Talk:Liberalism

NPOV (anarcho-capitalism)
The given header seems to be in violation of the following guidelines:


 * Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action" but may state that "genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil."
 * Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.

Neutral point of view

It is incorrect to label Herbert Spencer, Paul Émile de Puydt, and Auberon Herbert as anarcho-capitalists. Spencer believed in the necessity of the state to safeguard property rights and is not considered an anarcho-capitalist by most historians [1]. Puydt proposed a unique system called "panarchy" that differs from anarcho-capitalism [2]. A. Herbert referred to his system as voluntarism and explicitly rejected the idea of anarchism during a debate with Benj. R. Tucker. He advocated for a voluntarily funded state with a legal system imposed by coercion, leading to criticism from Hobson and Yarros for promoting plutocracy [3].

References:

[1] Herbert Spencer

[2] Paul Émile de Puydt

[3] Auberon Herbert

Another problem is the idea of "statelessness" according to anarcho-capitalist authors, which seems to conflict with the definition of state in international law. The private communities proposed for example by Murray Rothbard and Hans-Hermann Hoppe are sovereign and de facto small states if we consider Thomas D. Musgrave's definition of state. In fact, a real-world walled-community or a real-world private charter city is subordinate to state power – private cities in anarcho-capitalism seem to be more akin to city-states. These issues have already been raised by various authors (see the critical section on the anarcho-capitalism article) however, primary source positions have been favored over analysis and criticism.

The history of anarcho-capitalism present in this article, on the other hand, seems to be a historical forgery; from brief search, I saw that anarcho-capitalist ideas seem to have originated in the 1960s, popularized by Jarret B. Wollstein, Karl Hess and Murray N. Rothbard (see https://c4ss.org/content/39997).

The topic, after a reading of the ideas, seems to be more akin to the radical right in the United States or the alt-right. Authors such as Rothbard and Hoppe are explicitly pro-segregation for example, as well as overt references to the Lost Cause (see Rothbard's views on Abraham Lincoln).

There are so many controversies, I'm not going to mention them all, but there is just such a blustering affiliation between racism and anarcho-capitalism. For example, anarcho-capitalist Jeffrey Tucker wrote for League of the South publications according to the SPLC.

I think it is necessary to investigate whether anarcho-capitalism is suitable to be presented in the article on liberalism and, if so, whether it should be presented in such an overtly apologetic manner with serious omissions highlighted.

n.b. When I mean "pro-segregation" I am referring to support for segregation academies, racial covenants, etc. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 13:25, 12 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Ancaps are a good example of people thinking that when they've changed the names of things then they have changed the nature of those things. Their view on the state also conflicts with the Marxian view of the state as an instrument of class rule. Another definition I've seen is that of an armed body of men exercising a monopoly of violence in an area. That said, because ancaps defend private property, that still makes them liberals.
 * I do agree the section is very lacking in the NPOV department. KetchupSalt (talk) 18:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @KetchupSalt I don't think the source - Ralph Raico - is reliable. In addition, the article is contradictory: the premises are anti-absolutist but anarcho-capitalism is absolutist (i.e., there are individuals who control portions of territory without constitutional limits - historians trace the birth of liberalism specifically to limit absolute monarchies). From what I have read (see the Italian Wikipedia article and related sources), this socio-economic system is akin to the concepts of plutocracy (or timocracy) and in some cases absolute monarchy.
 * I would also like to mention that Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Jesús Huerta de Soto, and other ancaps have explicitly written against liberalism (both classical liberalism and social liberalism).
 * Regarding segregationist positions the Italian wikipedia article summarizes these ideas: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcocapitalismo
 * These are ideas of the U.S. alt-right and radical right presented in a politically correct way. To me this looks like whitewashing. I invite other users to join the discussion. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 08:19, 17 May 2023 (UTC)


 * There seems to be a general agreement that the section on anarcho-capitalism needs work. I will also point out that it links to a very long article, anarcho-capitalism which needs a great deal of work. I hope someone is willing to undertake the thankless task of fixing the section and the long article. Both need to be much shorter, and have points of view attributed to their authors, not stated as facts. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Trakking @Rick Norwood @KetchupSalt @TFD @Trovatore @Gitz6666 @Pincrete @User:HiLo48 @Jibal @Beyond My Ken @LokiTheLiar I think anarcho-capitalism conflicts with certain guidelines such as WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE.
 * WP:FRINGE is mainly because the idea of those present (proto)anarcho-capitalist authors is only supported by a right-libertarian author.
 * For example, no serious source describes Herbert Spencer as "anarcho-capitalist" or "anti-state liberal"; by the way, Herbert himself supports the very state in defense of property rights.
 * As already mentioned those authors are generally regarded as neo-classical liberals, voluntaryists (see Auberon Spencer; which as mentioned above rejects anarchy after a debate with Benjamin R. Tucker.), panarchists, Manchesterists, etc. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 12:26, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2023
Please, include more recent scholarship on liberalism:

In the book Minoritarian Liberalism (Chicago 2022), anthropologist Moises Lino e Silva argues that liberalism as we know it has a colonial and Eurocentric heritage. The author proposes an alternative theory on minoritarian modes of liberalism: "always relational — it is not simply an alternative, but something that emerges 'within, against, and beyond' the domination and limited (often bleak) possibilities that normative liberalism brings to the life of 'subaltern' populations." (p.12) Mles2022 (talk) 13:19, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Not clear why this is necessary, and since your username is an initialism of that author's name, the impression of a conflict of interest is created. Actualcpscm (talk) 13:33, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Wendy Brown (University of California, Berkeley) explains why: "Lino e Silva's remarkable book fulfills its ambition to decolonize the freedom at liberalism's heart. Equal parts erudite political theory and delicate anthropology, it roams a favela in Rio for stories and imaginaries across Blackness, queerness, gender, and class, where it discovers everywhere the bubbling of minoritarian desires and practices of freedom. This beautifully written work does nothing less than bring liberalism--as theory and practice--into the twenty-first century." https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/M/bo135981232.html Mles2022 (talk) 13:38, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * I cannot find any discussion of minoritarian liberalism other than the book and articles about it. We shall have to wait an see what influence it has. TFD (talk) 15:08, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template.  -Lemonaka  17:23, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Before reading this discussion, I had separately had thoughts I think align well with "Option C".
 * I propose that we revise the section on liberalism and political equality to reflect the historical and philosophical origins of this concept. Liberalism emerged in the Age of Enlightenment as a reaction against the traditional forms of authority, such as hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, and divine right of kings. Liberalism advocated for representative democracy, rule of law, and **equality under the law** as the basis of a free and just society.
 * Political equality, however, is not synonymous with equality under the law. Political equality refers to the equal participation and influence of citizens in a democratic system, regardless of their social or economic status. Equality under the law, on the other hand, means that all people are subject to the same laws and have the same rights and obligations before the courts. Equality under the law is a necessary but not sufficient condition for political equality. Confusing these concepts is an adulteration of English.
 * Liberalism has historically been more concerned with equality under the law than with political equality. Classical liberalism, for example, emphasizes individual rights, economic freedom, and limited government as the core principles of liberalism. Classical liberals oppose any interference by the state in the market or in the private sphere of individuals, even if such interference aims to promote social justice or political equality.
 * Therefore, I suggest that we clarify that liberalism is not based on political equality, but on equality under the law. We should also provide some citations from the Enlightenment thinkers who influenced the development of liberalism, such as John Locke, Montesquieu, Adam Smith, and John Stuart Mill.
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
 * http://libjournals.unca.edu/ncur/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/1284-Stanton-FINAL.pdf
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_before_the_law
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism Burt Harris (talk) 21:34, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2023
Create a section on neo-classical liberalism or radically anti-tax forms of liberalism. Integrate the content, if reliable, of the "anarcho-capitalism" section into the new section. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 11:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Lightoil (talk) 12:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Change "anarcho-capitalist theory" to "neo-classical liberal theory" per WP:FRINGE. It is unclear why a section of which a large proportion of the thinkers mentioned are not anarcho-capitalists should be called "anarcho-capitalist theory."
 * Ref.
 * From Politics Past to Politics Future An Integrated Analysis of Current and Emergent Paradigms by Alan Maine pp. 124–125
 * SAGE Publications' 21st Century Political Science A Reference Handbook pp. 596–603 93.45.229.98 (talk) 13:09, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * p.s. Among other things, the current section contains original research, such as "Unlike the liberalism of Locke, which saw the state as evolving from society, the anti-state liberals saw a fundamental conflict between the voluntary interactions of people, i.e. society, and the institutions of force, i.e. the state. This society versus state idea was expressed in various ways: natural society vs artificial society, liberty vs authority, society of contract vs society of authority and industrial society vs militant society, to name a few." 93.45.229.98 (talk) 13:23, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Good Article Nomination
For major contributors of this article, do you think this article is fit for nomination for GA, if so reply to me and I will add it or add it yourself. Sangsangaplaz (talk) 12:41, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

"LGBT liberalism" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LGBT_liberalism&redirect=no LGBT liberalism] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. Utopes (talk / cont) 06:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)