure in classical economics and French politics (he sat on the left of the French parliament, which is where we get our terms left and right today) so there could be an argument made for the inclusion of a section on French politics. Here we could include the French revolution, the Jacobins etc. But Frédéric Bastiat is primarily important to classical liberalism because he developed economic science and this is not relative to France. We could likewise include Anne-Robert-Jacques Turgot (French), Adam Smith (Scottish), Carl Menger (Austrian) and Murray Rothbard (American) for their roles in developing economic science as a logical praxeological discipline independent of the political history of any particular geography. But of course none of these men were politically neutral. None of them worked in a vacuum. They were influenced by each other and there is a historical narrative to the development of the classical liberal philosophy (which encompasses both economic and political philosophy). '''It isn't a valid reason to remove any of these figures because of geographic reasons. Period'''.

Another issue coming from this confusion about geography and philosophy that I noticed was the Irish potato famine. Any of you familiar with Ralph Raico the eminent classical liberal historian may know the consensus classical liberal analysis of the famine. The reason Ireland was devastated while other countries survived was due to their issues with industrialisation. The bug that wiped out potatoes actually hit many European countries but it was only so destructive in Ireland because they were still in the stages of an agricultural revolution. Development had been retarded in Ireland by a tyrannical English state which refused to recognise the property rights of Irish citizens. Because people were reluctant to work in what amounted to serfdom for land barons Ireland didn't develop capitalism at the same speed as England's industrial revolution. When the potato bug hit they didn't have an economy able to cope. (This is a crucial incident in the history of classical liberalism but I’d like to emphasis again: this is not a geographical issue. It is a philosophical and economic one. It is relevant as historical background to a philosophy which is international.

From looking at the history of this page I can see a couple of the same editors from the "liberalism" article routinely censoring peoples contributions. I assumed that this was because the users simply were more knowledgeable about social liberalism and were reluctant to allow classical liberal ideas but now this seems more like censorship. I would appreciate it if Rick Norwood and The Four Deuces responded to this so we can resolve this clearly political issue and get down to improving Wikipedia. Jake Rothbardanswer (talk) 18:09, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Here is a list of references which should be relevant for anyone making future contributions:


 * Denson, John V. "A Century of War". Auburn, Alabama: Ludwig Von Mises Institute, 2006. ISBN 1-933550-06-6
 * Denson, John V. "The Costs of War: Americas Pyric Victories". New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 1996. ISBN 0-7658-0487-5
 * Denson, John V. "Reassessing the Presidency: The Rise of the Executive State and the Decline of Freedom". Auburn, Alabama: Ludwig Von Mises Institute, 2001. ISBN: 0-945466-29-3
 * Raico, Ralph. "Great Wars and Great Leaders". Auburn, Alabama: Ludwig Von Mises Institute, 2010. ISBN 978-1-61016-096-4
 * Raico, Ralph. "Classical Liberalism and the Austrian School". Auburn, Alabama: Ludwig Von Mises Institute, 2012. ISBN 978-1-61016-003-2
 * Turgot, Anne Robert Jacques. "The Turgot Collection" Auburn, Alabama: Ludwig Von Mises Institute, 2011. ISBN 978-1-933550-94-7
 * Bastiat, Claude Frédéric. "The Bastiat Collection: Second Edition". Auburn, Alabama: Ludwig Von Mises Institute, 2007. ISBN 978-1-61016-200-5
 * de La Boétie, Étienne. "The Politics of Obedience: The Discourse of Voluntary Servitude" Auburn, Alabama: Ludwig Von Mises Institute, 1975. ISBN 978-1-61016-123-7
 * Menger, Carl. "Investigation into the Method of the Social Sciences with Special Reference to economics" New York: New York University Press, 1985. ISBN 0-8147-5396-5
 * Von Böhm-Bawerk, Eugen. "Control or Economic Law" Auburn, Alabama: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2010. ISBN 978-1-933550-71-8
 * Von Mises, Ludwig. "Liberalism: The Classical Tradition". Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2005. ISBN 0-86597-586-8
 * Von Mises, Ludwig. "Human Action: A Treatise on Economics, The Scholar's Edition". Auburn, Alabama: Ludwig Von Mises Institute, 1998. ISBN 0-945466-24-2
 * Von Mises, Ludwig. "Omnipotent Government: The Rise of the Total State and Total War". Spring Mills, PA: Libertarian Press, 1985. ISBN 0-910884-15-3
 * Von Mises, Ludwig. "Economic Freedom and Interventionism". Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2006. ISBN-10: 0865976732
 * Von Mises, Ludwig. "The Anti-Capitalist Mentality". Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2006. ISBN 0-86597-671-6
 * Von Mises, Ludwig. "Theory and History". Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2005. ISBN 0-86597-569-8
 * Von Mises, Ludwig. "Planned Chaos: An Excerpt from Socialism". Auburn, Alabama: Ludwig Von Mises Institute, 1981. ISBN 978-1-933550-60-2
 * Nock, Albert Jay. "Our Enemy the State". Caldwell, Idaho: The Caxton Printers, 1950. ISBN-10: 0873190238
 * Rothbard, Murray N. "The Ethics of Liberty". New York: New York University Press, 2002. ISBN 0-8147-7559-4
 * Rothbard, Murray N. "Conceived in Liberty". Auburn, Alabama: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2000. ISBN 0-945466-26-9
 * Rothbard, Murray N. "Left, Right and the Prospects for Liberty". Auburn, Alabama: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2010. ISBN: 978-1-933550-78-7
 * Rothbard, Murray N. "Man, Economy, and State" Auburn, Alabama: Ludwig von Mises Institute,2004. ISBN 0-945466-30-7
 * Rothbard, Murray N. "For a New liberty". Auburn, Alabama: Ludwig von Mises Institute. 2006. ISBN 0-945466-47-1
 * Rothbard, Murray N. "Economic Thought Before Adam Smith". Massachusetts: Edward Elgar Publishing, 1995. ISBN 0-945466-48-X
 * Robbins, Lionel. "The Great Depression". Freeport, New York: Books for Libraries Press. ISBN 0-8369-5711-3
 * Tausigg, F.W. "The Tariff History of the United States" New York: The Knickerbocker Press, 2010. ISBN 978-1-61016-132-9
 * Lane, Rose Wilder. "The Discovery of Freedom: Man's Struggle Against Authority" New York: The John Day Press, 1943. ISBN 978-0930073008
 * Summer, William Graham. "What Social Classes Owe Each Other" Caldwell, Idaho: The Caxton Printers, 1974. ISBN 978-0870041662
 * Chodorov, Frank. "One is a Crowd: Reflections of an Individualist" New York: The Devin-Adair Company, 1952. ISBN 0-913966-73-8
 * Chodorov, Frank. "The Rise & Fall of Society: An Essay on the Economic Forces That Underline Social Institutions" New York: The Devin-Adair Company, 1959. ISBN 978-1-62129-021-6
 * Paul, Ron. "Freedom Under Siege: The U.S. Constitution After 200 Years" Lake Jackson, Texas: The Foundation for Rational Economics and Education, 1987. ISBN 978-0874770315 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rothbardanswer (talk • contribs) 18:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Jake Rothbardanswer (talk) 18:35, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The question is one of weight. It is understandable, if you are writing a Ph.D. thesis on von Mises, that he looms large in your view.  But few major economists take von Mises seriously.  See, for example, Milton Friedman's criticisms of von Mises.  As an example of his relative unimportance, von Mises is not listed at all in the Concise Columbia Encyclopedia, which does list Milton Friedman.  I picked three books at random from my bookshelf: Contending Liberalisms in World Poilitics, An intellectual History of Liberalism, and, for balance, The Conservatives.  None list von Mises in the index.  Two of the three list Friedman. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) Choosing sources because they are published by the LMI violates the policy of neutrality. Note that preference is given to recent work published by academic publishers.  Many of the sources lifted above are old.  Summer's article was published in 1884.  Ron Paul is not an expert.
 * 2) Articles are about topics, in this case orthodox 19th liberalism. The Austrian School rejected this orthodoxy, in particular the views of Adam Smith, Malthus and Ricardo.  No one today adheres to this ideology.  See for example, Mark Skousen's article, "Classical Economists, Good or Bad? Their Theories Weren't Always on Target, but Their Solutions Were Usually Correct".
 * 3) Bastiat had little influence on 19th century liberalism, even in France. He is best remembered for his witty essays.
 * 4) You should not accuse other editors of censorship, which assumes bad faith. Certainly there are many articles where Austrian economics, and perhaps you could write an article about the Austrian analysis of 19th century liberalism.
 * 5) We had a long discussion about the Irish famine, and while one or two libertarians presented an alternative to the mainstream view, there appears to be nothing supporting this vies published in academic writing. You might want to write one.

TFD (talk) 19:57, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Jake (Rothbardanswer), please write more concise and shorter messages. Me, and other editors, can't join the discussion like this. --MeUser42 (talk) 21:19, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Core principles and overview section need to merged and trimmed
There's not supposed to be an overview section, the lead functions as an overview. Right now, both the Core principles and overview section serve more or less the same function. They should be merged and trimmed, with appropriate parts spun off and some incorporated into the lead. Thoughts? LK (talk) 03:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The overview section appears to be confused and not addressing the topic. I will therefore remove it.  If there is any part you find to be relevant, please restore in the relevant section.  TFD (talk) 05:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Good job. I would have done the same, but I was not sure if there was any history with the editing of this article that I was not familiar with. LK (talk) 06:33, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That was a destructive move, deletion of a lot of information. I've merged the two sections instead, as suggested. Most of it appears to be well sourced so I suggest just going through it and deleting that which isn't sourced instead of carelessly wiping it all out. The "Core principles" which wasn't deleted appears to be less sourced, so I don't know why one was deleted and other not instead of just merging. Big Large Monster (talk) 12:44, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Other than Hayek's distinction between English and French classical liberalism, most of this section is a collection of random facts that are mentioned or could be mentioned in other parts of the article. The claim that classical liberals necessarily believed in inalienable rights is incorrect, Bentham called it "nonsense on sticks".  The section confuses influences on classical liberalism and liberalism influenced by classical liberalism with core classical liberalism.  TFD (talk) 16:38, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Inalienable rights is incorrect or unsourced? "Incorrect" is not relevant for Wikipedia purposes. Big Large Monster (talk) 00:36, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The source is an 1819 letter by Thomas Jefferson, who was an early American statesman. He does not mention liberalism in the letter and using this primary source in the article without any explanation from a secondary source of how it relates to the article is original research. TFD (talk) 02:36, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. Big Large Monster (talk) 02:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Why do we have the two sections 'Core principles' and 'overview' again? They perform the same function and are redundant. Was there a large revert that I missed? LK (talk) 05:53, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree and will again remove the overview section. TFD (talk) 07:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Civility
I certainly agree with you about the importance of civility, MeUser42. I've edited my earlier comment accordingly. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:59, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Recent edits
See also links should only be provided where topics are not discussed in the article. So for example there is no need to add "laissez-faire" because it is already mentioned 14 times in the article and should already have a link, as was done here. (See WP:LINK.) Also, text should not be added to the article that is not supported by the sources, as in these edits:. Please follow Wikipedia policy of verifiability and neutrality. TFD (talk) 02:21, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

What social liberals believe.
The best evidence for claims about what social liberals believe would be statements of their beliefs by social liberals, not statements by the Cato Institute, which is hostile to social liberalism, about what the Cato Institute says social liberals believe. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I do not see that the text, whichever version is used, is supported by the sources. David Kelley, who is an objectivist, wrote about classical liberals in the past tense, and does not say that they had any views on modern liberalism at all.  The next source, the Edinburgh Companion to Contemporary Liberalism, p. 55, is about Kant.  I believe btw that if we choose to use partisan sources such as books from the CATO Institute, we need to mention the writer inline.  I don't see however that "group rights" are an essential part of social liberalism, and no source has been presented that makes this claim.  Suggest deletion of this passage.  TFD (talk) 15:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Free markets
I see no reason to change "free markets" to "economic freedom". The first source, Hudelson, says "free markets", the second says neither. The third source, Bronfenbrenner's 1955 essay, "The Two Concepts of Economic Freedom", added by Rothbardanswer, says that communists, socialists, and traditional and modern liberals all support economic freedom. I suppose the difference would be that traditional liberals support free markets. TFD (talk) 20:36, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Free markets and economic freedom are not the same, and laizzes-faire capitalism is different from either. Economic freedom means that individuals have a right to be secure in their property, and to engage in economic transactions with other individuals, within the bounds of law.  Free markets has to do with tarriffs.  The main thrust of Adam Smith is that tarriffs, which were the primary source of government revenue in the early days of the United States, are counterproductive.  Laissez-fair capitalism opposes tariffs, but also opposes taxes and government regulation, which Adam Smith supported. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:08, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * These are very analogous terms, but I too see no reason to change. --MeUser42 (talk) 13:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia article which uses Bronfenbrenner's article as a source, identifies two definitions of economic freedom: "free markets" and private property, and "freedom from want", the first one being associated with libertarianism.  We avoid ambiguity by avoiding the term.  Also, it seems anachronistic - did Smith, Malthus and Ricardo probably never used the term. TFD (talk) 13:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit war
Looks like we've got another edit war on our hands, with two very different versions of the page swapping back and forth. These things consume a huge amount of time and energy, and usually go on until somebody gets tired, and the final version is not necessarily the best, just the one by whoever had the most spare time on their hands. It would be nice if people would work through major edits slowly, cooperating with other editors instead of insisting on either one version or the other. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:47, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Unless there's something I'm missing, the edit seems to be a good contribution. --MeUser42 (talk) 22:48, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

It may be. But it is also a large contribution, difficult to examine line by line, which is what is necessary to decide whether it is a good contribution or not. Further, the edit war makes it a waste of time to work line by line, because any attempt at improving either version will likely be reverted by one side or the other. I'm not objecting to this particular edit, or favoring either version, but objecting to edit wars in general. There are better ways to edit Wikipedia. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:42, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I also note your recent edit, MeUser42, which claims that to mention the sourced fact that "classical liberalism" leads to frequent depressions and recessions, the famous boom-and-bust cycle, is "POV pushing". When you remove sourced content that is not in accord with your POV, is that "pushing" the other POV, or just adding information? Rick Norwood (talk) 11:47, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * No, it is not. You need to differentiate between facts that are found in sources, and source-authors opinions, which are also found in sources. --MeUser42 (talk) 14:55, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I think the point of the quote was merely that classical liberals advocated that government should do nothing to fight recessions, which is also what Austrians believe. However, as the Austrian economist Rothbard pointed out (Philosophers of Capitalism, p. 151), that government should do something is the "orthodox" view, shared by both Keynsians and monetarists.  BTW on the same page Rothbard blames government for causing recessions.  That would include all the classical liberal administrations from Andrew Jackson to Calvin Coolidge.  TFD (talk) 20:34, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Economic freedom
An editor has changed the lead, removing some attributes of classical liberalism and changing free markets, which was sourced, to economic freedom, sourced to Martin Bronfenbrenner's 1955 essay, "Two Concepts of Freedom". As the name infers, liberals support economic freedom while "traditional liberals" understand this to mean free markets.  It seems the change makes the lead less clear. TFD (talk) 17:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)


 * We need to move beyond slogans. In this day and age everyone favors freedom of speech and freedom of the press (except the Islamists, who just killed a popular singer for "mocking" Islam).  The difference between "classical liberals" and "liberals" is that classical liberals believe that the government cannot and should not do anything about problems such as unemployment, the boom and bust cycle, depression, and inflation; the market can take care of all these problems, and that attempts by the government to alieviate the suffering these things cause actually make them worse.  The slogan "free trade" can mean anything from "no tariffs", the original meaning, to "banks can do anything they want", the current meaning.  This article should just make clear that "classical liberals" accept inequality based on the fact that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, while "social liberals" think government should do something to put a floor under the declining income of the working class. Rick Norwood (talk) 17:42, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That is because free trade and other liberal principles have become well-established, especially in the U.S. So instead of arguing whether or not free trade is a good thing, we question whether specific policies are consistent with the principle.  TFD (talk) 15:24, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Classical liberals do not believe that the poor would get poorer under laissez-faire, but richer (along with the rich getting richer as well). That's the whole point of their (e.g. Adam Smith) advocacy of free market economics. Big Large Monster (talk) 12:28, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I understand that. But when, in fact, the poor get poorer, classical liberals do not think the government should do anything about it. As for Adam Smith, what the phrase "free markets" means today is very different from what it meant in Adam Smith's day. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Free markets means the same thing today. It means government does not intervene to try to manipulate prices, supply or demand. That's left to market forces only. Big Large Monster (talk) 17:03, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Also it's not quite true that classical liberals are in favor of the government doing nothing if the poor are getting poorer. They would call for moving toward freer markets to remedy that. But as for calling for the government to take money from the rich to give to the poor, you're right they don't want that. Big Large Monster (talk) 17:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I take that back. There are a few exceptions of classical liberals that support welfare, like Hayek. Big Large Monster (talk) 17:24, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I guess today "free markets" means different things to different people. Adam Smith lived in an age of authoritarian governments, and kings would often try to set wages and prices and use high tarriffs to raise revenue. That was obviously a bad thing, and if that is what you mean by free markets, everybody agrees with you. If, on the other hand, you mean by free markets no regulation of the money supply, no regulation of banking, no regulation of monopolies, no regulation of insider trading, then essentially no well-informed economists agree with that. Rick Norwood (talk) 17:38, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Lots of people are against free markets as I've defined it. Many people support minimum wage laws, subsides, government-backed monopolies, protective tariffs (e.g. against China), mandating individuals buy health insurance (regulation of demand), and so on. Speaking of monopolies, for Adam Smith, monopoly referred to law-backed monopoly. There's no indication that he believed monopolies arise out of unregulated market forces. And Smith never expressed approval for the money supply being regulated by government but by the market. Most classical liberals are in favor of a gold standard. Big Large Monster (talk) 22:08, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * At least 80% of all econonomists understand that the gold standard leads to unstable markets, as more or less gold is discovered. I doubt that even among classical liberals "most" still cling to a gold standard.  In any case, what Adam Smith believed, while it was the best economic wisdom of the 18th Century, is hardly relevant today.  In the 18th century, most people owned small farms.  Also, I note that "classical liberals" cherry pick Adam Smith.  They like his emphasis on free markets, seldom mention his belief in a graduated income tax rate. Rick Norwood (talk) 23:27, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * 80% of economists aren't classical liberals. But nearly all those who are are for a gold standard. And a "gold standard" is just a generic term to include other metals such as silver as well (as well as any other commodity). So the amount of gold in the world is not relevant. And a graduated income tax has nothing to do with free markets. That's not in opposition to classical liberalism. Tax policy tailored to manipulate markets, such as favoring one industry over the other, is what classical liberals would be against. We're talking about free "markets." Interference with natural market signals prevent the "invisible hand" from functioning, is their view. Big Large Monster (talk) 23:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I apologize, I got into discussing the subject of this article, when we should be discussing the article itself. Rick Norwood (talk) 23:55, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * We need to distinguish between the subject of the article and neoclassical liberalism, e.g., Hayek, which claimed to be the heirs to the classical tradition and developed circa 1871 with the marginal revolution and became influential in Western countries about 100 years later. TFD (talk) 00:18, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the introduction of the article already does that. Big Large Monster (talk) 00:45, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you explain why you restored this passage? It says nothing about classical liberalism.  It is talking about liberalism in general and does not even mention the points in the article.  Most of the passage appears to be original research with an attempt to find passages that may support what was written.  TFD (talk) 01:37, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I restored it because I assumed good faith that the citation was proper and there was no discussion or comment here that it was checked for verification before deletion. But you're right. It appears to be wading into both classical and modern and not explicitly distinguishing. Big Large Monster (talk) 02:52, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

The term "economic freedom", as you can see in the wiki article on it, is used with a variety of different meanings. Some even use it to refer to a concept similar to "freedom from want", which is one of the cornerstones of the welfare state. Terms like "laissez-faire" and "free market", on the other hand, are always used to refer to an economic policy in which the state strictly enforces property rights and does not intervene in the economy beyond that. Thus, they are clearer and less ambiguous. We should strive to remove ambiguity from articles whenever possible. User1961914 (talk) 12:51, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that Adam Smith did NOT advocate laissez-faire economics, and so that term may not be appropriate after his name. That term never appeared in his books, and he certainly would have known of it, and the theory behind it. He was in favor of banking regulations, for example, because taking away a small amount of liberty from bankers promoted a large amount of liberty among everyone else, by preventing banking crises. From Wealth Of Nations: “To restrain private people, it may be said, from receiving in payment the promissory notes of a banker, for any sum whether great or small, when they themselves are willing to receive them; or, to restrain a banker from issuing such notes, when all his neighbours are willing to accept of them, is a manifest violation of that natural liberty which it is the proper business of law, not to infringe, but to support. “Such regulations may, no doubt, be considered as in some respects a violation of natural liberty. But those exertions of the natural liberty of a few individuals, which might endanger the security of the whole society, are, and ought to be, restrained by the laws of all governments; of the most free, as well as of the most despotical. The obligation of building party walls, in order to prevent the communication of fire, is a violation of natural liberty, exactly of the same kind with the regulations of the banking trade which are here proposed.”

The term "invisible hand" is maybe the most quoted-out-of-context phrase in all of the humanities. He wasn't talking about markets when he used that term- which was only once. MBVECO (talk) 17:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)MBVECO


 * The article does not say Smith advocated laissez-faire. Also, the article is about classical liberalism, and therefore presents ideas they found in Smith and other writers.  TFD (talk) 17:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The lead
A recent edit to the lead appears to be biased. It says, "Liberalism is a political philosophy which classically drew on economic science developed by the Spanish scholastics... as well as the political philosophies of Thomas Aquinas, John Locke...." This is sourced to p. 58 of Liberalism and Republicanism in the Historical Imagination. However the source does not mention scholastics or Aquinas. The edit also says that "social liberalism... developed around the progressive era", sourced to Contending Liberalisms in World Politics, p. 52. In fact the source dates the origins of social liberalism earlier than the progressive era (pp. 37, 38). TFD (talk) 14:40, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thomas Jefferson advocated limited government, had reservations about standing armies, believed the common yeoman and farmer was/should be the backbone of government and commerce, etc. Seems his political and ideological aspirations contributed to 'Classical Liberalism' as much as anyone else and as such should be mentioned along with Locke, et al. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Jefferson was an important figure in both classical and social liberalism, but he did not originate these ideas. He adapted Locke's ideas, and so he should be mentioned as a follower of Locke rather than along with Locke.Rick Norwood (talk) 16:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Jefferson's relation to liberalism is an interesting and complex topic best discussed in Liberalism in the United States. He did not invent the concept of limited government, it was developed by Locke.  His views on yeomen farmers do not seem more conservative than liberal and in any case not very practicle.  TFD (talk) 17:21, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Hayek's typology of beliefs
Does anyone know if Hayek's typology of beliefs, which is entirely sourced to his Constitution of Liberty, has received any attention from writers? TFD (talk) 13:41, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I bet books.google or scholar.google knows. CarolMooreDC &#x1f5fd; 15:28, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

FDR?
Please remove Pierre Trudeau, Lester Pearson, FDR, and whoever else some moron added. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.120.129 (talk) 09:24, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

User 24.13.58.61
The user's recent edit made the article a) less analytic/truthful and b) more ideological in several aspects:
 * the sections on Meaning of the term and Neo-classical and libertarian redefinition of the term were deleted in order to give a reader a wrong impression that the term in recent decades has not been high-jacked by libertaran ideologists, who
 * re-defined it by selectively ommitting from Adam Smith writings everything that was not in accord with their ideology,
 * such as Adam Smith noticing that not only labour's group rights are pursued at the expense of individual rights, but also the big corporations' rights are even more being pursued at the expense of Inequality of bargaining power. He wrote:
 * A landlord, a farmer, a master manufacturer, a merchant, though they did not employ a single workman, could generally live a year or two upon the stocks which they have already acquired. Many workmen could not subsist a week, few could subsist a month, and scarce any a year without employment. In the long run the workman may be as necessary to his master as his master is to him; but the necessity is not so immediate.

I warn the editor not to try to impose his ideological selective ommisions here anymore or I will have to revert them all. -- DancingPhilosopher ( talk ) 11:18, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Dubious reference - John Mills "A critical history of economics"
Fully SEVENTEEN statements from this article cite one of a dozen pages from this reference "Mills, John. A critical history of economics. Basingstoke, Hampshire UK: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002 ISBN 0-333-97130-2". When I look that book up in Amazon, its sales rank is over 11 million - meaning almost nobody ever buys it - and it has only ONE text review - one that gives two stars for historical inaccuracy! The book has no written reviews at all on Barnes&Noble or Google Books. The author claims to be "widely published in economics" but appears to be the head of a TV home shopping network ( this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JML_(John_Mills_Limited) ) rather than any sort of academic expert. In short, that source seems dubious and far too heavily weighted. --Blogjack (talk) 05:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Just looked into it. Agree that this book is not a reliable source particularly good source about the history of economics, or politics, or liberalism. Suggest using any of the dozens of textbooks available on the subject instead. LK (talk) 06:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Palgrave Macmillan is an academic publisher and therefore reliable for facts. The book is widely used as a textbook in China.  Although Mills runs a business, he is also on the executive committee of the Economic Research Council and secretary of the Labour Economic Policy Group.  He has written many books on economics for mainstream publishers, including one co-authored with Bryan Gould, Labour's spokesman for trade and industry.  TFD (talk) 07:17, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, I overstated the case. The book probably qualifies as a reliable source. But I still hold that there are better sources about history of economics. For instance, History of Economic Thought: A Critical Perspective, by E.K. Hunt and Mark Lautzenheiser, is a standard textbook, and has been more frequently cited much by other scholars. (see google scholar search vs ) LK (talk) 09:19, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

In any academic area, most textbooks say more or less the same thing. (In fact, one big complaint among academics is that every textbook publisher wants a new textbook to be as close to identical to the best-selling textbook as copyright laws permit.) The overuse of one textbook over against some other is only a problem if the textbook presents views not held in common with the consensus. Is that the case with Mills? Can you give an example of a particular statement referenced by Mills that is exceptionable? Rick Norwood (talk) 11:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)


 * His book is used as the main source for "Intellectual sources", except for the section on Locke. Another textbook by Hunt is used as the main source for "Evolution of core beliefs" and Locke.  Books by Richardson and John Gray are also extensively used.  I have not noticed any differences in the sources.  TFD (talk) 12:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Tense
Why is the whole article apart from the introduction written in the past tense? Surely the ideological beliefs should be discussed in the present tense as there are still individuals and groups who support these ideas. At the moment the article reads as if this is a purely historical topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.185.180.50 (talk) 16:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * You have a point. Do you want to try a rewrite? Rick Norwood (talk) 18:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * No one today defends all the tenets of classical liberalism that existed in the early 1800s. The labor theory of value for example has been replaced among neo-classical liberals by the market theory of value.  Similarly Malthus population theories.  TFD (talk) 19:05, 5 August 2013 (UTC)


 * OK, in that case maybe the short neoclassical liberalism section should be expanded? Or possibly even an article on neoclassical liberalism could be created? I don't know enough about the topic to do anything other than minor edits, I'm just putting suggestions forward because I'm interested in reading more about this topic and I'm quite surprised that there is only a couple of sentences on wikipedia at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.7.177 (talk) 09:29, 16 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Those are both good suggestions. Whether or not articles are expanded or created however depends on whether volunteers want to do so.  When I first worked on this article, and social liberalism, there was very little source material available.  Any books that had sections on liberal history mostly drew from two books, DeRuggiero's 1927 and Arblaster's 1987 histories.  I will see if I can find any new sources.  TFD (talk) 18:30, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

O'Neil or Oneal
A recent edit changed a name from O'Neil to Oneal. Is this correct? Rick Norwood (talk) 19:56, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, apparently. TFD (talk) 20:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Founding Fathers
An editor has added to the lead, "Almost all of the American Founding Fathers were classic liberals including George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Samuel Adams, Thomas Paine and others." It is sourced to a paper from the National Center for Policy Analysis.

RE: TFD below. Firstly, I will go return with journaled or textbook sources then however not all are readily available for click through to internet users. Secondly, as to your remark about whether the statement is true I'm a bit unsure how to respond without sounding short with you as it is common knowledge. In fact, the Declaration of Independence is routinely taught as a statement of beliefs of the Classic Liberal ideology as a whole. Thirdly, Hamilton is not included in the list. Fourthly, Paine is the second most cited American Classic Liberal after Jeffferson due to his natural rights theory. User:kckranger
 * Since classical liberalism was primarily based on texts written between 1776 and 1798, it is anachronistic to say that the founding fathers were classical liberals. Furthermore, the influence of Locke on them has been questioned, so that modern scholarship divides them into liberals, such as Hamilton, and civic republicans.  While libertarians may ignore Hamilton, the fact remains that he was the architect of U.S. economic policy until 1800.  Classical liberalism really only triumphed in the U.S. with the election of Jackson.
 * Assuming they were classical liberals, it would still be questionable to include them in the lead, since the lead is supposed to summarize the article. The lead mentions Smith, Locke, Say, Malthus and Ricardo and each has a paragraph explaining their contribution.  You would also have to include other liberal revolutions, such as the English revolutions of the 1600s the French revolution and the liberal revolutions of 1830 and 1848.
 * TFD (talk) 10:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The preponderance of historians of this era will tell you that Classic Liberal ideology was a dominant factor in the American War for Independence. This predominant opinion is, among historians, known technically as the “soft” or “country” position.  The far minority belief is called the "hard" or "court" position that the Founding Fathers acted pragmatically, driven by practical matters alone.
 * That Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Washington & Paine were Classic Liberals isn't even a matter of debate. In fact any treatise written in our time about Classic Liberalism will cite Jefferson & the Declaration of Independence as a central example of the ideology.  Forrest McDonald's famous “We the People” presents clear cases for why Classic Liberal ideology was the dominant factor in the American War for Independence.  The same position is mirrored by countless historians, some examples being Bernard Bailyn, Gordon Wood, and J.G.A. Pocock.  Wood, for instance, directly called the American War for Independence a "radical event influenced by 18th century Enlightenment politics."  Another source is Carl Richard’s “The Founders and the Classics.”
 * Is there any further objective reason you'd block such an important reference from the opening paragraphs of the description?
 * User:kckranger
 * Bailyn, Pocock and Wood divide the Founding Fathers into liberals, such as Hamilton, and civic republicans. They identify the "country" position with civic republicanism and the "court" position with liberalism.  Richard accepts the liberal/civic republican dichotomy, but says it was not as clear as the others believed and that Christianity was a major influence.  McDonald's book is dated, it was published in 1958, but it does not mention liberalism at all.  TFD (talk) 03:47, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You have that backwards as far as the "country" & "court" positions are concerned. For a good example of court / hard position - that the Founding Fathers were driven merely by pragmatics - the most famous treatise is Charles Beard's “An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution.”  Joyce Appleby is another.  It is the "court" position that argues the Founders were not Classic Liberals & routinely cites as examples Hamilton & Jay.  That is also why Founders like Hamilton & Jay are not included in the above list you engaged in the edit war with me over.  The position that asserts the founders were Classic Liberals and driven primarily by ideology is the "country" or soft position.
 * Also Hamilton was not a liberal, he was very far from it in all respects but especially his mercantilist positions. It was Founders like Madison & Jefferson who were free traders that represent Classic Liberal ideology.  For example consider that without looking it up it would be impossible to know if it was Adam Smith or Thomas Jefferson who said "The exercise of a free trade with all parts of the world [is] possessed by [a people] as of natural right."
 * User:kckranger

I do not think this is important enough to include in the lead. The source is poor anyway. It is questionable too whether the statement is true. Hamilton's national policy, Jefferson's agrarianism and Paine's plans for a welfare state put them outside classical liberalism, and of course classical liberalism had not yet developed into a consistent ideology.

TFD (talk) 19:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I agree with reversion of this questionable and contentious statement. Rick Norwood (talk) 23:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

One method of trying to gain support for an idea is to attribute it to the Founding Fathers, or to "almost all" of the Founding Fathers. But the Founding Fathers were a diverse and opinionated group, and just about the only thing "almost all" agreed about was independence from England. Just as the Founding Fathers had many beliefs, Classical Liberalism has many meanings. So, to say that "almost all" of the Founding Fathers were Classical Liberals does not serve to impart information, but rather to argue in favor of a particular point of view. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:49, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

kckranger, none of your sources claim that the founding fathers were classical liberals. Appleby for example says that liberalism did not become dominant in the U.S. until the early 19th century, which btw is consistent with what this article says. She also says that early 19th century liberals ahistorically read their own views into those of the founding fathers, which is consistent with what Rick Norwood says. TFD (talk) 22:25, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

PS - the correct answer is Jefferson, because Smith did not believe property was a "natural right", but was a right acquired from the government. TFD (talk) 02:03, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Ageor's edit
Thanks for an excellent edit, Ageor. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:15, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

Hobbes & Locke
This article seems to have been subject to some... unusual... edits. Classic Liberalism was founded specifically on Locke's teachings and was a categorical rejection of Hobbes. The article was altered to state the precise opposite of the truth in this regard. I have undone the vandalism, and am making this note for future discussion on the topic.

KCKRanger (talk) 16:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Article has been subject to a second vandalism, I have posted a remark to user TFD (talk) to cease an edit war on this topic and present any evidence as to why the opening paragraph should be altered to make it inconsistent with the rest of the article as it relates to striking Locke, the central figure in Classic Liberalism, and replacing his reference with one to Hobbes.  While Hobbes was an Enlightenment era philosopher, he was not a Classic Liberal.  Hobbes is best known for applying his conception of the social contract to show that an absolute sovereign was the only solution to the violence present in the state of nature.  Not liberal in the least. KCKRanger (talk) 16:15, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I have moved this discussion thread to the bottom of the page where it should have been posted originally. Other editors will not see it if it is posted to the top.
 * Please see WP:VANDAL: "Avoid the word "vandal". In particular, this word should not be used to refer to any contributor in good standing, or to any edits that might have been made in good faith. This is because if the edits were made in good faith, they are not vandalism. Assume good faith yourself—instead of calling the person who made the edits a "vandal", discuss your concerns with them. Comment on the content and substance of the edits, instead of making personal comments."  Falsely accusing other editors of vandalism is a personal attack.
 * The article does not say that Hobbes was a classical liberal merely that he was an influence. If you disagree with how the sources used for this article explain classical liberalism, then you need to provide sources, rather than inserting your own unsourced opinion.
 * TFD (talk) 21:42, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The text you have repeatedly struck from the introduction is central to overall article and discussed at length elsewhere. It is therefore appropriate that 1 sentence relating to it exists in the introduction.  Hobbes is not central to the body of the article and is barely mentioned elsewhere.  That distinction aside the statements in relation to Hobbes & Locke are in no way mutually exclusive and nothing about the presence of one necessitates censorship of the other.  The dubious statement you have repeatedly inserted over the central reference to Locke reads as follows:
 * "One example of classic liberalism's beliefs regarding the role of government is found in Thomas Hobbes's theory that government was created by individuals to protect themselves from one another."
 * Hobbes statements in that regard are not representative to Classic Liberal ideology, therefore the statement is factually untrue. I suggest you edit it to simply state Hobbes' position from a neutral point of view and remove the incorrect attribution to Classic Liberalism.  Now, onto the text you have continually struck as follows:
 * "One example of classic liberalism's beliefs regarding the role of government is found in John Locke's belief that government was created to protect certain individual rights."
 * With the addition of sources to that statement once I revert it the new statement will read as follows:


 * One example of classic liberalism's beliefs regarding the role of government is found in John Locke's belief that government was created to protect certain individual rights. . This is reflected best by Locke himself in the Second Treatise on Government when Locke remarks in Section 57 that, " the end of law is not to abolish or restrain, but to preserve and enlarge freedom."  KCKRanger (talk) 17:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Of course Hobbes is mentioned in the body of the article and you should know that because your edit removed the paragraph about his contribution. You should not just quote Locke without some source that explains how his statement related to classical liberalism.  In your example, he is referring to "The law, that was to govern Adam."  It has nothing to do with the establishment of government.  According to Locke, there was no government when there was only one person in the world, it was established later.  And Locke's natural rights theory is not central to liberalism.  TFD (talk) 23:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

It is not helpful, kckranger, to refer to another Wikipedian's edits as "vandalism". Assume good faith. I note that Locke is mentioned 20 times in the article, Hobbes is mentioned 3 times. While, Locke disagreed with Hobbes on many points, they were not diametrically opposite, and it would be odd if any modern ideas about government did not descend from the ideas of both. Taking kckranger's edits one at a time: he removed the reference to economic liberalism from the lead. According to the Wikipedia article economic liberalism "Economic liberalism is the ideological belief in organizing the economy on individualist lines, meaning that the greatest possible number of economic decisions are made by individuals and not by collective institutions or organizations." Sure sounds like a core belief of the people who self-identify as classical liberals. Next, kckranger changes the link from American conservatism to American conservatism. This distinction has been discussed here many times. The original meaning of "conservatism" was support of monarchy and established religion. While some American conservatives support an established religion, it is not as important to American conservatism as is was historically in Europe, and in any case is a part of American conservatism that classical liberals reject. Therefore the link to "American conservatism" is correct. Which brings us to Locke and Hobbes. Carefully rereading the lead, it seems clear that kckranger is correct about the lead contradicting itself. I'll see if I can do something about that. I've tried to summarize the body of the article without the confusion I found in the lead as it stood.Rick Norwood (talk) 13:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Social liberalism
I understand the importance of the recent addition, but question its accuracy. It might be better to say that classical liberalism divided into neoclassical and social liberal strands. But social liberalism and socialism are distinct and in the UK social liberalism is represented by "Yellow Book" Liberal Democrats. And the U.S. Democrats are really half way between neoclassical and social liberalism and have never expressed an ideology. TFD (talk) 18:12, 20 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreed. It would make much more sense to describe this as either a split between social and economic liberalism or social liberalism and neoliberalism (sometimes called neoclassical). I understand that the "neoclassical" is supposed to include an earlier generation of economic liberals, but I've expressed my doubts about using the term below and on the libertarianism talk page. It's poorly sourced and most of the few existing 20th century sources seem to use it as a synonym for neoliberalism. Either way, the top part of this article is a huge mess. fi (talk) 04:17, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I came to the talk page for the exact same comment. Saying "classical liberalism developed into neo-classical liberalism" is misleading. Sure neo-classical liberalism exists and may have developed from classical liberalism, but classical liberalism is alive and well in libertarian thought. Libertarianism is much bigger than either "Right-Liberarianism"/Neo-classical liberalism or even just social liberalism so why have the article emphasize just one strand. IMO the paragraph should either be deleted or a reference to the development of modern libertarianism from classical liberalism should be mentioned. The article also has the problem of not recognizing the differences of the meaning of liberalism in the U.S. versus Europe. Rjedgar (talk) 13:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Shoreranger's edit.
Good edit, Shoreranger. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Only seeing this now - Thanks! Shoreranger (talk) 20:54, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

"it is also a liberal current opposed to Neoliberalism"?
This is last sentence of the lead. The grammatical and punctuation errors at the end of the lead aside, I'm a little confused by this statement. First, neoliberalism very proudly stakes a claim as a kind of return to classical liberal ideals and many in this camp fancy themselves as today's classical liberals. This has been disputed by a number of scholars; I'll copy-paste some sources from my recent post on the libertarianism talk page to illustrate:


 * Encirclement – Neo-Liberalism Ensnares Democracy (central focus is contradictions between neoliberal doctrines and classical liberalism - summarizes the dispute and offers a lot of further references)







And there's lots more, which seems to support the statement above. However, the claim does exist that groups like CATO, in advocating contemporary "small government" laissez-faire capitalism, are promoting John Locke, Adam Smith, David Ricardo and others when they promote the likes of, say, Ludwig von Mises or Friedrich Hayek. Should it be dismissed so casually? Some clarity here would be helpful. fi (talk) 03:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, the section "meaning of the term" goes on to describe the "neo-classical liberalism" as the 19th-come-20th century continuation of the classical liberal tradition. It's a fairly obscure term (the WP links to "neo classical liberalism" come right back to this very article!), but several of the (very few) references to "neo-classical liberalism" in 20th century publications describe it as a synonym for "neoliberalism." Since "classical liberalism" obviously can't both be and be opposed to neoliberalism, something is wrong here. fi (talk) 04:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * No need for your extensive research. Since the statement is unsourced it does not belong and I will remove it.  TFD (talk) 06:55, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

See also section
I tend to agree with removing the "See also section." "See also section" says, "As a general rule, the "See also" section should not repeat links that appear in the article's body or its navigation boxes." Three of the topics are already linked in the article, while the fourth (constitutional liberalism) is a neologism coined by Fareed Zakaria. TFD (talk) 18:38, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

NPOV of "In its most extreme form, it advocated Social Darwinism."
This line "In its most extreme form, it advocated Social Darwinism." Doesn't seem like it is a WP:NPOV. First this whole paragraph seems to not be about the subject of the article. The title of the section is "Meaning of the term" which one would think would talk about the meaning of the term "Classical liberalism", but then it goes on to say "classical liberalism developed into neo-classical liberalism" and talks about neo-classical liberalism. Now at that point it is no longer talking about the meaning of the term "classical liberalism" but about what derived from it. And then it starts talking about the "most extreme form" of it, which at best is talking about a fringe part of a derivative of Classical liberalism and using that try to attack Classical liberalism as just Social Darwinism. I mean imagine if someone said conservatism as "in the most extreme form of it (insert stuff about the westboro baptist church does)" or in explaining liberalism goes into "in the most extreme form (insert stuff about eco terrorism)" clearly these things would not be NPOV, as they are by definition "the most extreme form". --Obsidi (talk) 00:17, 1 November 2014 (UTC)


 * The text was originally in the lead, until an editor put in the heading "Meaning of the term." I have moved the header down so that it only includes the previous section of the lead that explains the meaning of the term.
 * Social Darwinism was a prominent feature of major neo-classical writers, such as Herbert Spencer and contributors to The Economist. I do not think the eco-terrorists or Westboro Church examples are appropriate, since it is not clear that either are part of liberalism or conservatism or that what distinguishes them is their extreme liberalism or conservatism.  One could say that eco-terrorists are at the extreme end of environmentalism and the Westboro Church at the extreme end of U.S. Protestant fundamentalism.  Whether or not one would mention them in those articles would depend on their significance within those topics.
 * TFD (talk) 01:10, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

Social Darwinism
An IP has twice removed reference to social darwinism, the second time saying, ""Social" Darwinism is using the weasel word referring to socialism, including socialist Charles Darwin." Social Darwinism was certainly not a form of socialism and I can find no sources on what Darwin's personal politics were, and he certainly never advocated Social Darwinism. TFD (talk) 03:27, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
 * With the statement on Social Darwinism having been removed and restored several times, it has proven itself to be quite controversial to various editors, and yet it isn't even sourced. It seems fringe to me (relative to mainstream classical liberalism): "Reliable sources must be cited that affirm the relationship of the marginal idea to the mainstream idea in a serious and substantial manner." This needs cited or subject to removal like it has been several times. Also, is the lead the best position for this statement anyways? I bring this up entirely in good faith, you seem more well versed in the subject than I am. Abierma3 (talk) 06:59, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

This topic has gotten fragmented, so I'm going to quote TFD's earlier reply from below:

Mayne writes, "The more extreme neo-classical liberals advocated social Darwinism, whereby the 'survival of the fittest' should apply to social and economic life as well as wildlife." (p. 124)[49] It is a non-controversial statement in a non-controversial textbook. The term has nothing to do with socialism or eugenics or atheism, as some editors think. TFD (talk) 15:03, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Certainly to the extent that Classical liberals support laissez-faire economics, they support the survival of the economically fit, and oppose government aid for the economically unfit.

Rick Norwood (talk) 13:06, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks. And no one has presented any good reason why it should not be included.  TFD (talk) 16:40, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I added the source and also clarified that it is extreme neo-classical liberals who advocate this. The noun of the preceding sentence is classical liberalism while the object is neo-classical liberalism, so the pronoun "it" in the Social Darwinism sentence wasn't very clear as to who actually advocates for Social Darwinism. I also think it would be better to indicate the prevalence of this "extreme form" that advocates Social Darwinism. Just saying it's the "extreme form" doesn't really tell us much about its mainstream acceptance. Abierma3 (talk) 20:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


 * It should be removed because classical liberalism has not only continued in its present form, but has also developed into social liberalism. The paragraph emphasizes just one flavor of liberalism at the expense of others. It certainly doesn't belong in the introduction. Rjedgar (talk) 14:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Classical liberalism has not continued in its original form. For example, the labor theory of value is widely abandoned and libertarians are more likely to read Austrian economists than Ricardo.  TFD (talk) 17:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Private landlords and privileged monopolies
And editor has added private landlords and privileged monopolies the first first sentence that says classical liberalism limited the power of the government. I think it is out of place and will remove it. There is nothing in the article about it and it is not clear that they actually did this, and I will remove it. Also, I am also putting back the reference to economics being called the dismal science, since it is often discussed in reference to Malthus' theories. TFD (talk) 00:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Text of my edit: "Classical liberalism is a political philosophy and ideology belonging to liberalism in which primary emphasis is placed on securing the freedom of the individual by limiting the power of the government, private landlords, and privileged monopolies."
 * There cannot be any controversy on this matter from those who have actually read Smith, Locke, Ricardo, and John Stuart Mill.... so I don't see what is wrong with citing the writings of those philosophers (who *are* mentioned in this article) as evidence to support my assertion.Whomyl (talk) 02:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You cannot use a reference such as "Primary sources: Smith, Locke, Ricardo, and John Stuart Mill", you need specific page numbers. And you need secondary sources that establish the significance of that view to classical liberalism if you insist on putting it into the very first sentence of the article.  Furthermore, the lead is supposed to summarize the article and there is nothing in it about that.  TFD (talk) 02:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tips. For now I'll settle for this note in the talk page, but later I may add sources.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whomyl (talk • contribs) 10:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I can find more like this for most of the classical liberals you might be interested in. Would that help? "Land, which is a necessity of human existence, which is the original source of all wealth, which is strictly limited in extent, which is fixed in geographical position. Land, I say, differs from all other forms of property in these primary and fundamental conditions.

"Nothing is more amusing than to watch the efforts of our monopolist ["land monopolist"] opponents to prove that other forms of property and increment are exactly the same and are similar hl all respects to the unearned increment in land....

"They tell us of the profits which are derived from a rise in stocks and shares, and even of those which are sometimes derived from the sale of pictures and works of art, and they ask us - as if it were the only complaint: "Ought not all these other forms to be taxed, too?"

"But see how misleading and false all these analogies are. The windfalls which people with artistic gifts are able from time to time to derive from the sale of a picture - from a Vandyke or a Holbein - may here and there be very considerable. But pictures do not get in anybody's way. They do not lay a toll on anybody's labour; they do not touch enterprise and production at any point; they do not affect any of those creative processes upon which the material well-being of millions depends." - Winston Chuchill Whomyl (talk) 09:54, 12 December 2014 (UTC)


 * How does that help? It is taken from The People's Rights, which was part of a 1910 social liberal trilogy - the other two, written by Lloyd George, were The People's Insurance and The People's Budget.  TFD (talk) 16:32, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you saying Churchill was not a classical liberal? That's fine if you are.  I can find examples from most classical liberals denouncing private monopoly of land rent and suggesting that all or most taxes be placed directly on title-holders.  My question is this: what sort of evidence/language would fit the requirement?Whomyl (talk) 09:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Whatever he actually believed, the pamphlet was written to advance a social liberal agenda and as a Liberal minister, Churchill introduced the welfare state into the UK. Examples btw are useless.  You need to show that the views are part of classical liberalism.  Different classical liberals can held different views on different issues. TFD (talk) 15:42, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Sourcing
An editor changed the source of a statement that Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations was the primary economics textbook at least until J.S. Mill's Principles from  A critical history of economics (2002) to the Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter's History of Economic Analysis (1954). He writes, "I added a more primary source (Mills uses Schumpeter as a source for these facts)," No page number is provided.

I do not think this is the correct approach. Certainly modern writers rely on earlier writers who rely on even earlier writers. As this happens more recent writers decide which parts of earlier writing are still valid and are therefore more reliable than the sources they use.

TFD (talk) 02:31, 19 December 2014 (UTC)