Talk:Liberal democracy/Archive 3

The choice before you
All Male Action, you are faced with a logical choice. If you continue to argue that liberal democracies must follow all aspects of liberalism, then you are logically compelled to delete most of this article, since the article currently talks about Western-style democracies (which do not all follow liberalism). If you accept the article as it stands, you cannot claim that liberal democracy necessarily implies liberalism. -- Nikodemos 07:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Most of this article should be deleted because most of it is unsourced. Of course liberal democracy implies liberalism. There are lots of sources that say that it does and none that say that it doesn't. All Male Action 07:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Then go ahead and delete it; but be warned that Ultramarine, myself, and most other wikipedians will oppose you. -- Nikodemos 08:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Oppose if you want, but Wikipedia policy says the burden is on you to provide credible sources for what you put in the article. I'm free to delete anything that is unsourced. All Male Action 08:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Basically, this was meant to be an article about the kind of constitutional representative democracy that exists in Western nations today. That kind of democracy does not necessarily imply liberalism. Thus, according to you, it is not liberal democracy. Then what is it? We are looking for a name that can be used to encompass all Western democracies, from the liberal United States to the social Sweden and Denmark. Find that name, and rename this article to it. Then you can start writing a new article about liberal democracy. -- Nikodemos 08:02, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does imply liberalism. Western nations protect individual liberty and private property, and allow private ownership of most of the means of production. That's liberalism. Sweden and Denmark are not socialist. All Male Action 08:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Quick question: Is Spain a liberal democracy? -- Nikodemos 08:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, and it has a mixed economy. "Spain, once a rural and agriculture-based economy, has been transformed into an open, advanced industrialmarket with sustained economic growth, offering good business opportunities for Irish companies. It is nowthe 5th largest economy in the EU and accounts for almost 8% of the EU’s GDP and 9% of its population.It has a mixed economy with large agricultural and industrial sectors, and important tourism and banking industries."  Most of the means of production in Spain are privately owned, so it's a capitalist mixed economy. Liberal democracy and capitalism go hand in hand. All Male Action 08:18, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * But Spain is ruled by the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party. So you agree that it is possible for a liberal democracy to have a socialist government. -- Nikodemos 08:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Then obviously something is preventing the socialists from getting their way. Socialists are opposed to liberal democracy. Spain is basically capitalist...a mixed economy with most of the means of production being privately owned. All Male Action 08:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * A member party of the Socialist International is also ruling the United Kingdom. And another one rules Italy. And then there are Portugal and Norway. There are 27 countries ruled by members of the SI. Are they all somehow "prevented from getting their way"? In 27 different countries? You are grasping at straws. Are you familiar with the concept of occam's razor? Clearly, the simplest explanation is that some socialists do in fact support liberal democracy. -- Nikodemos 08:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If there is a socialist majority in government, but the economy is not socialist then obviously they're not "ruling" over the economy. Something is preventing them from ruling over the economy..probably a constitution. If they were truly ruling over the economy, they would seize all the means of production and put it in the hands of the state. They're liberal democracies because they have a constitution which protects individual liberty and property from the socialists. All Male Action 08:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, those socialists do not want to seize all the means of production and put them in the hands of the state. The Socialist International clearly supports a mixed economy. -- Nikodemos 08:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * If they say that, they just say that to protect their political positions. They would be voted out if they said they wanted a true socialist economy where the means of production are owned by the state. But, socalists do not say they support "liberal" democracy. They oppose liberalism. All Male Action 08:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * So they really want a state-controlled economy, but they don't say it and they take no action to achieve it. You are going to extreme lengths to avoid admitting the fact that some socialists support liberal democracy. Since they obviously support liberal democracy both in their words and their actions, you are left with no choice but to postulate the existence of some kind of conspiracy. -- Nikodemos 08:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You said yourself that "The Socialist International clearly supports a mixed economy." A mixed economy is not a socialist economy. A mixed economy is a MIXED economy. All Male Action 13:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The issue seems to be what socialism is. I hope we can agree that some characteristics are not necessary for socialism. Socialism does not imply a state, think anarchists. Socialism does not imply the absence of markets, think market socialism. Socialism does not imply the absence of democracy, most socialist system express support for some sort of democracy. Socialism does not imply the absence of a constitution expressing support for individual rights, the Communist states has such constitutions. Socialism does not imply the absence of representative democracy, most of Communist states claimed to elect representatives for fixed terms. Nor does socialism imply the absence of all private property, the Communist states allowed some things to be privately owned, like clothes and cars.

Instead, Merriam-Webster states this regarding socialism: "any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods" That is, socialism seems to exclude, or exclude most, private ownership of this.

On the other hand, liberal democracy does not imply that the all the means of production must be privately owned, only that private property rights exists. Cooperatives and other worker's associations exist and are allowed to compete but in practice lose the competition to privately owned alternatives. Collective ownership isnot outlawed in liberal democracies, only outcompeted. So liberal democracy would allow collective ownership of the means of productions, if it could fairly outcompete private ownership in the markets. So in this sense a liberal democracy could in theory fairly become "socialist", but I think that this is not how most socialists interpret the term, they interpret socialism as implying that there must be laws that force the means of production to be collectively or governmentally owned.

So I am somewhat dubious that true democratic socialists do support liberal democracies. On the other hand, as Nikodemos point out, Socialist International does state " The democratic socialist movement continues to advocate both socialisation and public property within the framework of a mixed economy." which can only be interpreted as support for some private ownership of the means of production.

Regarding social democrats, there is no doubt that they support liberal democracy. The social democratis in Sweden has been in power for most of the previous century but Sweden still has a mixed economy. Regarding the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party and the Labour Party (UK), the Wikipedia articles notes that outside observers describe them as social democratic now, despite their earlier histories or names. Here is some sourced left views on social democracy and liberal democracy:
 * "Social Democracy reveals to us the opposite failure. Too much respect for the inherited institutional forms of liberal democracy produced a form of "parliamentary socialism" which lost the capacity to mobilize for social change in the course of learning how to get elected." "Social democracy still recognizes the importance of liberal democratic institutions, but it has lost that broader democratic vision that originally impelled socialists to try to use those institutions as building blocks for organizing societies on cooperative rather than competitive principles."
 * Here is Encarta: "Social Democracy, political ideology incorporating a degree of socialism but including such values as private property and representative government.Ultramarine 13:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe, but social democracy isn't liberal democracy. All Male Action 13:22, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The first source states otherwise.Ultramarine 13:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't. "Respect for liberal democracy" doesn't mean social democracy is liberal democracy. All Male Action 13:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "In a social democracy the ultimate source of legitimacy is the democratically expressed will of the people. In a liberal democracy, the democratically expressed by the will of the people can legitimately be thwarted. This means that the 'liberal' and the 'democratic' elements, far from being deely in accord as the common misunderstanding assumes, can be deeply at odds. Liberalism is a check on democracy, not its natural companion." Gordon Graham, The Case Against the Democratic State: An Essayin Cultural Criticism, Imprint Academic (2002) page 46 All Male Action 13:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "But if we move away from static comparisons of historical forms of social democracy and instead examine the central social and political dynamics of what distinsguishes social democracy from liberal democracy, then Kerela in many respeects becomes a prototypical case of social democracy in the periphere - especially when contrasted to the rest of India" Richard Sandbrook, Social Democracy in the Global Periphery, Cambridge U (2006), pages 65-66 All Male Action 13:33, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "Arguments that liberal democracy is essentially capitalistic are given both by antiliberal--democratic socialists and antisocialist liberal democrats." Frank Cunningham, Theories of Democracy, Routlege (2002), page 46. All Male Action 13:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "As Huber, Rueschemeyer, and Stephens argue, the globalization of the international capitalist economy and the accompanying enthusiasm for liberal economic arrangements and political institutions over the the last several decades have had a profound impact in both promoting the spread of liberal democracy and weakening national commitments to social democracy." Lisa Anderson, Transitions to Democracy, Columbia U Press (1999), page 7 All Male Action 13:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * "The ambiguous nature of the concept of democracy is very manifest in the so-called 'social democracy', which has been the architect of the 'welfare state'. Social democracy claims to represent an advance on liberal democracy in that its declaration of rights embraces social rights as well as rights to lbierty..." Noberto Bobbio, Verso (2006), page 78 All Male Action 13:58, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * So we have some opposing views, then both sides should be presented. Obviously there are some different views of what social democracy is, one is a left variant of liberal democracy as used by Freedom house and political scientists. Another is that social democracy only means that strict socialism should be introduce using democratic means. The last meaning may have been how social democracy was used initially; the first social democratic parties followed Marxism quite closely. But that does not describe accurately how social democracy is used today by the parties calling themselves social democratic and how people use the term in these nations.Ultramarine 14:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't agree that there are opposing views. I disagree that your source says the socialists support liberal democracy..or that social democracy is liberal democracy. All Male Action 14:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree that all your sources that liberal democracy and social democracy are incompatible. "an advance on liberal democracy" does not imply contradiction.Ultramarine 14:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think "advance on liberal democracy" means an improvement over liberal democracy. "Thanks largely to the labor movement, the transition from liberal democracy to social democracy was seen as such an important victory for the democratic ida that the left, especially in Europe but also in Latin American, rapidly came to be identified..." Alan Touraine, Westview Press (1997), page 99 All Male Action 14:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That is another source than the one I quoted.Ultramarine 14:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Other sources: "He presents six characteristics of Social Democracy (pp. 30-1). The first three, commitments to liberal democracy," Social Democratic Party Policies in Contemporary Europe - Page 7 by Giuliano (EDT) Bonoli, Martin A. Powell - 2003 - 208 pages.
 * "social democracy has to be based on liberal democracy."Future of Democracy, India and U.K.: Report on an Indo-British Exchange. - Page 23 1978 - 35 pages Ultramarine 14:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "The notion of liberal democracy - and social democracy as one of its variants -"Canada's Century: Governance in a Maturing Society : Essays in Honour of John Meisel - Page 235 by C. E. S. Franks, John Meisel - 1995 - 369 pagesUltramarine 14:31, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, good enough. So let's say there isn't agreement as to whether social democracy is liberal democracy. And, point out that in any case, social democracy supports a welfare state. All Male Action 14:34, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "Social democracy extends the logic of liberal democracy to realms that traditional liberals considered private and therefore not subject to democractic principles." Gutmann, Amy. Democracy. A Companion to Contemporary Political Philosophy, page 416 All Male Action 14:45, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Liberal stands for liberalism in general
"Liberal" in liberal democracy, refers to "liberalism" in general, including economic aspects. Liberalism includes classical and welfare-state liberalism. That's why a state with a laissez-faire economy as well as one with a mixed ecnonomy can both be seen as liberal democracies. All Male Action 22:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sources have been presented stating otherwise. Stop deleting sources that do not support your view. Also, classical and modern liberalism have contradictory views regarding welfare.Ultramarine 13:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes classical and modern liberalism have contradictory views regarding welfare. That's what I just said. That's why a nation with a laissez-faire economy and a mixed economy with a welfare state can both be liberal democracies. As long as they comply with liberalism, it's a liberal democracies. Do you understand that "liberalism" is a very broad philosophy that includes both classical and modern liberalism and everything in between? All Male Action 14:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * In practice, this would mean that liberalism means nothing regarding the economic policy, since it can refer to so widely different views. But even assuming this, it is misleading to state that liberal democracy refers to liberalism, since most people thinks that liberalism means welfare state, and thus they will think that liberal democracy must be a welfare state.Ultramarine 14:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It doesn't mean liberalism means nothing in regard to economic policy. It just means liberalism permits a wide range of economic policies. There are different varieties of liberalism, but they're still varieties of liberalism. As far as assuming liberalism refers to welfare liberalism, I think that only applies to Americans. But, in order to prevent that confusion, I stated in the article "The term "liberal" in "liberal democracy" is a reference to liberalism, including the classical and the modern varieties." All Male Action 14:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * As freedom house points out, the essential thing is liberty, which in turn results in the name liberal democracy and liberalism.Ultramarine 14:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That's because the essential thing to liberalism is liberty, regardless of the variety of liberalism. All Male Action 14:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * So you are saying that conservatism and christian democracy are variants of liberalism? Ultramarine 14:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No, conservativism is conservativism. It's not liberalism at all. It's not classical liberalism and it's not modern liberalism. All Male Action 14:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Explain how conservatism differs from the broad sense of liberalism that you use.Ultramarine 14:55, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Conservativism isn't really a theoretical ideology. It doesn't have a lot of theory to go along with it. It's more of a methodology. But, it's to the right of classical liberalism. It's not as dedicated to political and economic laissez-faire as classical liberalism. They do borrow from classical liberals though in economic matters. All Male Action 15:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * How can conservatism be to the right of classical liberalism which advocates a far smaller state and less regulations than conservatives? Ultramarine 15:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Traditionally, classical liberalism was considered to be on the left and conservativism on the right. Being on the the far right doesn't necessarily mean you want a smaller state. All Male Action 15:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That is the common interpretation today. How is was interpreted 200 years ago is not interesting.Ultramarine 15:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "To the left of conservativism, but still of the right rather than the left, is classic, individualist liberalism...The leading twentieth-century exponent of classical liberalism, Hayek, ends his major treatise, The Constitution of Liberty, with a chapter called, without irony, 'Why I am not a conservative.'" Alan Quinton, Conservativism. All Male Action 15:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Regardless, in common usage, the political right is associated with a smaller state and fewer regulations.Ultramarine 15:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * No it's not. Libertarianism, for example, is not right wing. Anarchism is not right wing. Conservativism is right wing by definition. All Male Action 15:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Libertarians are considered to right-wing regarding economic issues.Ultramarine 15:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but that doesn't mean they're to the right of conservatives. Conservatives will support protectionism where classical liberals and libertarians won't, which is very right wing. Right wing doesn't necessarily mean laissez-faire, at all. It means conservative. All Male Action 15:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * So a liberal can at the same time, without contradiction, both support extremely little taxes and regulations and very high taxes and regulations, but he cannot support a middle ground? Ultramarine 15:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * A single individual can't support low taxes and high taxes at the same time of course. Again, liberalism is a broad philosophy. Two different liberals can have opposing philosophies on economic matters. Take "anarchism" for instance. Look at all the various types of anarchism and how they contradict each other in many areas. But, they're still anarchists. They're just different kinds of anarchists. What unites liberals, both traditional and modern is one thing...liberty, so they say. Just like the Wikipedia article on liberalism says "Liberalism is an ideology, philosophical view, and political tradition which holds that liberty is the primary political value." Other than that they can differ on all sorts of things. All Male Action 15:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * But your view of liberalism is so broad that it includes for example conservatism. Can you name a concrete example regarding how conservatism today differs from your concept of liberalism.(No, modern conservatives do not support protectionism)Ultramarine 16:01, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, conservativism is not much of an ideology. It doesn't really have any principled theory to go along with it. It's basically just a methodology to support the status quo and those who benefit from it. If some U.S. businesses need increased profitability, a conservative will institute some protectionist measures (such as Bush putting a tarriff on imported steel). As the Wikipedia article on conservativism points out: "Scholar R.J. White once put it this way: "To put conservatism in a bottle with a label is like trying to liquefy the atmosphere … The difficulty arises from the nature of the thing. For conservatism is less a political doctrine than a habit of mind, a mode of feeling, a way of living." All Male Action 16:10, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * So conservatism is perfectly compatible with liberalism? Ultramarine 16:11, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not compatible or incompatible. It's not a philosophical doctrine. It's like the negation of one. If someone says he's a conservative, then he's telling you in effect that he has no firm defined principles. Since he has no principles then he can't be a liberal. So, no you can't be a conservative and liberal at the same time. All Male Action 16:15, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * But for example the Conservative Party in the UK has some clearly stated policies and prinicples? Ultramarine 16:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * That's a political party. That's like saying the Republican party has clearly stated principles, but "Republicanism" in itself is not a ideology. Those who comprise a "Conservative Party" may well be classical liberals. Similarly, those who comprise a "Republican Party" may be any persuasion. There are libertarians in the Republican Party, for example. All Male Action 16:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Libertarians are not liberals? But they consider themselves to follow classic liberalism? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ultramarine (talk • contribs) 16:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC).
 * Libertarians are liberals. They're classical liberals or something similar to them. All Male Action 16:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * So is there anything advocated by libertartarian parties or conservative parties or the US Repulican parties that is not liberalism?Ultramarine 16:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Probably not. But, that's an unfortunate consequence of the definition of liberalism. No longer does it refer only to laissez-faire individualism, because since FDR is also includes the American philosophy that supports a welfare state and central economic planning. If the language were up to me, I would call modern liberalism socialism (and that is what it's called in Europe). But, it's not up to me. "Liberalism" refers to the philosophy that supports "liberty" that includes both classical liberalism to modern liberalism. All Male Action 16:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Taken this widely, I can agree with your statement regarding liberalism and liberal democracy. But the problem is that this is not how it will be understood by most readers. Amercians will assume that "liberalism" means a support of the US Democratic party, and "conservatism" means support of the US Republican party. There, simply stating "constitutional liberalism" and support for liberty, is preferably to only stating "liberalism".Ultramarine 16:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * So what's wrong with saying: "...liberalism, which includes classical and modern varieties"? After all, "liberal" refers to liberalism. And, the only way that a laissez-faire situation and a welfare state can both be liberal democracies, is if liberalism includes room for both. All Male Action 16:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Or "which includes laissez-faire and interventionist varieties ? All Male Action 16:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It refers to liberalism in your personal meaning of the word, not to the meaning common to most readers. Your text implies that Republicans do not support liberal democracy.Ultramarine 16:53, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It's not my personal meaning at all. Liberalism includes classical and modern varities. I think you're giving people less credit than they deserve. People know that there are classical and modern versions of liberalism, and if they don't, it would say right there that it includes all varieties of liberalism. All Male Action 16:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you say my text implies that Republicans don't support liberal democracy. They do. All Male Action 16:58, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You text states that liberal democracies follow liberalism, that is. for most Americans, the ideology of the US Democratic party.Ultramarine 17:00, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Of course liberal democracies follow liberalism. But, modern liberalism is not the only form of liberalism. A liberal democracy can follow classical liberalism or it can follow modern liberalism. That's why a laissez-faire situation can be a liberal democracy while at the same time a welfare state like Sweden can be a liberal democracy. All Male Action 17:05, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * But that is not how most people will read the text. if not very explicitly stating otherwise, "liberalism" will be understood as the ideology of the US left.Ultramarine 17:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I think when most people come across the word "liberalism" in an encyclopedia or scholarly text, they're not equating that with modern liberalism. I think most people are thinking it's being used in the international sense of the term. Anyway, liberalism does include the ideology of the U.S. left. A liberal democracy is a "liberal" democracy, whether that democracy corresponds to classical or modern liberalism. All Male Action 17:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Most people will not know the history of the word. They will understand it as it is commonly used today, and in the the US "liberals" means supporters of the Left and the Democratic party.Ultramarine 17:17, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree. When most people see the world "liberalism" in an encyclopedia or book they do not think of American modern liberalism. That's why all the books about liberal democracy, simply say "liberalism." We should follow suit. All Male Action 17:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Is it your belief that a government that follows modern liberalism can't be a liberal democracy? All Male Action 17:21, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * They do not. For example Freedom House makes no mention of liberalism, only liberty.Ultramarine 17:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I certainly think a liberal democracy can follow modern liberalism. I am worried that those who do support this form of government but not modern liberalism will misunderstand the text.Ultramarine 17:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Then, like I said, just note that there are classical and interventionist forms of liberalism. All Male Action 17:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong with this"The term "liberal" in "liberal democracy" is a reference to the fact that liberal democracies support the constitutional protection of individual rights, including economic rights, from government power (an idea called constitutional liberalism, not identical with economic liberalism), which was first proposed during the Age of Enlightenment by philosophers advocating liberty." This makes it clear that this is not only the ideology of the Democratic Party.Ultramarine 17:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Nothing's wrong with it (except it might mislead people to think that liberal democracy doesn't include economic liberalism). Nothing is wrong with what I added either, which was that liberal demoracy is the conjoining of liberalism and democracy. That's seems essential to me. That's why it's called liberal democracy. Two concepts which formerly were thought to be incompatible were merged together. All Male Action 17:50, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * But that is not how most people, not familiar with the history of the term, will read it, since they interpret liberalism in a very specific way as noted above.Ultramarine 17:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree. When most people see "liberalism" in an encyclopedia or book, they assume that is not referring to American modern liberalism. All Male Action 17:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Most people are not political scientists or historians.Ultramarine 18:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Most people who come to Wikipedia for info aren't complete idiots either. Again, if you are concerned that someone thinks "liberalism" refers solely to American modern liberalism, then why not just note that liberalism includes more than modern liberalism? All Male Action 18:09, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Not knowing the exact history of words does not make people idiots. Do you have a suggestion for how we should make a person who votes for a conservative party, in a nation that also have a liberal party with different policies, like in the UK, understand that liberal here also includes the policies of the conservative party? Ultramarine 18:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It already is noted that conservatives support liberal democracy, but even that's not necessarily true. A conservative can support absolute dicatorship. Conservatives in Iraq are radical Islamists that want an Islamic dictatorship. Conservativism is not an ideology. All Male Action 18:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I doubt supporters of the conservative party in the UK would agree with you. We can also not that the liberal party in Russia is an extreme far right autocratic party.Ultramarine 18:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

All Male Action, you seem to be advocating two incompatible views at the same time: Which is it going to be? If liberal democracy implies economic liberalism, then many Western democracies cannot be called "liberal democracies". If liberal democracy may have a mixed economy, then social democracy and some forms of socialism support liberal democracy. -- Nikodemos 03:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) That liberal democracy must necessarily follow economic liberalism.
 * 2) That liberal democracy may follow any type of liberalism, from classical to modern, and may be associated with a broad range of economies, from laissez-faire to mixed.


 * A mixed economy is still economic liberalism. It's just not classical economic liberalism. Socialism supports a socialist economy. A mixed economy is not socialist, because by definition it's a mix of liberal economy and socialist aspects. A "Socialist Party" can support a mixed economy, but socialism does not, because socialism by definition is in favor of a socialist economy. The reason a Socialist Party is some countries would support a mixed economy with mostly private ownership of the means of production is because popular support for socialist economy is out of favor. It's a compromise, obviously. All Male Action 15:55, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. But the fact is that many socialists can and do make this compromise, thereby endorsing liberal democracy. Perhaps we could reach a consensus by saying that a liberal democracy is supported by some socialists? (as opposed to "some forms of socialism") That would be in accordance with your statement that a group of socialists can support a mixed economy, even though socialism itself does not. -- Nikodemos 01:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Violations of neutrality
Unfortunately, one user All Male Action, refuses to accept sourced information that conatradicts his personal theory regarding what liberal democracy is. As can be seen, he blanks all the sources and views that contradict his own.Ultramarine 22:11, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Tell the truth. I've been putting in sourced information and you've been deleting it. Whenever I put sourced information in this article and delete unsourced information, either you or Nikodemos deletes the sourced information and re-inserts the unsourced information. This article desperately needs sourcing. You even delete the tag at the top of the article announcing that it's deficient of sources. The reason for the last revert is because you deleted the source information that I provided. All Male Action 22:15, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * As can be seen in the diff above, this is false. You are deleting all sourced information that contradicts your own POV. Read NPOV.Ultramarine 22:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Look at the facts: You're deleting sourced information. All Male Action 23:58, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, some sources, as are you. You also delete complete views. I will add those in the a version tomorrow that incorporates all the sources and all the views.Ultramarine 23:59, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Hidden while we discuss. Any concrete objections? Ultramarine 10:58, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There is an awful lot of unsourced material there. I think everything that isn't sourced should be deleted. If you want to do it right, every sentence should be cited unless it is self-evidently true. Everything else is original research. All Male Action 16:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And you took out sourced information I provided, such as the fact that liberalism and democracy have historically been at odds. All Male Action 17:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have removed no sources. What statement are you referring to? Ultramarine 17:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "Before the wedding of liberalism and democracy, there was skepticism over whether such a combination was possible. The possibility of a "liberal democracy" has historically been controversial, as the rights of the liberal individual and the majority will have clashed throughout its history. " And you took out the sourced info that not only is the ability of the minority to exercise its will diminished but so is individual liberty restrained because it has to be sacrificed to the majority. All Male Action 17:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sources added to the history section. Regarding the view on liberty, that is only one view and thus inappropriate for the opening paragraphs. I could equally well state that FH's definition should be there.Ultramarine 17:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Who is FH? I can't see the thing. It's too confusing to look at like that. Why not just put it up and delete all the unsourced statements? All Male Action 17:15, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Freedom House is already mentioned later. Regarding some unsourced views, the same applies to libertarianism and classic liberalism that has numerous unsourced views or original reserach quoting primary sources.Ultramarine 17:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what other articles are doing. The same is supposed to apply to all articles. Anything unsourced needs to be sourced or deleted. I challenge everything in that intro that you want that's unsourced, so I'm going to delete anything out of it that's unsourced. All Male Action 17:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't like the idea of just OK'ing it with each other to make sure there's a consensus. What if the consensus is the authorization of original research? Consensus isn't enough. All Male Action 17:22, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * We can remove the first 3 paragraphs. The rest is sourced. Consensus is better than an endless edit war.Ultramarine 17:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The lack of sources is what results in an endless edit war. Just because I agree with something said in the article today doesn't mean I will agree with it tommorow. I'm not bound to a consensus I agree to today, tommorow. I don't have a "POV" on the matter. As new information turns up as I research, my understanding of what liberal democracy is is going to change. All Male Action 17:27, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Deleting sourced views is certainly not constructive. The article will certainly not ever state that a liberal democracy or liberalism most be identical to classic liberalism, since there are other views on what liberal democracy is.Ultramarine 17:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't say to delete source views. I said to deleted unsourced views. I don't care what the article states as long as it's sourced. All Male Action 17:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So what is wrong with the current intro minus the first 3 paragraphs? Ultramarine 17:33, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The first two sentences of the 4th paragraph are unsourced. The 3rd sentence is just silly. Freedom house doesn't mention liberalism? What does that mean? It mentions "liberal" democracy. That's the same thing as mentioning "liberalism." "Liberal" and "liberalism" mean the same thing. I can just as well add, "However, they mention "liberal." It's ridiculous. All Male Action 17:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The source at end of the paragraph refers to the whole paragraph. We could remove "making no mention of liberalism".Ultramarine 17:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What does this mean? "The protection of liberties, first advocated by philosophers during the Age of Enlightenment, is theoretically and historically different from democracy."?  Are you trying to say liberalism is different from democracy? All Male Action 17:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * From the sources: "for almost a century in the West, democracy has meant liberal democracy -- a political system marked not only by free and fair elections, but also by the rule of law, a separation of powers, and the protection of basic liberties  of speech, assembly, religion, and property. In fact, this latter bundle of freedoms -- what might be termed  constitutional liberalism -- is theoretically different and historically distinct from democracy." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ultramarine (talk • contribs) 17:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Ok, it wasn't clear. Political liberalism is indeed distinct from democracy. There have been liberal regimes that haven't been democratic at all, but enlightened despotisms. All Male Action 17:52, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I find this interesting. Could you give some examples? I have trouble imaging a "despot" allowing freedom of assembly and speech.Ultramarine 17:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "Liberalism regarded as rule by law is clearly present in the rule of enlightened despots such as Catherine the Great and Peter the Great of Russia, Empreror Franz Joseph of Austria, Frederick the Great of Russia, Emperor Franz Joseph of Austria...The system of government was 'liberal autocracy'." (A Companion to African Philosophy by Kwasi Wiredu, page 452)All Male Action 18:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Rule of law does not necessarily means protecting liberties and stating that liberalism means only rule of law is a very particular POV and dubious. None of these autocrats allowed freedom of assembly and speech.Ultramarine 18:04, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Rule of law in protecting liberty is what it's talking about. How about what preceded that quote? "The history of the Western political system shows that the guarantee of human rights and rule of law (political liberalism) has sometimes preceded democracy. Put another way, democracy as a desirable form of government was taken seriously by political thinkers when it was connected to the framework of political liberalism. regarded as rule by law is clearly present in the rule of enlightened despots such as Catherine the Great and Peter the Great of Russia, Empreror Franz Joseph of Austria, Frederick the Great of Russia, Emperor Franz Joseph of Austria...The system of government was 'liberal autocracy'." All Male Action 18:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Most regimes claim to follow the rule of law. Stalin created his own constitution, Hitler ruled according to the Enabling Act, and absolute monarchs claimed to follow the divine law. The monarchs listed above may differ in that they allowed some liberties, but ~I do not think you can find any complete separation of democracy and liberties. Demcracy requires liberty and liberty will quickly lead to democracy.Ultramarine 18:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Whatever dude. The point is that the idea of liberalism and the idea of democracy are two distinct concepts. There is no logical necessity that a liberal society be democratic and no logical necessity that a democracy be liberal. There have been cases of non-democratic liberal societies, and cases of democratic tyrannies. Liberals originally were opposed to democracy, because they saw it as threatening individual liberty and property. The idea of a "liberal" democracy seemed incongruent. All Male Action 18:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I would just like some good examples of either type. The examples listed above as "liberal autocracy" allowed very few liberties (and most regimes claim to follow the rule of law). Some early liberals may have been more worried about property rights than other liberties and then you can easily find liberal regimes (maybe the above) or claimed democratic regimes not allowing property rights. But liberty is more than just property rights.Ultramarine 18:30, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, the view that democracy and liberty somehow contradict each other and are in conflict in only one view. There are others that see them not only as compatible with each other, but also necesseary for each other. To quote the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "The conception of democratic authority that grounds it in public equality also provides an account of the limits of that authority. Since democracy is founded in public equality, it may not violate public equality in any of its decisions. The basic idea is that overt violation of public equality by a democratic assembly undermines the claim that the democratic assembly embodies public equality. Democracy's embodiment of public equality is conditional on its protecting public equality. To the extent that liberal rights are grounded in public equality and the provision of an economic minimum is also so grounded, this suggests that democratic rights and liberal rights and rights to an economic minimum create a limit to democratic authority. This account also provides a deep grounding for the kinds of limits to democratic authority defended in the first internal limit and it goes beyond these to the extent that protection of rights that are not connected with the exercise of the franchise is also necessary to public equality."

Obviously this view on the relationship of liberty and democracy must be included.Ultramarine 00:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have incorporated this view in the proposed (but hidden for now) text. Any objections? Ultramarine 12:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that liberalism and democracy don't have to be merged needs to be noted too: "Western governments have, for the most part, embodied both democracy and constitutional liberalism. Thus it is difficult to imagine the two apart, in the form of either illiberal democracy or liberal autocracy. In fact both have existed in the past and persist in the present." Fareed Zakaria, The Rise of Illiberal Democracy All Male Action 03:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. How about the current text? Ultramarine 13:06, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't see that in there. I see something about relationship between liberalism and democracy being controversial, but it doens't say anything about why. Or if it does, I can't see. I can't guarantee that if I agree to the way you have it now that I'll agree to it when it's back in the article. I can't see the thing. It's too confusing in that format. All Male Action 08:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * So removing hiding.Ultramarine 08:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Liberalism template
Classical liberalism has a connection to the founding liberal democracy, but modern liberalism cannot make that claim and is quite different. Thus, the liberalism template should be restricted to the section about liberalism. Please state concrete objections here otherwise.Ultramarine 12:54, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "Modern liberalism" is a minor offshoot of liberalism. "Liberalism" in most of the world does not refer to "modern liberalism." What "liberalism" refers to in America, in informal usage, is called socialism in most of the rest of the world. You, youurself, noted in the article: "Liberal democracy was created historically as a synthesis of the concerns of classical liberalism with limiting the power of the state and the public from interfering with the individual's private sphere, and democracy which is concerned with furthering the public will." All Male Action 13:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Obviously how the word is used today is what is important and most English speakers are Americans.Ultramarine 13:03, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That's the thing. It's not how it's used today. In most of the world, liberalism does not refer to "modern liberalism." In the United States, it doesn't refer to it either in formal scholarly dialogue. All Male Action 13:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Your statement is dubious. Regarding world usage, the liberal parties in the UK or Russia are not classical liberal. Regarding scholarly usage, even if true, which is dubious, the target of an encyclopedia is the general public.Ultramarine 13:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Nobody disagrees that liberal democracies are liberal, evn though "Liberalism in the American usage has little in common with the word as used in the politics of any European country, save possibly Britain." (Arthur Schelesinger Jr. Liberalism in America: A Note for Europeans from The Politics of Hope, Riverside Press, Boston, 1962) "Contemporary liberalism has come to represent different things to Americans and Europeans: In the United States it is associated with the welfare-state policies of the New Deal program of Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt, whereas in Europe liberals are more commonly conservative in their political and economic outlook." (Girvetz, Harry K. and Minogue Kenneth. Liberalism, Encyclopædia Britannica (online), p. 1, retrieved June 19,2006) There is no dispute that liberal democracies are liberal, otherwise they wouldn't be called "liberal" democracies. "Liberal" is already in the title of the article, so I don't understand what you're afraid of. "Liberal" is blaring in the face of the reader. If anything, the template lets the reader know that "Liberalism" does not always refer to "modern liberalism." But, if you're going to hvae a "Democracy" template, then to be NPOV you need to have "Liberalism" template as well. All Male Action 13:19, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This is the English Wikipedia. So how the world is used in the UK and the US is what is important. You may, however, try your argument in French Wikipedia.Ultramarine 13:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This the English language, not the UK and/or USA Wikipedia. English is nowadays a lingua franca used by many non-native Anglophones. Electionworld Talk?  21:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Regardless of what it usually refers to in English, it does not refer strictly to "modern liberalism." It also refers to political liberalism and classical liberalism in English. Democracy may usually refer to liberal democracy, but democracy doesn't have to be liberal. So I have the same argument against you for putting the Democracy template there. But, I'm not trying to take it out. You can't give democracy prominence over liberalism. That's POV. All Male Action 13:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Liberal democracy have to democratic and have liberties, but does not have to follow the economic policies of classic or modern liberalism. "Liberalism" is confusing and unclear term that means many different things depending on the context. All the more reason to use it in the liberalism section.Ultramarine 13:30, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought we already established that a liberal democracy has to accomodate political liberalism. Political liberalism is one half of classical liberalism, with economic liberalism (capitalism) being the other. Again, the term "Liberal" is already blaring the reader in the face, so the template, if anything serves to note to the reader that "liberalism" can refer to more than welfare-state liberalism, that is, "modern liberalism." All Male Action 13:34, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The template does not state political liberalism, only liberalism. The general reader will assume that this means liberalism as is commonly used, that is modern liberalism. He will not magically gain knowledge regarding the history and many uses of the term.Ultramarine 13:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Look at the template. "Modern liberalism" is pointed out as just one of the various types of liberalism. The template is there for the reader to click on the various types, and he'll easily come to the realization that "liberalism" does not always refer to welfare-state liberalism. "Classical liberalism" is even featured as the first one on the list. "Political liberalism" can easily be added to the template, as well. All Male Action 13:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This still implies that only liberalism is compatible with liberal democracy. Why not add the "conservatism" template to "private property" and "rule of law"? Ultramarine 13:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm discussing this article, not those articles. All Male Action 13:58, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That "classical liberalism" previously helped created liberal democracy does not mean that the very diffuse term "liberalism" has a special connection with liberal democracy. Adding the template implies that only liberalism is really compatible with liberal democracy.Ultramarine 14:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * We're not talking about "classical liberalism." We're talking about "political liberalism." (Again, political liberalism is just one half of classical liberalis. Economic liberalism is the other half.) What requires something to be a liberal democracy is that it is politically liberal. A necessary condition of liberal demoracy is that it accomodates political liberalism. All Male Action 14:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The template is called "liberalism", not "political liberalism". Your POV is that political liberalism is necessary for for liberal democracy, others states liberties.Ultramarine 14:07, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? "Political liberalism" MEANS protections for individual liberties. All Male Action 14:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, many readers will assume that political liberalism includes more that liberties. But I would not have a problem with a template called "political liberalism".Ultramarine 14:12, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm not going to argue with you all day. I guess we'll just alternately remove and insert the template. All Male Action 14:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is built on discussions. It is unfortunate that you have no more factual arguments and instead want to edit war. For neutrality, I will add the templates of other ideologies.Ultramarine 14:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus obviously. So you taking it out is just as much "edit warring" as me putting it in. All Male Action 14:24, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with those other templates being there. All Male Action 14:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I have stated that I want to dicuss until there is a consensus. You have stated that you do not.Ultramarine 14:28, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know about you, but I have something called "a life." I'll discuss but not for hours on end. I'll be back when I have time. All Male Action 14:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Read No Personal Attacks.Ultramarine 14:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't make any personal attacks. I'm just telling you my life doesn't revolve around Wikipedia, so I'm not going to sit here all day long arguing with you. I'll argue with you some more, but tommorow or the next day, or next week. It's not crucial that we come to a consensus TODAY. All Male Action 14:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Freedom of enterprise and the right to own property
The right to own property, and to buy and sell the same, is often seen as a liberal freedom bound up with the above, though this is a very hotly contested proposition.

Can some name one liberal democracy in which it is illegal to own property? Bombshell 17:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore the freedom of enterprise is inscribed in the Belgian constitution.

Bombshell (talk) 19:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Right to bear arms
Can somebody give any reliable source on the rights to bear arms to be considered essential for the functioning of a liberal democracy. Please keep in mind that it not an article on American democracy. Electionworld Talk?  21:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

It's implicit in a lot of British enlightenment thought. In liberal political theory, guns are thought to serve as a check on the government. For instance, Locke affirms in his Second Treatise on Government that the people have a right to revolt against a despotic sovereign. For such a right to mean anything, however, individuals must have the means of standing up to their government. Accordingly, they must be entitled to own guns. In the aftermath of the Glorious Revolution, such a right became enshrined in the English Bill of Rights 1689.Freedomwarrior 04:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That is very implicit. I would like to see explicit sources and not interpretations by editors themselves. So please give (scientific) sources that confirm that the right to bear arms is essential for the functioning of a liberal democracy. BTW a liberal democracy cannot have a despotic sovereign, since that means that it is no democracy anymore. A contra-indication is furthermore that most European democracies taht are considered liberal democracies do not allow the right to bear arms. I wouldn't say that the right to bear arms is contradictory to a liberal democracy but most liberal democracies have a violence monopoly for the state. Electionworld Talk?  14:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Which countries have such a violence monopoly? Come with sources. AFAIK no European country has such a monopoly. No liberal democracy has.Dylansmrjones 00:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Almost all European countries have such a monopoly, even when there is a restricted right to wear arms. Even when a right to wear arms exists, it doesn't make it essential for a liberal democracy. Electionworld Talk?  08:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Bullshit. All European countries allow the population to wear arms, though a restricted right. However, the same is true for many states in USA. The right to bear arms is not unrestricted in USA. In Denmark we have the right to bear arms, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights also grant this right, although implicit. But implicit doesn't matter. A complete ban on firearms is contradictory to a liberal democracy. No right to bear arms equals no democracy. This is true for all liberal democracies. Just find one liberal democracy that doesn't allow for selfdefense. You cannot. Dylansmrjones 23:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

First, my job is not to prove that the right to bear arms are "scientifically" essential for the functioning of a liberal democracy but that "they were originally considered essential for the functioning of a liberal democracy," and are now regarded as prominent rights (even if curtailed). As such, I do not need to turn to "scientific" sources (whatever that means) because the question of whether the "right to bear arms" was thought to be essential to the functioning of liberal democracies is an historical one.

Under classical liberal theory, guns are thought to provide the people with a means of checking the ambitions of a sovereign of a despotic character, such that he cannot seize absolute power and put an end to democratic governance. That is why, if you examine the historical record prior to 1789--since you asked for sources outside of the United States--you will find numerous British sources on the right to bear arms-- the more notable ones are the English Bill of Rights 1689 and Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England. It was not until the 1920s that this right was constrained (it is worth noting that the state has not abolished the right to bear arms, just constrained it).

On the point of Europe, by discussing what rights are essential to qualify as a liberal democracy, we are discussing the very meaning of that term. Whether European democracies are liberal democracies or not, is the issue here. Just because they are popularly referred to as liberal democracies does not mean that they are indeed liberal democracies.

Finally, I agree with your last affirmation: a monopoly of violence for the state (besides being essential for the preservation of the rights outlined) does not have to be in opposition with an individual's right to bear arms, since such a monopoly does not have to be absolute.Freedomwarrior 16:05, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * This is not an article about classical liberal theory, but about the form of government called liberal democracy. I do not see any proof of the rights to bear arms to be an essentiala of liberal democracy. Adding the right to bear arms is in the moment a form of original research and shouldn't be included in this article. It would be different if there would be some sources (not own interpretation) that this right is an essential criterium of liberal democracy. So please come up with some sources. Electionworld Talk?  21:02, 9 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Liberal democracy is called liberal democracy because it was created by classical liberalists. Democracy as we know it is a descendant of liberalist democracy. You cannot treat Liberal democracy independent from classical liberalism (or individualistic anarchism, for that matter). And remember. Modern social democracies do not qualify as liberal democracy. Dylansmrjones 00:39, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Since when was liberal democracy reated by classical liberalists. Please give sources for that, since orginally classical liberals were not in favour of democracy. See for example the following quote The tension between constitutional liberalism and democracy centers on the scope of governmental authority. Constitutional liberalism is about the limitation of power, democracy about its accumulation and use. For this reason, many eighteenth- and nineteenth-century liberals saw in democracy a force that could undermine liberty. James Madison explained in The Federalist that "the danger of oppression" in a democracy came from "the majority of the community." Tocqueville warned of the "tyranny of the majority," writing, "The very essence of democratic government consists in the absolute sovereignty of the majority.". This is a citation The Rise of Illiberal Democracy, an article by Fareed Zakaria (Foreign Affairs, November 1997). Electionworld Talk?  08:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You're partially right. Classic liberals weren't in support of most forms of democracy--particularly majoritarianism, which is what you seem to be criticizing them for opposing-- because they understood that such a system was inimical to the whole notion of individual rights. They were as a group (Montesquieu, Locke, Burke, Paine, etc), however, supportive of a constitutionally limited democracy which only granted the government power over certain spheres of life. Freedomwarrior 07:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The criteria that we are using to establish a functional definition of liberal democracy is that a right "was originally considered essential for the functioning of a liberal democracy, but they have acquired such prominence in its definition, that many people now think they are equivalent with democracy." The criteria in this article does not require that I prove that it is essential for the actual functioning of a liberal democratic state, just that it was considered''' essential. The means that we have to use in this article call for historical evidence.

I have provided ample evidence for that claim through references to the governing document of the most prominent liberal democratic state of the Enlightenment (forget the US). The form of government called liberal democracy cannot be understood without reference to classic liberal theory, particularly, since the rights that are enumerated in this article come from it. Therefore, I don't understand what you're asking for. There are no sources in this article which prove that any of the other rights enumerated in it are "essential" criteria of liberal democracies. I suppose I should eliminate them as well, since no "scientific" proof has been adduced for them in this article.Freedomwarrior 03:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Electionworld, please stop using this article for your own political agenda. You have provided no sources of any kind supporting a view that the right to bear arms in unessential for a liberal democracy, whereas the right to bear arms have been an essential right in all liberal democracies and only in recent years have been debateable. In Denmark that right is uncontroversial (yes, we can have weapons privately in Denmark (and use them for selfdefense), though widely unknown). The right to bear arms is no more controversial than free speech (which is of course very controversial from a global view). Take a look at the behaviour of Bill Clinton and Bush Jr. during the cartoon crisis. Neither supported free speech as such. All the listed freedoms are essential as well as controversial in every possible way. The american as well as the European Left are fierce opponents of free speech (except for themselves, of course). Dylansmrjones 20:50, 7 November 2007 (UTC) P.S The article states the freedoms are contested by some groups, so you don't have a valid reason for treating any of the freedoms differently from the rest. Dylansmrjones 20:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The Right to Bear Arms is not seen as fundemental right anywhere except in the US. Of course many nations allows their citizens to have firearms, like for hunters and often for self-defence, but usually requiring a licene and people are denied this licence. I can give sources for the other rights, like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights etc. Do you have any for a right for everyone to possess firearms? Ultramarine 22:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The Universal Declaration of Human Rights allow for armed self-defense though implicit (it is in the foreword to the articles) and more explicit allows for self-defense (though not necessarily armed self-defense). In Denmark we have the right to bear arms, though that right isn't unrestricted. The Danish Home Guard rests on this right (værneretten). Dylansmrjones 23:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not mention a Right to Bear arms. Nor does the preamble mention self-defence, armed or not. The declaration certainly mention life, liberty and security of person, but not that this mean that everyone has a right to have a personal gun. Exactly what sentence are thinking of? Regardless of the situation in Denmark, that is not evidence for how things are seen more generally. For that you have to cite more general sources.Ultramarine 23:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm too tired for this. It's just past midnight here in Denmark. More generally doesn't matter in this or any other context. Any right seen as an essential right by the majority or a large minority is an essential right. No matter what your opinion is. Wikipedia is not the place for your opinions or your agenda. All liberal democracies allow for armed self-defense in some way or another - even though it is usually a restricted right. Find a single liberal democracy that completely disallows armed self-defense no matter the situation. You cannot. - Besides that it can be argued that freedom of speech isn't essential to liberal democracies since most countries in Europe explicitly forbids Holocaust-denial (it can be argued to be understandable though - I'd like to forbid Holocaust-denial on occasion, because it sucks) as well as denying the Armenian ditto. Therefore there is not freedom of speech in most European countries and as such freedom of speech is not essential or it is at least a controversial right. Dylansmrjones 23:20, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The Right to bear arms refers to the right to possess weapons. This is not the same as self-defence. You can have the right to self-defence without this meaning that all citizens have a right to possess guns. Most nations do not allow all citizens to bear arms, so this is not a right, it is a privilege that is granted to trusted people. If you want to add something regarding self-defence, then that is something different.Ultramarine 23:25, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the right to bear arms does not necessarily mean guns. The right to bear arms mean arms, incl. knifes. However, all liberal democracies grant the right to bear arms (incl. certain firearms) if you qualify. But if you qualify they do not have the right to deny you the right to bear arms, so even as a restricted right, it is still a right. All liberal democracies allow for any kind of self-defense necessary in a given situation. Just because some countries are not fully liberal democracies do not make the right less essential. Au contraire. It just proves how essential the right is - just like free speech. A privilege is something you grant based on subjective criteria. The (possibly restricted) right to bear arms is a right, as long as you can be trusted. It is not a privilege, but a trusted right. A privilege is something you get, even if you cannot be trusted - just because you are somebody. Even in USA you cannot legally posses firearms without some sort of license (depending on where in USA you are). And "personal security" means you have the right to defend yourself with all means required in a given situation. Incl. firearms if necessary. So again. It is an essential right. You have to prove that the major majority of liberal democracies explicitly denies the right to any kind of armed self-defense. You cannot do that. Dylansmrjones 23:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it is you who are making the claim, so it is you who have to give the source, as per Wikipedia policy. The right to self-defence is not the same as the right to possess arms. Some nations diallow bearing arms such as knives in public places. So there is no general right to go around bearing arms, guns or not.Ultramarine 23:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not making any claims. I'm only mentioning facts. The right to self-defense require the right to bear arms, because without arms there is no defense. Only in recent years (since 1970'es for European countries - that's recent in my mind) has the right to bear arms been controversial. It is however still an essential part of a liberal democracy (though perhaps not of certain social democracies). I have asked for a list of countries that completely prohibits all (or most) kinds of armed self-defense. Until you have proven that the right to bear arms is no longer essential it stays essential. You cannot treat the right to self-defense from the right to bear arms, since the former require the latter. You still haven't pointed to a single liberal democracy that prohibits all (or most) kinds of armed self-defense. Freedomwarrior has proven that historically the right to bear arms was essential for liberal democracies. You have to prove it is no longer essential. You have not done so. Dylansmrjones 00:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, per Wikipedia policy, it is you who are making the claim. According to Wikipedia policy, please provide a source. I will mark it as disputed until we resolve the dispute.Ultramarine 02:31, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, per Wikipedia policy, I am NOT making any claims. You are! You claim it has NEVER been an essential right and isn't an essential right today. Freedomwarrior has proved that it historically was an essential right. Your and Electionworlds claims that it is not and never has been essential are unsourced. What do you want me to prove? That people two centuries ago usually had the right to bear arms? It has been proven to have been an essential right. You have to prove it is no longer an essential right. If you continue marking the right to bear arms as dubious or disputed, I will mark free speech as such, since no countries apart from Denmark supports virtually unrestricted free speech. Bill Clinton and George Bush Jr. as well as Tony Blair have all argued against Free Speech and Holocaust-denial is illegal in most liberal democracies. Again. Christian and Social Democracies are not Liberal Democracies. They are somewhat similar but none-the-less non-liberal Democracies until otherwise proven. Dylansmrjones 03:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." See WP:V. You make the claim the the rigt to bear arms is essential, you must give the source.Ultramarine 03:06, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not adding or restoring anymore than you are. You are equally bound by that. It has been proven to be an essential right historically. The same goes for Freedom of Speech which is heavily curtailed in many Social Democracies. Exactly what kind of source do you want? A prove that it historically was an essential right? That countries generally allowed weapons among civilians? Or what exactly? And who gets to decide which right is essential and which right isn't? Dylansmrjones 03:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is a source for Freedom of Speech: . Now a source for the Right to Bear Arms, please.Ultramarine 03:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Added: "All or some of the rights in the following list are disputed." to the article. Btw. Your source is not authoritative and as such is irrelevant. Many European countries do not allow for Holocaust-denial so Freedom of Speech is not essential. It is just one group of many. Socialists claims that Freedom of Speech must be limited (e.g. Hate Speech) so Free Speech isn't a given in a liberal democracy. Come back when France allow for denying the murder of hundred of thousands of Armenians. So far only Denmark has free speech. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylansmrjones (talk • contribs) 03:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It is from a report used in thousands of peer-reviewed studies, so certainly authorative. Your personal opinions are not allowed as sources in Wikipedia. Please give third-party sources according to policy.Ultramarine 03:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You are the one to use Wikipedia for your personal opinions. I am innocent of your claim. I am not using my personal opinions as source. You are the one to use your personal opinion. Sources proving that Germany, Denmark, England, Switzerland and USA consider or considered the right to bear arms as an essential right. http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/beararms.htm http://www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htm http://faculty.ncwc.edu/TOConnor/410/410lect11.htm http://www.keepandbeararms.com/ http://school.discoveryeducation.com/lessonplans/programs/2ndamendment/ http://www.liberator.dk/art-detail.asp?A_id=287 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dylansmrjones (talk • contribs) 03:26, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * All the articles except the last one refers to the US. The Danish one is an opinion piece, please cite the Danish constitution or something similar.Ultramarine 03:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * All the articles refers to USA as well as other countries. None of the first refers solely to USA. Your source is also an opinion piece. Dylansmrjones 03:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC) - Added later: http://www.grundloven.dk/ it is article 81 (actually it is stating it is a duty to "be armed according to law"). Coming up with more later.
 * My source is used in thousands of peer-reviewed studies. As reliable as it can be. I can see only references to the US. Could you point out which article mentions Germany? Regarding the UK, see this: Firearms (Amendment) (No. 2) Act 1997.Ultramarine 03:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Article 81 states that everyone has duty to contribute to the defence. Nothing regarding a right to bear arms.Ultramarine 03:40, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Article 81 states that everybody has the duty to participate in the defense, e.g. to carry weapons. That's why we have a law that explicitly grants people the right to deny carrying weapons (http://www.militaernaegter.dk/sw164.asp). Danish site about arms one has the right to carry without a license as well as arms one can carry with a license: http://borger.dk/forside/politiet-ret-og-forsvaret/politi/tilladelser/vaabentilladelse. Just because your source does not explicitly support the right to bear arms does not make it unessential. Your site is not authoritative in any way. Thousands of peer reviews does not make an authoritative source. Ever. Your link to the Firearms Amendment in UK proves that until then it was (and to some extent still is) an essential right to bear arms, but it also proves that the Socialists disagree. That's because they don't support the Liberal democracy, but supports the Social Democracy instead. Your link also proves that at least until recently it was a right to bear arms in UK. It also proves my earlier statements. Thank you for proving me correct :) Dylansmrjones 03:56, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Btw. Your link to the UK laws only proves that some groups disagree with the classic liberal values. I can use this to prove that Free Speech isn't essential since Germany and Austria severely restricts it. I can come with sources for that if I have to. Let's mark all the freedoms as disputed - OR - let's conclude that not all versions of Democracy are Liberal Democracy. Dylansmrjones 04:00, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Duty participate in defence is not equal to the right to have arms in everyday life. As I have shown, for example the UK has forbidden private guns and most would still consider it to be a liberal democracy, like the ranking I have presented. Again, my source is a scholarly study that is used in thousands of peer-reviewed studies. As reliable as it can be. I have given a source showing that freedom of speech etc are considered essential by political scientists. Germany and Austria have minor restrictions. All nations have some restrictions (copyright and defamation for example).  You have not shown anything similar for a right to bear arms, only the US finds this essential.  says nothing about a right, only mentions licenses for many kinds of weapons.  talks about defence personel, not citizens in general. Ultramarine 04:09, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * also states that Denmark even generally forbidds wearing knives in public places. So certainly no general right to go around armed.Ultramarine 04:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * So if a right to bear arms is essential, then Denmark is not a liberal democracy. Fortunately, according to a reliable scholarly study, cited in many peer-reviewed studes, it is: http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=22&country=7164&year=2007 (By the way, perfect scores, congratulations!). However, this is due to strongly protectd Free Speech etc and has nothing to do with with the Danish laws prohibiting knives in public places and requiring licenses for arms.Ultramarine 04:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The position of Dylansmrjones seems to be orginal research, since he cannot provide sources confirming that the right to bear arms is essental for liberal democracy. Not all rights mentioned are disputed. Electionworld Talk?  08:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

In practice one has a conflict between the right to bear arms and the right to be safe from inexcusable violence from criminal-possessed arms. The Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States cannot be construed to allow criminals and lunatics to bear arms because of the "well-disciplined militia" clause which clearly refers to persons who can be reasonably trusted with them -- and not to bands of brigands or to crime syndicates.

The United States was born in a conflict between established governments -- established governments that by 1775 had long had "well-disciplined militias" because of their obvious necessity, such as Indian attacks, and the British Crown. Persons on the frontier needed firearms as defense against marauders and wild animals as well as to hunt food. To strip local governments of weapons would have made them vulnerable. The British Crown would have needed a huge standing army to serve a disarmed populace... so until about 1770 it was practical to allow colonial subjects to defend themselves as they alone could do.

The European experience in the 20th century with militias is quite different. Independent militias exempt from governmental control and often existing to serve a political party or mass movement proved themselves as menaces to public order. So it was with the Fascii di combattimento of Italy, the Freikorps of the Weimar Republic that often created border incidents and their even-more menacing SA and SS successor, Red Fronts, and Communist Action Committees such as those that made the Communist coups in some central-European countries possible.

That said, the norm in America as of 2007 has a different context from that in most European countries. Nothing in the Second Amendment, however, precludes the US or State governments from prohibiting convicted felons from owning and bearing firearms, determining what weapons are permissible for public use, regulating hunting, forbidding their use or possession while intoxicated, or prohibiting firearms in places where they are assumed unusually dangerous (schools, courthouses, or liquor sellers).

Criminal use of firearms has usually been treated as offenses after the fact in America... and so far the powerful National Rifle Association has been effective in ensuring that firearms are not the focus of legal efforts to remove from American life. The experience in other countries demonstrates that libertarian attitudes toward firearms are not essential to the preservation of other liberties.

It would seem that liberal democracy depends not so much on any "right to bear arms" or "freedom from the threat of arms". Whatever the national norm, non-discrimination in the permissibility of the possession and use of firearms is essential. Nazi Germany allowed widespread possession of firearms -- but obviously not to Jews. The Soviet Union under Brezhnev allowed more freedom to bear arms than did Britain under Margaret Thatcher -- but of course not to persons deemed untrustworthy due to political beliefs.

That said, should I be in bear country, I might need an effective firearm for immediate self-defense from a dangerous animal.--Paul from Michigan 14:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

New intro, change in section rights and freedoms
Much in this article is unsourced. In fact the whole list of rights and freedoms was unsourced. Since that list - though partially self-evident - was original research I sought a way to improve that. Therefore I changed, with sources, the intro and added a conceptualisation (I didn't find a better one at the internet) and subsequently deleted the list. Electionworld Talk?  13:29, 9 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The article is now marked as NPOV. You are using this article for your political agenda and your edits have all been unsourced so far. You rely heavily on implied statements while denying Freedomwarrior and me the right to use implied statements. Unless you find sources for your recent edits I will revert them within 14 days. That ought to give you enough time to find sources. Your arguments keep changing. Then one cannot use implied evidence, then you can use it. Then a restricted right equals a right and then suddenly a restricted right is no longer a right but a privilege and so on. You keep twisting the meaning of words to fit your personal political agenda. Stop it. You cannot deny that the right to bear arms (any kind) is historically an essential right in Liberal Democracy. The laws against unlicensed possesion of certain firearms do not invalidate that right. And at most it can only mean that the states in questions are no longer liberal democracies but rather Social or Christian Democracies. And no, Liberal Democracy is not an umbrella term as claimed by you. There is no sources so far for that claim, either. Dylansmrjones 05:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


 * My recent edits were all sourced, so what is the problem? For which edit dou you miss a source. Electionworld Talk?  15:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I might add that with your recent edits this article is no longer about Liberal Democracy, but about Western Democracy. And those two are quite different terms. The article should be renamed to either Western Democracy or Modern Democracy. That would solve all disputes. Dylansmrjones 05:30, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course, another option would be to rename the article to Liberal Democracy (Modern). Then another article could be created for Liberal Democracy (Classic) (or 'Traditional'). Dylansmrjones 05:54, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Dylansmrjones, I agree wholeheartedly with your most recent statements. From going over Ultramarine's most recent statements on this talk page, it is clear to me that Ultramarine is not talking about liberal democracy as it has been traditionally understood. Instead, Ultramarine is talking about some other form of "democracy," which they now seem intent on passing off as liberal democracy. Seemingly, the socialists are now trying to appropriate the term "liberal democracy," as they tried with the term "liberal," and twist its meaning to suit their more sinister political purposes. I, quite frankly, will not allow it. I have provided numerous historical and philosophical sources which prove that the right to bear arms is essential for the functioning of a liberal democratic government. Ultramarine has provided none which negates that contention, and has focused on pointing at illiberal democracies--i.e. most of the states of Europe--to affirm that there are none. There's just one problem: none of these countries--at least the ones that are liberal democracies-- have denied, as Dylansmrjones proves, the right to bear arms. Ultramarine, you are grasping at straws.

I've gone ahead and removed the lines that read "The term "liberal" in "liberal democracy" does not imply that the government of such a democracy must follow the political ideology of liberalism" and "At present, there are numerous different political ideologies that support liberal democracy.Examples include Christian Democracy, social democracy and some forms of socialism" because I still don't quite understand how a "liberal democracy" can exist in an illiberal system. Anyone? Freedomwarrior 07:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Liberal can be seen as refering to liberties, and not to "liberalism", regardless of how one interprets this term (can be both very left-wing and right-wing).Ultramarine 09:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

NPOV
What in the present article is not neutral? Electionworld Talk?  15:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I have modified a section which denounced "Leftists" in public life (who is a "Leftist", anyway?) for imposing laws banning hate speech and other discriminatory behavior and making a facile (and weak) distinction between "hatred" and "bias". Such material was obvious original research and non-NPOV.

I have recognized that new liberal democracies might ban once-powerful extremist parties and mass movements that nobody could ever expect to play fair once in power -- Communists, fascists, and nazis. The outlawry of such extremist organizations (the outlawry of the old Ba'ath Party in Iraq would illustrate such should Iraq become a liberal democracy.

It is hard to see how the outlawry of a political party thoroughly associated with genocide, tyranny, or foreign collaboration compromises democracy. Germany is no less liberal for outlawry of the NSDAP; Italy is no less liberal for outlawing the Italian Fascist Party; France is no less liberal for outlawing Pétinist organizations; Japan is no less liberal for outlawing groups associated with the militarist era; Romania is no less liberal for outlawing any legacy of Nicolae Ceauşescu in public life. All of those are discredited in fact as well as law. Such might have been desirable or necessary after the establishment of a new or restored democracy; long afterwards, such exemplifies a "never again" attitude toward a morally-bankrupt era. The 'right' of some clique to recover some stolen assets and use them to restore a grossly-undemocratic régime of political monopoly is hardly essential to liberal democracy.Paul from Michigan 14:37, 4 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The article name is not NPOV. Originally the liberals proponed either enlightened despotism or a parlamentary system with voting according to income. Social liberals, on the other hand, adhered to the opinions of the radicals and the social democrats in proponing one vote per citizen. The "liberal democracies" as in opposition to "the communist system", were in Europe mainly centered around Christian Democrats and Social Democrats, and Liberals were unimportant carriers in Europe. It's probable that the term "liberal" is used differently on left and on right side of Atlantic, so in European ears, the name is a great misnomer. The article should probably be renamed to something politically neutral.  Said: Rursus   ☻   11:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Gun rights and double jeopardy
Can anyone give one liberal democracy that doesn't give it citizens the right to bear arms, and doesn't have the double jeopardy rule? PS: Don't say Europeans don't have the right to bear arms, 'cause I'm Belgian myself ;-)

Bombshell (talk) 19:42, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Depends on what you define as the right to bear arms. In Australia you cannot carry a gun nor easily buy one, but you can own one if it's registered and you belong and actively contribute to a licensed gun club/shooting range. I believe you can also register hunting rifles and such if you're a farmer. So it is arguable that in Australia, you do not have the right to bear arms. --210.50.83.133 (talk) 23:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

And flipping briefly through the double jeopardy page, it appears Australia is also scrapping the rule. --210.50.83.133 (talk) 23:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Those rights aren't in the Swedish constitution, for example, if that's what you meant. Licenses for weapons can be acquired, and there is legislation for self-defence and self-defence in good faith, but there's no rule in the constitution. I think those rules are not normally mentioned as conditions for "Liberal" (i.e. Western) democracy, but may be derived from other rules, such as the Human right for individual safety, included in the constitution.  Said: Rursus   ☻   11:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Good article
Despite querulancies above, I deem this article very well written. Thank you guys, good to see high quality work!  Said: Rursus   ☻   11:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Merge Constitutional democracy here
Apart of content problems, Constitutional democracy refers to a mix of representative government with Constitutionalism, something we usually call "Liberal democracy". Tazmaniacs (talk) 17:05, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge completed. Tazmaniacs (talk) 11:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)