Talk:Liberalism in the United States/Archive 6

Page move

 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed move of the article. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page.  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the discussion was Move.

Someone put a moveto template on the article to move the article to Liberalism in the United States. What are some thoughts on this? It seems like a good idea to me (support). I'm not sure what the editor's reasoning was, but I know that many people from the Americas outside the US consider "America" to encompass both continents, not just the US, so it might make more sense to have the article named Liberalism in the United States, as the article deals exclusively with liberalism in the States. -- Ci e lomobile talk / contribs 07:25, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with the above comments. It would fit the format of other liberalism articles (e.i. Liberalism in the United Kingdom). Wigren 16:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This article gets moved all over the place, spun off, split, rejoined, removed, restored. If it is moved to Liberalism in the United States, you can be reasonably sure it will be moved back to American Liberalism within a month.  Enough already! Rick Norwood 22:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I say move it, but please take to WP:RM, so we don't have to go through all this again. -Patstuarttalk 21:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Posted there. -- Ci e lomobile talk / contribs 04:32, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The question, of course, is the name of the second largest country on the North American continent. Technically, the article should be titled Liberalism in the United States of America. America could be misread as "the Americas" (but never is). The United States could be misread as "The United States of Mexico" (but never is). In fact, "America" has come to mean "The United States of America" just as "the United Kingdom" has come to mean "England, Scotland, etc." dispite the fact that there are many other united kingdoms in the world. Similarly, Paris is understood to mean Paris, France and not Paris, Texas.
 * Just to clarify, it's not "The United States of Mexico," it's "The United Mexican States." Quite different. Additionally, there has not been another country with "United Kingdom" in its title since 1905, and Paris, France was the originator of all other cities which are named Paris. -- Ci e lomobile talk / contribs 01:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind we are all from the States, so of course we wouldn't confuse "America" with the continents. However, someone from outside the US may not feel the same way. Recently, I spoke with a Venezuelan woman, who took "America" to mean what we would call the "Americas." Granted, she wasn't a native speaker of English, but it still shows that not everyone automatically associates America with the US. -- Ci e lomobile talk / contribs 08:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

If there are enough people who really want to retitle this article, then it should be retitled "Liberalism in the United States of America" and every other article that uses "America" to mean "The United States of America" should be similarly retitled, including but not limited to "American Conservatism" and "Modern American Liberalism". Then, whoever moves all of the articles, must also change all of the links to all of these articles. I would estimate, conservatively, that we are talking about at least ten to twenty hours of hard, painstaking work. Who volunteers? Rick Norwood 14:42, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I will gladly make the changes to the other articles and change the wikilinks. -- Ci e lomobile talk / contribs 08:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Support votes

 * 1) Support as nominated. It makes more sense and is consistent with how many other country specific philosophies are labeled. 205.157.110.11 03:34, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Support --Yath 00:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) Support as nominated. -- Ci e lomobile talk / contribs 00:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) Support per my comments above. -Patstuarttalk 01:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 5) Support per above and nominated --SeanMcG 00:44, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 6) Support per comments above. Wigren 01:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 7) Support I do not think there is any reasonable chance that literate readers of English will actually expect this title to cover the Liberalism of, say, Peru, so the support arguments do not move me; but the oppose arguments do. If this move does anything to dispell the partisan nonsense that American liberalism is not descended from Bentham and Mill, it will have paid for itself. "Freedom plus groceries" is not opposite to freedom. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:56, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You should vote what is best for Wikipedia, not to get back at some user. Rick Norwood 13:43, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Where has he indicated that he is voting against because of some vendetta against another editor?
 * 1) Support. As Septentrionalis says. john k 02:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose votes

 * 1) I Oppose the move because, as i see it, the two terms don't mean the same thing. "Liberalism in the United States" implies that there is some generic 'liberalism' and we're going to talk about its presence in the U.S. "American Liberalism" implies a distinct belief system, a different type of liberalism. 2nd Piston Honda 07:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's pretty clear that it refers to the United States brand of liberalism. The other countries' respective articles on liberalism are titled as "Liberalism in Country X", so if only for consistancy's sake, we should do the same for this article. -- Ci e lomobile talk / contribs 08:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not clear because the two obviously have different meanings. Accuracy supercedes consistency. If you want consistency, I'd suggest changing the names of the other articles. 2nd Piston Honda 01:15, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Referring to my nomination, I already gave my reasons for which the proposed name would be more accurate. To some people from other countries in the two American continents, the adjective "American" describes a person from either of those continents, not simply a person from the USA. This view that "America means the USA and nothing else" is ignorant and USA-centric. Why is it that American is a disambiguation page which first lists "A person or attribute of the Americas, the lands and regions of the Western Hemisphere," whereas United States is the title of the article for the USA? -- Ci e lomobile talk / contribs 01:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Oppose as needlessly wordy, unnecessary, and less likely to be searched on, leading to needless redirects. I appreciate Cielomobile's offer to take on the hard work involved, but note that you need to get a consensus, not only here, but also in "American Conservatism", "Modern American Liberalism", and all the other articles that use "American" to mean "United Statesian".  Rick Norwood 13:57, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I will post on those talk pages also, then. There is no consensus here yet, and I don't know if there will be, but I will try to bring editors from those other pages into the discussion. Also, if there is consensus to keep the page named "American liberalism," then all the articles titled "Liberalism in Country X" (i.e. Liberalism in the United Kingdom, Liberalism and radicalism in France) should be changed to fit the model (i.e. change them to British liberalism, French liberalism and radicalism). -- Ci e lomobile talk / contribs 19:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * In theory, at least, I agree with you -- parallel articles should have parallel titles. In Wikipedia, I'm not sure that is possible.  Someone would need to have an overview of the entire encyclopedia, otherwise we are going to have title A changed to conform with title B and then somebody is going to change title B to conform with title C, leaving A out on a limb.  And so on, ad infinitum.  That makes this a meta-question, one for the Wikipedia gods to decide. Rick Norwood 20:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, yes. I am not too concerned with the other articles, though; my reasoning for this particular move is the US-centric view that we are America; which is untrue and may be offensiive to those from the continent outside the US. -- Ci e lomobile talk / contribs 20:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand your point, but others believe that to call the United States of America "the United States" is offensive to other countries with the phrase "United States" in their name. As a practical matter, somebody is going to be offended no matter what.  In fact, just about everybody -- friends, enemies, and neutrals alike -- calls the country "America", probably because it is easy to turn into an adjective, "American", while "the United States" is hard to turn into an adjective.  To attempt to prevent this by now almost universal usage is Quixotic.  Rick Norwood 13:30, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've never heard of anyone being upset or confused because of someone calling the USA simply the US. There hasn't been a country other than the USA titled the "United States of X" since 1968, when Brazil changed its offical name from the "Republic of the United States of Brazil" to its current form. -- Ci e lomobile talk / contribs 00:59, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "USA" is British usage (instead of "US"). It is therefore also common among people who speak English as a second language. Perhaps they want to avoid confusion with USB. :-) Kauffner 15:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Mexico is Estados Unidos Mexicanos. Also, there is the problem that United States does not have any handy adjective form.  But mainly, it is a lot of work and I'm afraid it will be done badly.  Maybe we should just rename the country. Rick Norwood 13:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This translates to "United Mexican States," not "United States of Mexico." Hurray for placement of adjectives in other languages. -- Ci e lomobile talk / contribs 04:47, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) oppose It's well known that because of historical reasons, liberalism in Europe (and elsewhere) is akin to conservatism in America. The change will mean this article will have to be about supporters of Hoover and Goldwater, not Roosevelt and LBJ. Now that would be true confusion. Rjensen 13:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think you quite understand what I'm proposing. I'm proposing to move this article (American liberalism) to Liberalism in the United States, seeing as "United States" refers specifically to the USA, whereas "American" can refer more generally to the Americas as a whole. -- Ci e lomobile talk / contribs 18:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * "Liberalism in the United States" is a poor title because it indicates it's related to European/Aisan/etc liberalism, but it's just the opposite. The word "American" solves the problem and leads to no confusion whatever. No reader will think it means "Liberalism in Mexico" (which by the way resembles conservatism in the USA). Rjensen 18:40, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * How does it indicate thet it's related to European/Asian/etc. liberalism? The use of the form "A in B" is no different from the form "adjective decribing B A." Neither is any clearer in that sense. The issue at hand is not so much one of clarity, as the first sentence in the article specifically states that it deals with liberalism in the US, but rather one of political correctness. It is politically incorrect to consider "America" to encompass the USA only and not both North America and South America. Ask anyone from Latin America. Would you call the article Black people "Negro people" instead? No, because it is not politically correct. The two are equally clear, but one is less offensive. It is the same situation with this article. -- Ci e lomobile talk / contribs 01:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ask anyone from Latin America and they will tell you that this article is not about Liberalism at all. Let's not invent imaginary experts who don't exist. Rjensen 05:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Even more reason to specify in the article title that it is about liberalism in the US. I really don't understand why you oppose this move. -- Ci e lomobile talk / contribs 06:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I oppose the move because 1) it is motivate by POV motivated attack on "American" (which is perfectly well understood--despite mystery Latin Americans who protest somewhere but not here.) 2) the change is seriously misleading because it suggests US liberalism is part of world liberalism.  Suggestion: instead of "liberalism" try "football" and see what happens. Rjensen 06:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * US liberalism is a part of world liberalism. The policies which it encompasses may be more akin to conservatism in many other countries, but what we mean by liberalism is really "left-wing political ideology." I think we can all agree that "Left-wing political ideology in the United States" would be a bit awkward, though. -- Ci e lomobile talk / contribs 07:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * There is an article on Left-wing politics. The big difference between "liberal" and "left-wing" is that, in the US at least, liberals usually support private ownership of property, while left-wingers in general do not.  Also, left-wing usually suggests more government control, nationalization of industries, etc., while liberals usually favor more personal freedom, with just enough government control to protect the environment and the rights of minorities. Rick Norwood 13:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Left-wing just means left-of-center; it derives from French parliament, when the liberals sat to the left of the president, and conservatives sat to the right. You are correct, though, that liberals generally support private ownership of property, but it is not necessarily true that left-wingers do not. "Left-wing" is a pretty broad term and includes everything from slightly left-of-center ideology (like the Third Way) to the most extreme end of the spectrum (like Communism). But I digress; I do not want to move the article to left-wing politics or anything. The move has nothing to do with any of this. -- Ci e lomobile talk / contribs 18:11, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Finalizing decision
It has been over a week since I posted this at WP:RM, and according to the rules there, a decision should be made in five days. Since there are seven supports but only three opposes, and I feel that I have adequately defended my position, I am going to move the article and the associated articles of Modern American liberalism and American conservatism. -- Ci e lomobile talk / contribs 18:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

A seven to three vote is hardly a consensus. Move the article if you must, but expect that to provoke an edit war that will keep idle hands busy for months and leave things in worse shape than they were before. Break a leg. Rick Norwood 18:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Articles like Kiss (band) were moved with much less of a consensus; a 70% consensus is pretty good. But it seems I need an administrator to complete this action, seeing as there is already a redirect page at Liberalism in the United States. Maybe I can be a little creative. -- Ci e lomobile talk / contribs 18:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've completed the move, but I didn't do it conventionally, so please let me know if I botched any part of it. -- Ci e lomobile talk / contribs 18:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've patched up the history, so all of the contributions are in the same place, which as I type this, is Liberalism in the United States. If the article needs to move again from this title, please follow the procedure as indicated at WP:RM.  Cheers. -GTBacchus(talk) 22:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page). No further edits should be made to this section.

This page is a giant mess
This page confuses "liberalism" in the "world" sense -- that is "classical liberalism" and the belief in limited government and individual rights -- with "American Liberalism" as in "Michael Dukakis was a liberal senator," which is more aptly considered a light version of socialism, itself an illiberal ideology.

this wouldn't itself be a problem, however the distinguishing comments at the top of the page say that this article is about the history of classical liberal thought in the united states, as opposed to "modern liberalism" (ie, the Dukakis kind). As such all the business about "the liberal consensus" and the elector maps showing the red state/blue state divide are irrelevant, given that both the Republican and Democratic parties claim the mantle of liberalism in the classical sense. 66.57.229.78 (talk) 03:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * "Classic liberalism", which the United States was founded upon, simply means small government all around. People should be given as much autonomy as possible, the federal government should be as small as it can be without anarchy, and state and local governments exist as intermediaries between the two.  The system was set up as the polar opposite of the heavily centralized and often authoritarian governments in Europe, in the hopes of limiting the kinds of abuses that had occured over there.
 * Over the next century, a number of problems with classical liberalism became apparent. Biggest among these was the realization that people didn't need governments to oppress one another.  Slavery in the southern states and the exploitation of workers by business in the North were two major problems that many liberals felt should be remedied - but the only way to do that was by radically expanding the power of the federal government, something liberals traditionally abhorred.
 * So classical liberalism passed through several crises, most especially the Civil War, the New Deal and the sixties' civil rights movement, eventually bringing about "modern liberalism in the United States". It still respects the rights of individuals but believes that the government should be big enough to help those unable to help themselves (hence social security and universal health care), and that it should also be big enough to prevent their being exploited in the name of "states' rights" (hence the Civil Rights Act) or "free markets" (hence minimum wage, worker protection laws, the establishment of unions, and anti-trust regulations - that's right, free markets are no longer that when said markets are controlled by a single party, public or private).
 * In the present context, both parties embrace the legacy of classical liberalism in some ways and reject it in others. The Democrats embrace it in a social sense (right to abortion, gay rights, civil rights, hostility to religious puritanism) but not economically, since they believe in both government regulation of markets and government run social programs.  The Republicans embrace it in an economic sense (lower taxes, deregulation of business, hostility to environment-based restrictions) but not in a social sense, see the religious right. 213.181.226.21 (talk) 12:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Major new contributions to a talk page should be added at the bottom of the page. That's where readers automatically go. Also, you should join Wikipedia, so your posts will be identified by more than a number.

The slur on Dukakas and on liberalism was political propaganda,66.57.229.78, and should not be taken seriously by serious thinkers.

The review of liberal thinking in the US by 213.181.226.21 seems to be closely parallel to the article as it stands.

Rick Norwood (talk) 13:51, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry - was trying to rehash it in a few paragraphs since the above poster didn't seem to get the distinctions. The article itself doesn't spend a lot of time on the transition from classical to modern liberalism, and how and why they happened, so I filled in with what I knew to indicate that it wasn't simply two movements switching labels. Something like this should probably be on the article but I'd need to find sources to back up the statements - it's all stuff I remember from various history and politics books and articles that I've read over the years. 213.181.226.21 (talk) 16:49, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the wonderful world of Wikipedia. The well-read person's mind supplies facts but not footnotes. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Somebody probably ought to make some adjustments in the "Common Ground" section, as it appears to have been vandalized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.192.47.202 (talk) 17:57, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Classical liberalism
User:Rjensen has decided that the United States was not founded on principles on classical liberalism. This has been brought up before (see Talk:American_liberalism), but the editor who thought as Rjensen did seemed to drop it.

No one is arguing that the US was founded on modern liberal principles (i.e. aiding the poor through welfare, environmentalism, etc.), but it most certainly was founded on classical liberal principles, such as laissez-faire economic theory, natural rights, civil liberties, etc.. Conservatives hate to use the word "liberal," but this is not liberal in the sense that we use the word today. In fact, it resembles today's conservative ideology just as much as it resembles today's liberal ideology. The Federalist Papers support this quite well, and they are cited in the article. -- Ci e lomobile talk / contribs 07:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Myths about "American"
There seems to be notions afloat that "American" is a bad term because 1) some people will think it refers to places like Mexico, Chile, Canada, or 2) that scholars from other countries love the term "American" and want to apply it to their countries, not just USA or 3) some people dislike America and the term "American" and don't want Americans to use it. I think #3 is the POV problem we have here. Rjensen 18:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please don't personally attack me by accusing me of disliking America. Argue about the issues, not the people. -- Ci e lomobile talk / contribs 18:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * This is only really a problem for non-English speakers. It is understood in all English speaking countries that Americans are people from the USA. When people are talking about the continent as a whole it is referred to as "The Americas" not "America".--Jayson Virissimo 01:24, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

POV Issues
There was a clear consensus (70%) reached during the discussion that the article would be moved. The new name of the article is definnitely not a valid reason to tag it with POV; the POV template is not a proper way to dispute the move. However, I'm not going to violate the 3RR, so I'll let another editor remove the tag. -- Ci e lomobile talk / contribs 19:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem as was repoeatedly pointed out is that the article has a different meaning with its new title. That has to be incorporated first--and the whole article rewritten to reflect the role in USA versus other countries. Rjensen 19:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This is ridiculous, you are making the article much worse than it previously was, and you have now violated the WP:3RR. The article does not have a different meaning with the new title, and you're the only person who thinks that. Rick seemed to oppose the move for entirely different reasons. You're editing the article as if it was Modern American liberalism, please take your POV nonsense there. -- Ci e lomobile talk / contribs 20:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Sadly, I have just now figured out what Rjensen has been trying to tell us. "Liberalism in the United States" refers to the role of ordinary "liberalism" in a particular place, while "American Liberalism" refers to a specific brand of liberalism. The article has the former title but is about the latter. Oh, I see you've moved Modern American liberalism to Modern liberalism in the United States. We have a mess on our hands now. --Yath 21:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Which is precisely the argument which should be discussed in this article. Both positions have been held; one is defensible only by a narrow view of non-U.S. liberalism (for example, many South American Liberales have been anti-clerical, rather than motivated by a particular economic view). Neither should be in the article title. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The article should discuss the development of liberalism, as it is known throughout the world, in the United States, how it is both similar to and different from other forms of liberalism in the world. -- Ci e lomobile talk / contribs 01:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The changes you've now made to the article, Rjensen, are unnacceptable POV nonsense. However, I do not want to violate the 3RR, so I'll either wait until I have not made three reverts in the past 24 hours or until another user reverts your changes. -- Ci e lomobile talk / contribs 02:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Exactly what i was telling you guys. The two terms don't mean the same thing, and if you change the content of this article to match the title, then there will no longer be an article about the former subject and it'll need to be made (and with what title? lol). "Modern liberalism in the United States"? What a mess indeed. 2nd Piston Honda 07:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Original research
The following passages, one, I gather, from each side, sum up what is wrong with this article.


 * ''"Liberalism" outside the United States is comparable to Libertarianism in the U.S. American liberalism has an entirely different history and tradition from the European and Latin American "ism" of the same name

Unsourced partisan blather; go tell it to the Liberal Party (Canada) or indeed to the British Liberal Democrats.


 * The United States was founded on classical liberal republican principles. <:ref> Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay, Clinton Rossiter, Charles R. Kesler, The Federalist Papers'', Signet Classics, 2003, ISBN 0-451-52881-6 <:/ref>

A private, and unsourced, interpretation of a primary source. Even as a view, it should be represented as one view among many, and not in Wikipedia's voice. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the Federalist Papers are not the best source. I'll try to find a better one and phrase it to not be an absolute. -- Ci e lomobile talk / contribs 01:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Even continental liberalism isn't really very much like Libertarianism. The latter is a lot more dogmatic and extreme than the latter. john k 02:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

A note to Rjensen
I understand the points you are trying to make, but the article really has not changed just because a different shorter version of The United States of America is used in the title. Would the title "Liberalism in the United States of America" suit you better? Rick Norwood 14:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I think it's now hidden from lots of potential users who use Google and other search engines. Rjensen 06:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The redirect page still comes up as the top result on google. -- Ci e lomobile talk / contribs 06:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Parallel to "American Conservatism" page
In looking over these two pages (American Conservatism and American Liberalism), I am struck by the "Criticism" section on the ...Conservatism page and the lack thereof on the ...Liberalism page. In my opinion to present a true NPOV for both of these, each should have, or each should not have, that section. K012957 16:39, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. A bit of Wikihistory.  There were at one time "criticism" sections in many articles.  These caused constant wrangling and revert wars and were troll magnets.  Someone suggested that criticisms should be incorporated into articles rather than set aside in separate sections, following the Wikipedia guideline that all points of view be represented.  This was done in the article then titled American Conservatism, now (last time I looked) titled Conservatism in the United States.  But somebody just couldn't resist putting a criticism section back in.  The current criticism section is lame, and should be deleted. Rick Norwood 16:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

New Template: Lib
I just created a new template Template:Lib. (It's my first template). It takes one parameter, declaring whether the use on the page is "liberal", "libertarian", or "both". My idea was to use it to head articles such as Liberal International and Libertarian perspectives on gay rights where it might not be clear at first glance which meaning is intended. This would hopefully ensure consistent usage within an article, and prevent overly verbose unclear repetition from article to article. Feel free to discuss on the talk page Template_talk:Lib. samwaltz 20:34, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Liberal consensus POV flag
The information in the Liberal consensus section looks correct to me, but needs references on the first three sections. Can someone provide the needed references? Rick Norwood 12:40, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not a regular contributor to this page, but I wonder if the tag refered to the final paragraph, which is wildly inappropriate. I've removed most of it and copied it here:


 * "In 21st century American politics, there is considerable confusion over the meaning of the term "liberal". Beginning in the early 1990s, Republicans have made a concerted effort to change the meaning of the term through the process of framing.   Instead of arguing against liberal beliefs, framing changes the meaning of the word in the public consciousness, so that a belief in equal rights for all Americans is framed as "special rights for homosexuals", a belief in the rights of those accused of crimes is framed as "soft on crime", and a belief in freedom of religion is framed as "hatred of Christians". This has been successful to such an extent that the term "liberal" has become stigmatized and is now generally avoided by those running for office; "progressive" is now often used instead of "liberal".  Although the two are related, they are really distinct political ideologies.  " —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fishal (talk • contribs) 20:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

I'm not sure what you find inappropriate about the paragraph. It is accurate and referenced. Rick Norwood 12:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I kept the sourced material as well as the link to the term framing. The material that I removed is, in fact, very strongly biased toward the liberal point of view.  It implies that American conservatives are objectively wrong about the issues of gay rights, the rights of the accused, and church & state.  Many, many people legitimately believe that liberals truly are "soft on crime," "anti-Christian," and looking to give homosexuals "special rights."  It is not up to Wikipedia to say that the conservatives are wrong.  While you say that the removed content is "accurate," that is only true in your point of view; it would be hard to prove or disprove it.  The removed content gives only the liberal perspective and strays from a purely objective discussion of the terms, so it violates everything about WP:NPOV.  Fishal 16:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * As far as sources go, the sentence using the term "framing" cites a New York Times article or column. The sentence using the term "progressive" cites an essay written by an intern on a political website aimed at young activists: not quite the same level of reliable source as the NYT article, but still, a reasonably good essay talking about how the word progressive is used in political discourse today.  The other source cited appears to be a blog, which I would think is not a reliable source.


 * The other reference which I want to remove cites an Ann Coulter book without giving any page number. It comes after the sentences which I feel are inapproprately biased.  I feel that the reference to Coulter is also inappropriate, and this is why: after making the claim that conservatives inappropriately label liberal beliefs, it cites Coulter, not as an authority to back up the statement, but as an example.  It says, "Conservatives are always denouncing the great things that liberals do.  Just check out Ann Coulter and you'll see an example of a conservative doing just that."  It uses Coulter as a primary source used to illustrate a thesis, which is original research as well as POV.  Fishal 19:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * And just so we have a clearer idea of what it is we're discussing, I've copied the verion that I wrote (since reverted):


 * "Beginning in the early 1990s, many American conservatives have made an effort to frame the word liberal as a perjorative term.  Because of the stigma often attached to the term, many American liberals prefer to describe themselves as "progressive," a term with a somewhat different history from liberal.  "


 * And I just had a thought. Under NPOV as well as the attribution guideline, it would be OK to present the info which I am challenging... as long as it is presented as describing the liberal POV rather than the objective truth.  So it could sound something like, "Conservatives have stigmatized the term liberal by accusing liberals of opposing Christianity.  Liberals, however, say that their support of religious tolerance and the separation of church and state does not mean that they oppose Christianity."


 * Of course, statements like that need to be sourced much better than the paragraph as it now stands. Fishal 19:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Another possibility which occurred to me is using the title of Coulter's book as a very clear example of framing the word "liberal" as meaning the same thing as "godless." That might be worth a try.  Fishal 12:17, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Logical distinctions are important. Fishal wrote, "The material that I removed is, in fact, very strongly biased toward the liberal point of view. It implies that American conservatives are objectively wrong about the issues of gay rights, the rights of the accused, and church & state." No, it implies that American conservatives are objectively wrong about their assertions as to what liberals believe. The distinction is between "I believe x." and "I believe that you believe x." Since, for example, most Americans are Christian and half of all Americans are liberal, so the belief that most liberals are, in Fishal's words, "anti-Christian," is objectively wrong. Rick Norwood 18:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That is exactly my point. Wikipedia is not the place to declare that conservatives-- a very large, diverse, and influential lot-- are objectively wrong about anything.  Wikipedia can cite information that suggests the contrary, such as a sourced statement about the large, diverse, influential community of liberal Christians (such as my hero Jim Wallis, although he doesn't like to be called a liberal).  But while the article may present heaps of contrary evidence, it may not come out and choose a side.  Look at the Ann Coulter article for some very good examples.  The article presents statistics, quotations, and viewpoints that cast doubt on much of what Coulter has said about various things.  And yet, the article never comes out and says, "Coulter is wrong," or "Coulter is a berely-literate reactionist," or anything to that effect.  In the true spirit of NPOV, the article presents facts and lets the readers make up their own minds.  Fishal 19:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The Creationism article and relatied articles are also pretty good in this regard. The Creationism article presents plenty of info suggesting that the position has a flimsy basis, but it never refutes creationism outright.  Fishal 19:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You still miss my point. I am not saying that conservatives are objectively wrong.  I'm saying that you are objectively wrong, if you assert that "liberals hate Christians", because, in the US at least, most liberals are Christians.  If you say "Conservatives say that liberals hate Christians", that is something else entirely.  The first statement is a statement about liberals.  The second statement is a statement about conservatives.  If conservatives really believe that liberals hate Christians, the article should say so, with examples.  Rick Norwood 00:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)-


 * I wish you hadn't invoked my own beliefs here, but you have definitely misinterpreted them. I'm arguing for neutrality.  The article should not choose a side.  However, I do think that we should be frank about our personal points of view.  If you go to my user page, I've indicated that politically I identify most strongly with the Consistent Life Ethic and the Green political concept.  I personally believe that it is self-evident that being a Christian should not automatically make you a conservative; however, many people disagree with me. More liberally-minded people like you and I must not use Wikipedia to reinforce our points of view.  Please: don't assume that by insisting that this article give conservatism a fair voice, I am trying to push some kind of right-wing agenda.  Wikipedia must present all sides of each issue without declaring a winner.  Fishal 12:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I think maybe we're talking at cross purposes. Let's take a time out, and if it seems good, return to this at a later date. I'm going to be out of the country for a while in any case. Rick Norwood 17:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I moved the tag so it is right next to the paragraph in question. The rest of the section does not appear to be disputed.  Fishal 12:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Liberal demographics
This recent addition to the article is unclear:

"[Liberals are] Predominantly white (83%), most highly educated group (49% have a college degree or more), and youngest group after Bystanders. Least religious group in typology: 43% report they seldom or never attend religious services; nearly a quarter (22%) are seculars. More than one-third never married (36%). Largest group residing in urban areas (42%) and in the western half the country (34%). Wealthiest Democratic group (41% earn at least $75,000). - Pew Research Center".

Is it saying that 34% of liberals live in the western half of the country or that 34% of the people in the Western half of the country are liberals. A note to this quote should make that explicit where it is ambiguous. Rick Norwood 13:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

confusing sentence, unsupported
"Libertarianism is often said to be generally resembling, though not necessarily identical to, American classical liberalism, which advocates the laissez-faire doctrines of political and economic liberalism, equality before the law, individual freedom and self-reliance, which is in contrast but not necessarily in contradiction to social liberalism's concern with state-provided equality of opportunity."

I'm not sure what the second "which" refers to. self-reliance? American classical liberalism? Libertarianism?

The flow seems to be "Libertarianism is American classical liberalism is self-reliance is not in contradiction to state provided equal opportunity". Since "state provided equal opportunity" can extend to every facet of life, it seems these ideals are quite likely in contradiction, in fact, it is inevitable.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.186.60.57 (talk • contribs) 06:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Some or many?
"Modern liberalism, which favors government intervention in some cases..."

or

"Modern liberalism, which favors government intervention in many cases..."

Of course, the distinction here is more one of connotation than of denotation. "Some" could mean thousands of cases; "Many could mean more than three cases. Still, "some" suggests a reluctance to turn to government for the protection of freedom, while "many" suggests a proclivity to turn to government for the protection of freedom.  I think the former better expresses liberal opinion -- liberals often say that the government that governs least governs best, and they turn to the government for protection only when organized interests attempt to thwart individual freedom, as with segregation in the South before the civil rights movement.  Of course, libertarians see almost any attempt by the government to interfere as bad, so from a libertarian view "some" is "many", too many.

If "many" is a better word, it should be possible to find major liberal thinkers who see government intervention as a positive good rather than a reluctant necessity where rights are denied. Rick Norwood 21:00, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

American Political Primer for Europeans
Needed because the article says: "Liberalism in the United States of America is a broad political and philosophical mindset, favoring individual liberty, and opposing restrictions on liberty"

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/11/03/american-political-primer-for-europeans/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogerfgay (talk • contribs) 11:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting article. Thanks for the reference.  What impressed me most is the extent to which an obviously thoughtful writer has uncritically accepted the rhetoric of the right, with, for example, his reference to "extreme man-hating feminists" and "cringe-faced Hillary".  Clearly, when the writer thinks of freedom, he unconsciously thinks for freedom for men, and feels threatened by freedom for "man-hating" and "cringe-faced" women.  And yet, he is an intelligent man.  He writes, "Regardless of how much freedom we have lost in recent decades..."  I've lived through the same decades he has, an everywhere I look there is more freedom, not less.  I am free to go almost anywhere in the world, say almost anything I want, read almost anything I choose, believe or not believe in any God as seems best to me -- certainly, my freedom has increased greatly in the past few decades.  The only freedom he has lost is the freedom to not hear the voices of "extreme man-hating feminists" and "cringe-faced Hillary". Rick Norwood 13:45, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Generally speaking, the more politically conservative one is in the American sense, the more their views will correspond to classic liberalism. Seriously?  This kind of stuff makes me want to gouge my eyes out. john k 14:11, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

It is better to burn your hand off with a candle than to gouge your eyes out and curse the darkness. Rick Norwood 14:44, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

quotations
A quotation is a report of what another person said or wrote. It is never acceptable to, as a recent editor did, rewrite the quotation! Rick Norwood (talk) 14:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Liberal elite
What is wrong with the material added to this article under the heading, Liberal elite? First, it is unreferenced, while the article liberal elite is heavily referenced. Second, it seems to say that the liberal elite arises from populism, instead of saying that the concept of a "liberal elite" is used by populist politicians against liberalism. Third, it selectively removes material from the "liberal elite" article from its context, changing its meaning. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Just, because you don't like the Liberal elite doesn't mean, it shouldn't be included. Dwilso  21:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think the article Liberal elite is very well done. My reasons for not wanting parts of the article selectively excerpted and stuck into another article are given above. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Some positions associated with liberalism in the United States
That section makes the page seem to much like conservapedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.227.44.184 (talk) 20:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)


 * In an ideal world, two encyclopedias would agree on the facts. Sadly, we do not live in an ideal world. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

American Liberalism and Plutarco Calles
Regarding the history of Liberalism in the United States, I would like to see a bit more historical research on the attitude of US Liberals during the Plutarco Calles regime in Mexico. As I seem to recall, American Liberals at the time were singularly accused of supporting a Liberal dictator merely because he was Liberal, while Calles was simultaneously suppressing various civil and constitutional liberties. ADM (talk) 06:31, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

POV in Demographics
This page makes it seem as if the liberal viewpoint is superior in some way to others. It points out how "liberals commonly tend to be highly educated and relatively affluent", making it seem as if conservatives are not. Allegedly, "liberals were the most affluent and educated ideological demographic." This makes it seem as if those who are conservative are in some way wrong, thereby violating the neutrality of the article. 76.1.150.147 (talk) 04:57, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Conservatives have a difficult position to argue, since the more educated a person is, the less conservative they are. This is a fact, not POV, because it is supported by evidence.  There are numerous statistical studies, and they all reach this same conclusion.


 * The usual conservative method of dealing with this fact is to argue that "book learning" is detrimental to "common sense", and that the latter is more apt to be right than the former. Liberals think too much, they live in an ivory tower, and this casues them to doubt the eternal verities that conservatives hold dear.  At least, so the usual conservative explanation for this uncomfortable fact goes. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Facts can be made POV by the way they're stated. For example: "[T]he more educated a person is, the less conservative they are." (I realize talk-page comments don't need to be NPOV, but it's just an example.) This makes a sweeping statement based on statistical studies; it obviously isn't true all the time, as certainly some people remain conservative (or become even more conservative) despite education. A less-POV way to say the same thing is: "Studies have shown that on average, education makes people less conservative." Though such a statement is still flawed, as it should mention which studies and what types of education the study referred to (e.g., high school and/or university, liberal arts majors and/or engineering, etc.) Rewording how the facts are stated would help with POV problems with the demographics studies. (Of course, it leaves the results the same&mdash;to the great credit/discredit of the American education system, depending on your POV.) --darolew 05:16, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

You are correct, of course. I should have written with greater care. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Quotations
Why are these in there? What relevance do they serve? (unsigned)


 * Quotations serve to illustrate the ideas of notable people about the subject of the article. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

freedom from government regulation
Examples of liberal support for individuals being free of government regulation include relaxation of restrictions on stem cell research, an end to government arrests for the use of medical marijuana in states where it is legal under state law, access to morning after birth control pills, freedom of human rights organization to support birth control in Africa without losing US aid, right to die legislation, and freedom of information. Those are just a few that come to mind. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC) The nuances of liberal support for less government regulation are based around idealogy. The arguement over EMBRYONIC stem cells research hinges on two things, public funding for research that has yielded nothing and the cloning of existing embryos. With the majority of the country teetering between pro- and anti- on the topic of this research, liberals support of abortion on demand would require a supportive stance to remain consistant. Medical marijuana is a libertatian/ constitutionalist stance rather than a liberal one, now heavy taxation on that weed... that's pretty liberal thinking. Decriminalization by definition is a conservative approach, i.e. Not spending money to prosecute and imprison non-violent, victimless offenders. Many try to argue the "pro-choice" status to be anti-regulatory, but this only really applies to infanticide. The issue of abortion divides the country on morality, but many believe roe/wade means they not only have the right to unfedered abortion but that the government should pay for it. Opposition to government paying for a partial birth abortion somehow equates to interference with a womans reproductive rights, yet nowhere does right to abortion at taxpayers expense appear in the bill of rights either. Now one could argue that the abortion pill could negate any need for surgical infanticide (ending the pregnancy before there is a heartbeat might appease christian conservatives) but in uber-liberal Illinois, a pharmacist can legally be fired for refusing to fill the perscription even if it infringes on his/her beliefs. Ironically, liberals only seem pro-choice in a matter of killing someone else. Oh wait, not so fast, let us discuss the right to bear arms. After a recent election in America of a liberal (who coincidentally has stated numerous times of his desire to abolish firearms) department of homeland security released documents identifying potential terrorists as soldiers returning from war, firearms owners (especially NRA supporters/mambers) and those in political oppostion to his regime. To silence dissent with intimidation, those who protested his aganda were threatened with FBI investigations thus making permits to purchase firearms unobtainable with FBI background checks being mandatory. With this failed bluff, he attempted to undermine both free speech and the right to bear arms, both of which actually appear in the bill of rights. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cws bradley (talk • contribs) 15:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

the welfare state
Conservatives accuse liberals of favoring something called "the welfare state", which conservative bloggers flog to suggest that liberals want the state to support people too lazy to work. Actually, that kind of welfare ended a long time ago. Liberals generally support education and health care, because ignorance and disease are bad for everyone, but I do not know of any liberal who does not believe that able-bodied adults should work for a living. If you have a liberal source that says otherwise, please quote it. Rick Norwood (talk) 00:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Saying you support "the welfare state" and support public education and public health care has no different implications as to whether you want to support "people to lazy to work" or "people who need public education and public health care". There is no implication of such in the word "welfare state" and you are mistaken that it does not have support from liberals. Nor do advocates of a welfare state claim that they do not believe able bodies adults have to work for a living. Raymond Dundas (talk) 00:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The phrase "the welfare state" is a political buzzword. The people who use that phrase almost always cite examples such as the mythical "welfare queen", who drives a cadallac and collects welfare. If liberals support this concept of a "welfare state", you shouldn't have any trouble finding a major liberal writer who says, "I support the welfare state." Absent such a quote, you should not add the phrase to the article. Rick Norwood (talk) 00:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not able to find a copy of Kate Strully's paper on-line. Can you provide a quote from your source that suggests that 1) she is a major spokesperson for liberalism and 2) that she supports the idea of a welfare state. I'll leave the claim for now, awaiting your reply. Rick Norwood (talk) 01:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The word "liberal" is a political buzzword likewise. Though proponents of the concept still use it just as proponents of the welfare state do likewise. I've never heard such a crude stereotype made by conservatives, let alone them using it "almost always". Nevertheless, I find such a claim dubious and I've already cited a source from Princeton discussing the welfare state among liberals without difficulty.


 * Having a neutral source to cite a piece of information is fundamental to keeping the encyclopaedia neutral and the source from Princeton is an archetype of such. Nevertheless, I've added an article by Paul Krugman whom states his support for a "welfare state". Raymond Dundas (talk) 01:14, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad we agree that neutral sources are best. I'll check the Paul Krugman quote. If you've really never heard such crude stereotypes made by conservatives, then you don't listen to nearly enough talk radio. : ) Rick Norwood (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Paul Krugman does the trick. "Welfare state" stays in. Thanks for the link to a delightful article. I suggest you remove the other two references, especially the first, since the Krugman reference is much stronger and more to the point.Rick Norwood (talk) 01:26, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Krugman's source is utilised because Krugman is a liberal and it is from a liberal perspective, though Strully's source is also utilised because it is a neutral source which is compatible with WP:NPOV. It would be best to have at least one neutral source and one source directly from a subject that the article describes. Raymond Dundas (talk) 01:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC) "Granted, true denocrats, the so-called blue America, probably consider themselves just as patriotic (if not more so) than the residents of red-America (republicans). But in their zeal to help the unfortunate they are now espousing the tenets of socialism, not democracy. By wanting to take from the haves to give to the have-nots they assume that all Americans who have got that way by ill gotten means, while all who have-not are both deserving of their generosity and have somehow been cheated out of their rightful place in society." Dr. Michael Savage, author of Liberalism is a mental disorder. With something as simply as "redistributing wealth" a welfare state you become. I several years ago was laid-off for several months shortly after my daughter was born. We struggled for a few months until I was working full time in my field again, but something strange happened when I file my taxes that following February. I had made less than 30k and only paid about $1800 in federal taxes, yet somehow they "returned" over $4500 to me. I went to H&R block even double-checked the numbers on my computer at at home. They call it Child Tax Credits, and both parties supported them. Someone out there though paid that money into the system and I got their return for being less productive than they were. So call it welfare, wealth redestribution, economic stimulus, or what ever is fashionable but that's definately punitive taxation and discouraging to rpoductivity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cws bradley (talk • contribs) 16:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Non-Democrats
I cannot help but notice that the VAST MAJORITY (if not all) of those listed under "Liberal Thinkers" are people who identify as "Democrats," either politicians or individuals.

This article is about LIBERALISM, not about the DEMOCRATIC PARTY. There are MANY, MANY Republicans who would be LIBERAL LEADERS. For example, Richard Nixon, Lincoln Chafee, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Colin Powell, etc.

Likewise, there are notable independents - like RALPH NADER - who are Liberal Leaders.

In other words, just because someone does not identify as a "Democrat" (whatever that is) does not mean that they are not Liberal LEADERS.

I would appreciate your immediate attention to this matter. Please advise.

Thank you.

P.S. Before you tell me stuff like "Colin Powell is not a LEADER in the liberal movement," neither is Barney Frank, he's just some liberal Congressman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sopm (talk • contribs) 01:54, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Certainly Ralph Nader and Colin Powell are noteworthy enough to be listed. Nixon was a complex man, liberal in some ways and conservative in others. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If we want to include some 1960s Republicans, then Nelson Rockefeller, William Scranton, or Kenneth Keating would make better examples than Nixon himself. Going back slightly further, Thomas E. Dewey or, really, Herbert Hoover although history more remembers his failure to deal successfully with the Great Depression than his actual politics. - Jmabel | Talk 23:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Eh, if you're going to that direction then you have a lot ground to cover. The early party was all about reform (Greeley, Sumner). Soxwon (talk) 01:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It shows how silly the list is. It's like having a list of Americans who spoke English.  The concept that some Americans are liberals and others are conservatives is post WW2 and attempts to label earlier Americans is a an exercise in OR.  The Four Deuces (talk) 04:04, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Hamilton???
I notice that Alexander Hamilton was recently added to the list near the bottom of the article. He seems to me to be a very odd inclusion. Hamilton was liberal only in a narrowly economic version of the classical sense of the word. He supported a very narrow franchise; one could make a case that he was about 6 inches from a Tory. - Jmabel | Talk 23:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * While I didn't feel strongly enough to revert it, the addition of Hamilton to the list of liberals seemed strange to me as well. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Considering he advocated a monarchy during the Constitutional Convention, I don't think you could describe him as a liberal... Soxwon (talk) 16:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds clearly like we agree we should remove him. - Jmabel | Talk 14:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

All the leaders of the American Revolution were liberals and Hamilton was no exception. His background was in trade and he even lived on Wall Street. He was mistrustful of democracy because he saw it as a threat to liberalism. His type of liberalism has been called Whig, Girondist, big money liberal and conservative liberal and was distinct from the democratic liberalism of Jefferson and Jackson. I cannot see however how this list is very helpful. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you oversimplify. All the leaders of the American Revolution wanted to break away from England, and so they were in favor of liberty from King George, but some wanted to address George Washington as "Your Majesty", and there was sharp disagreement over slavery -- if they were all liberals the opposition to slavery would have been unanimous. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It must have been difficult to determine how the world's first president should be addressed. The US did keep the British titles of "the honorable", "your honor" and "governor" and even re-invented the Roman aristocratic title of "senator".


 * Slavery was not a relic of feudalism but was a capitalist institution which originated with indentured servitude, which was based on contract. Slavery was justified on the basis that slaves who were supposedly taken in battle had forfeited their right to live and could either enter servitude or die.  Their service was then a capital good that could be bought or sold.  You do not have to take my word for this but that is the mainstream view in academic literature.


 * The Four Deuces (talk) 17:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

And the implicit "contract" entered into by the losers was binding on their children? I don't buy it. You seem to be saying that liberals favor slavery! Rick Norwood (talk) 12:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Rick you do not have to accept the argument just accept that it was the argument used. The real reason for slavery was profit, but merchants justified it using their own value systems.  The same thing happens today.  The most brutal practices are justified because of "free markets".  Wars are waged to defend "democracy" and "freedom".  Here is how slavery was defended:


 * For in Locke's view, the origin of slavery, like the origin of liberty and property, was entirely outside the social contract. When any man, by fault or act, forfeited his life to another, he could not complain of injustice if his punishment was postponed by his being enslaved.  If the hardships of bondage should at any time outweigh the value of life, he could commit suicide by resisting his master and receiving the death which he had all along deserved:  "This is the perfect condition of Slavery," Locke wrote, "which is nothing else, but the state of War continued, between a lawful Conquerour, and a Captive.".  Hence the the relationship was one in which the obligations of the social compact were entirely suspended.


 * The point is that Hamilton was within the liberal tradition. However I do not see the need to list him.


 * The Four Deuces (talk) 15:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The tail wagging the dog.
The big problem with Introman's attempts to edit this article is that he tries to present what he calls "Classical Liberalism" as the first and most important kind of liberalism, and to present "modern liberalism" as something that is not really liberalism at all. But liberalism in the United States is a major belief -- virtually all Americans are liberals, whether they know it or not -- and the assertion that the main ideas of modern liberalism have to do with welfare is not supported by the references, which say, at most, that one theme in modern liberalism is welfare. The main ideas in modern liberalism have to do with equal rights for all citizens, separation of church and state, and freedom from censorship. The major opponent of liberalism is the religious right, who believe that America is a Christian nation, and have various proposals for writing this belief into law.

It is, I think, safe to assume that all 66 million people who voted for Barack Obama for president are liberals. I don't know how many "Classical liberals" there are, but far fewer. And, as Introman admits, the beliefs of these "Classical liberals" have never been put to the test, while liberalism is the most successful form of government ever invented -- essentially all developed nations are liberal democracies. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Libertarian arguments have no place in this article. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:45, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Welfare is what modern liberals are most known for. That's the biggest theme in modern liberalism. Who is supporting socialized health care? The modern liberals. Socialized healthcare is a welfare state program. All liberals, in definition at least, both classical and modern support equal rights, separation of church and state and free speech. Neither the ideal of classical liberals nor the ideal of modern liberals has been put to the test. These are ideals. Nothing exists in the real world in pure form. What the U.S. has is a compromise between implementation of the classical liberal ideal and modern liberal ideal. The U.S. is "liberal" in that broader sense. Introman (talk) 17:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as writing the intro, classical liberalism should be discussed first in the intro. That's the way it's ordered in the article, and it makes sense to keep the article flowing according to history. Modern liberalism lost favor in the 80's where classical liberalism had a resurgence and overtook it in its influence in American politics. Lately there may be a resurgence in modern liberalism but polls are showing it's not looking that promising. Introman (talk) 17:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Your ideas about what modern liberals are most known for is based on Libertarian and Republican sources. In fact, what modern liberals are most known for is the Civil Rights movement, which entirely changed race in America. When I was growing up in Louisiana, a Negro who tried to vote would by lynched. Now it is politically incorrect to call for lynching Black people, and so Conservatives pretend that "liberal" means "tax and spend", but as I've pointed out, the Federal Government increases spending just as much under Republican presidents as under Democratic presidents. This article should be based on what liberals actually say and do, not on what people opposed to liberalism falsely claim liberals say and do.

The issue of health care is a hot button topic, but that does not make it a core liberal idea. The lede in a general Wikipedia article should not depend on the headline news of the day, and should not change with every election.

"Classical liberalism" did not come first historically. Libertarians call their brand of liberalism "classical liberalism", and they cherry pick a few quotes by the founding fathers to make the claim that these beliefs are classical. But looking at the context, that claim is unsupported. The ideas that you call "Classical liberalism" are essentially 20th Century ideas. They are also minority views, and so they are not primary either in date nor in importance. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:31, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The sources I used in the article are not "Libertarian and Republican sources." Encyclopedia Britannica is not a "Libertarian and Republican source." And of course classical liberalism came before modern liberalism. That's why one is called classical and one is called modern. Adam Smith's economic philosophy is not a 20th century idea! He wasn't alive in the 20th century. You don't know what you're talking about. Introman (talk) 16:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

To those trying to stop or minimize discussion of classical liberalism in the intro
It states at the top of this article "This article discusses the history and development of various notions of liberalism in the United States." Classical liberalism has a very long history and continues to this day. Neither classical nor modern liberalism should overshadow each other in amount of discussion. There is already an article that deals specifically with modern liberalism in the United States. Introman (talk) 18:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

In 2007 the government of the United States spent more per capita for health care for its citizens than any country in the OECD except Norway and Luxembourg. 46% of all health care spending was by the government. Introman, how can you claim this is classical liberalism? The Four Deuces (talk) 19:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not claiming it's classical liberalism. How can you claim it's modern liberalism? Modern liberals want it more socialized than it is. Modern liberalism and classical liberalism are both philosophical IDEALS. The U.S. political and economy system is neither a real world representation of purely one or the other, but a compromise between the two schools of thought. In fact, classical liberalism has had more influence on the U.S. than modern liberalism for the last quarter of the 20th century during which modern liberalism fell out of favor. Classical liberalism is what was behind the whole Reagan era of deregulation and drastically reduced taxation. It's only in the last few years that the influence of modern liberalism seems like it might by having a resurgence, but that remains to be seen. Again, the U.S. is not a system of modern liberalism but a somewhere in between the modern liberal and classical liberal ideal. Do you understand that classical liberalism and modern liberalism are SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT? PHILOSOPHY? This article is about philosophy, not physically existing systems. To to the extent that existing politico-economic systems are discussed they should be discussed in reference to how much liberalism, and which kinds of liberalism, has influenced them. How can you even claim one even claim that one has had more influence than the other? Introman (talk) 20:07, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that both classical liberalism and modern liberalism are schools of thought and countries have been governed according to the principles of both. The UK described in Dickens' novels is an example of the first and the UK after the War is an example of the second.  But modern liberalism was never implemented in the US, even if some of its elements were introduced.  While some modern American liberals may support modern liberalism, many do not.  Most are broadly speaking liberal but are pragmatic rather than dogmatic.  But the policies followed by the US government from Reagan crisis were not classical liberalism at all, although classical liberal thinking influenced them.  They were neoliberal.  The Four Deuces (talk) 21:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * You call them neoliberal. Where do you think the ideas of neoliberalism came from? Classical liberalism. Neoliberalism is short for neoclassical liberalism ..the revival of classical liberalism. The idea of laissez-faire economics is a classical liberal idea. Hayek, von Mises, and Milton Friedman are regarded as a classical liberals. They had a profound influence on Reagan and policies he pushed. Deregulation is advocated by the classical liberals, such as Adam Smith. Advocating for deregulation is what is whole Wealth of Nations treatise was about. By the way neoliberalism is often used as a pejorative. No one calls themselves a neoliberal. Introman (talk) 21:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * But it was only a partial return to classical liberalism. The gold standard did not return, and therefore deflation, which was a natural part of the business cycle, could not occur.  Welfare programs and regulation were not ended but merely reduced.  Government spending actually increased.  Global trade increased, but it was not "free".  And these policies were pursued by governments of all political stripes.  The Four Deuces (talk) 23:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what I've been saying. The existing system we have is a neither an example of the pure classical liberal ideal nor of the modern liberal ideal. Both philosophies have areas of commonality with each other and competition with other, the latter mainly in economic politicy, and the conflicts are resolved through political compromise, resulting in system the U.S. has now. I don't see how anyone can say that the ideas of the classical liberals have had less influence on the system the U.S. has that those of the modern liberals, if that's what you're saying. Introman (talk) 23:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Neoliberalism is opposed to free trade, opposed to free markets and opposed to civil and property rights. In what way is that classical liberalism?  The Four Deuces (talk) 05:19, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No it's not. Wow, if you're that unfamiliar maybe you shouldn't be study up before you deal with these political articles? What you just said is inexcusable. Introman (talk) 07:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree with you both, but...

The Four Deuces: Dickens' England was not classically liberal, unless classical liberals believe in the class system.

Introman: If you want to edit Wikipedia, you need to get your facts straight.

Example: "the whole Reagan era of deregulation and drastically reduced taxation". When Jimmy Carter took office in 1977, the top US Capital Gains tax was 28%, when he left office in 1981, the rate was 20%, which was the rate when Reagan became president. When Reagan left office in 1988, the rate had risen to 33%. Source: The World Almanac.

Example: "the last quarter of the 20th century during which modern liberalism fell out of favor". Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton were president for roughly half of the last quarter of the 20th Century, and the other two presidents, Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, also greatly increased the power and spending of the federal government.

You say: "This article is about philosophy, not physically existing systems." Actually, it is about both.

But the main point is that calling libertarianism "classical liberalism" doesn't make it so. There are no classical examples of classical liberal thought other than anarchy. Is "classical liberalism" a synonym for anarchy? The version of history that you put forth (correct me if I'm wrong) is that in the 18th and 19th century liberals were Libertarians, who believed in free trade and minimal government, and that "modern liberals" are a 20th century perversion of those classical liberal ideals, that wants to take money away from hardworking people and give it to people who are too lazy to work. Is that a correct statement of your views? I pause for a reply. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes classical liberals were libertarians if by what you mean by libertarian is those that believe in maximum liberty and believe that is best achieved by minimizing government control over individual decisions. That's what I mean by "libertarian." I, as well as all scholars, just point out that there's a notable difference between classical and modern liberalism. I don't make the claim that modern liberals want to take money from hardworking people and give to those who are "too lazy to work" either. I say that they want to take a portion of money from those who earned it and give to others that didn't..not necessarily that those who are lazy, but who they see as having an unfair disadvantage somehow. Classical liberals believe free markets helps the poor the most, whereas modern liberals believe government control over individual decision to redistribute wealth, or to control the business decisions of individuals, and so on, is what helps the "disadvantaged." Introman (talk) 18:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Rick, the class structure was an anomaly but not a barrier to economic liberalism.


 * Liberalism corresponds in large part to the self-image and aspirations of the emergent middle classes, and operated in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries as a creed whereby they sought to oust the aristocratic and agrarian elite and fashion a new environment suited to the needs of commerce, industry and the professions. This was clear to the contemporary theorists of what is sometimes called 'classical' liberalism, who wrote during this period.  They saw British society, which had been the first to experience the industrial and political revolutions, as offering a model which they sought to emulate.  (Contemporary political ideologies (1999), Roger Eatwell, Anthony Wright, p. 29)


 * Introman, you should not confuse neoliberal rhetoric with neoliberal actions. The US for example is strongly protectionist.  It provides massive subsidies to its food, oil and insurance industries, while establishing non-tariff barriers to imports.  Its really just mercantilism.


 * The Four Deuces (talk) 16:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actions are irrelevant. This article is about PHILOSOPHY. It says that liberalism "is a broad political and philosophical mindset." Why can't you understand that? If say, Obama was pushing for privatization of social security would that what he's doing an example of modern liberalism? Of course not. He would be acting as a conservative. If someone you call a neoliberal, when he does something in contradiction to the philosophy then he's not acting as a neoliberal but as something else. If Bush pushed for a drug prescription welfare plan, which he did, does that make what he did conservative? Of course not. That's more line with the modern liberalism. You can't pick out someone that you call a liberal and then just look at what he's done and say it's all consistent with that philosophy. Do you understand yet? Introman (talk) 18:31, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

New section, just because the old section is too long.
Introman: "Yes classical liberals were libertarians if by what you mean by libertarian is those that believe in maximum liberty and believe that is best achieved by minimizing government control over individual decisions."

But there were no classical liberals until the term was invented in the 20th Century, and so it would be better just to use the word "libertarian". Classical liberals implies that they existed before the 20th Century.

Introman: "I, as well as all scholars, just point out that there's a notable difference between classical and modern liberalism."

And here is the bait and switch. Certainly all scholars agree that liberalism has changed over time. For example, Locke didn't favor freedom for Blacks. Modern liberals do. But you just finished saying that classical liberalism is Libertarianism, which didn't exist (except in the sense of anarchy) before the 20th Century, and now you are pretending that older forms of liberalism were more like libertarianism than newer forms of liberalism. There are countless examples why this is not the case, the end of slavery being one obvious example.

Introman: "Modern liberals believe government control over individual decision to redistribute wealth, or to control the business decisions of individuals, and so on, is what helps the "disadvantaged."

Yes, and so did ancient liberals. Read The Federalist Papers. Liberals feared "the Mob" and realized that absent a strong government, you have mob rule. Adam Smith wrote in favor of having the well-to-do pay higher taxes than the less well off. Benjamin Franklin believed that the government should provide for widows and orphans. Liberalism today is much closer to liberalism two hundred years ago than Libertarianism is. Further, it is a major part of polticial thought, while Libertarianism is minor.

(Aside: Thanks The Four Deuces. I yield to your greater expertise.) Introman says: "Actions are irrelevant. This article is about PHILOSOPHY. It says that liberalism "is a broad political and philosophical mindset." Why can't you understand that?"

Why can't we understand that "political and philosophical" is not the same as "philosophical"? Maybe because we understand what the word "and" means.

Rick Norwood (talk) 21:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Introman wrote: If Bush pushed for a drug prescription welfare plan, which he did, does that make what he did conservative?  The Bush administration followed neoliberal policies that differ from classical liberalism and his actions were entirely consistent with his administration's ideology.  Why else would they have brought in the plan?  George Bush himself said in 2000, “Our nation must reform Medicare — and in doing so, ensure that prescription drugs are affordable and available for every senior who needs them.  The objective is not to eliminate welfare but to make it more efficient, targeting the truly deserving at reasonable expense, using public-private partnerships where necessary.  The Republicans also stated But free trade must be fair trade, within an open, rules-based international trading system.  Again this is a departure from classical liberalism, where import barriers would have been unilaterally abolished.  Or Congressional Republicans...created the National Veterans Business Development Corporation to assist vets in becoming entrepreneurs.  Classical liberals would never have done this.  The Four Deuces (talk) 22:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Who says Bush is a classical liberal? What are you talking about? Conservative and classical liberal are not same thing! You've totally missed the point of what I said, as usual. Introman (talk) 00:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Rick, Of course classical liberals before the 20th century! What on Earth are you talking about?? They were called "liberals"!! Today we call them CLASSICAL liberals for the same reason that we have the term CLASSICAL economics! Instead of just calling them "economists," we put a descriptive qualifier in front of the word in order to make it easier to talk about them because they're subtantially different than other economics that came later. Classical liberals followed the idea of CLASSICAL economics that laissez-faire is the best policy. Modern liberals don't, but follow Keynesian economics and welfare economics, so we don't call them classical. We have to have terms to distinguish the two schools of thought within liberalism. One believes in laissez-faire and one doesn't. Get some background education on this stuff, will you? Introman (talk) 01:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Introman, your assertion is There are two versions of liberalism in the U.S., classical liberalism and modern liberalism. Then you infer that Bush is a [not a] classical liberal.  So you see a cleavage between the 99% of Americans who voted Democrat and Republican and those who voted for other parties.  (Some of the 1% were in fact not libertarians.)  So why should the article give an emphasis to fringe theories?  The Four Deuces (talk) 03:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Four Deuces, you just don't seem to get a grasp on this. Classical liberalism is NOT PEOPLE. It's PHILOSOPHY. The philosophy that any given Democrat holds will have some classical liberal IDEAS in their mindset. Republicans will have some classical liberal ideas in their philosophy, more or less dependent upon which Republican you're talking about. Those commonly called "conservatives" will have some classical liberal ideas in their philosophy as well as some modern liberal ideas, depending on which "conservative" you're referring to. Classical liberalism is a SET OF IDEAS. With the exception of political philosophers, you're probably not going to be able to find any given politician is a pure classical liberal or pure modern liberal. They all have mixtures of classical liberalism, conservatism, and modern liberalism, philosophies in their personal political philosophies in varying degrees. There is no pure classical liberal, no pure conservative, and no pure modern liberal politician. It seems like you're stuck in some type of paradigm where you want to label people as being this or that, but this article is not about people but ideas. Classical liberal ideas STRONGLY influence this country's politics and politicians and continues to, as does modern liberal ideas. Besides this article is about "the history and development" of liberalism, and classical liberalism was THE philosophy up until the 20th century when it began to share the stage with modern liberalism. So we MUST give a lot of coverage to classical liberalism. Introman (talk) 05:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Soxwon, why do you insist on naming a section Quotations by some of the prominent advocates of classical liberalism in early America United States (interesting grammar btw). The term classical liberalism normally refers to economic theory and practice.  Mainstream publications normally do not refer to these people as "classical liberals".  The Four Deuces (talk) 03:52, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Soxwon, I notice that you changed the name of the country from "America" to "America United States". Please note that the full name of the country is the "United States of America", although it is often referred to as "America" or the "United States" for short.  It is never referred to as "America United States".  The Four Deuces (talk) 04:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No, check it again, you changed it from America to America United States. I changed it from America b/c it didn't flow. I have changed it now to United States of America, I hope there will be no more confusion. Soxwon (talk) 04:34, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Introman wrote: Rick, Of course classical liberals before the 20th century! What on Earth are you talking about?? They were called "liberals"!!

You change the meaning of the phrase "classical liberal" to suit your purpose. Here, you say it means the same as "liberal". Above, you said it means the same as "libertarian". That's why we should not use the phrase in the article.

Rick Norwood (talk) 12:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The meaning of the phrase "classical liberal" doesn't come from me but from a plethora of sources, including widespread mainstream sources such as Encyclopedia Britannica. Apparently this is all new to you. No offense, but apparently you missed out on American Government 101 and Political Philosophy 301. This stuff is not contentious but common knowledge and parlance in the field of political science. And I never said it "means the same as libertarian." "Libertarian" is a broader term than "classical liberalism." As I put in the article I said it "resembles some versions of modern libertarianism." There are many sources for this available. Any philosophy that supports maximization of liberty by minimization of government control over people is a "libertarian" philosophy. So "libertarian" is a broader term than "classical liberalism." Clearly, classical liberals were libertarians. To be a libertarian is simply to believe in the maximization of freedom from government control. And that's not what modern liberals are in favor of, so they're not libertarians. Introman (talk) 15:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Soxwon, Introman. Do you have any mainstream sources stating that Thomas Paine, John Adams, Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson should be described as "classical liberals" rather than as liberals?  The Four Deuces (talk) 16:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Duh. If they're liberals, then they're by default classical liberals because they're pre-20th century. That's would be the classical era of liberalism. But of course for any early liberal there will be sources calling them "classical liberals," or the same thing "traditional liberal." Calling someone a "liberal from the 18th century" is the same thing as calling them a classical liberal. For everywhere where the term "classical liberal" used it could be replaced with "liberal from prior to the 20th century" and the sentence would retain the same meaning. That's all "classical liberal" means, and if you subscribe to the ideas of the old liberals then you're a traditional or classical liberal too. Introman (talk) 16:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Introman, please see WP:SYN: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Editors should not make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to reach conclusion C. This would be a synthesis of published material that advances a new position, and that constitutes original research.  Do you have any mainstream sources stating that Thomas Paine, John Adams, Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson should be described as "classical liberals" rather than as liberals?
 * I didn't put them in the article and they're not mentioned in the intro. I don't work on anything but intros so it's not my job, not my problem. Do some research yourself. Just search ""Thomas Jefferson" "classical liberal"" in Google Books and you'll find lots of mainstream sources. You'll find ..SURPRISE ...he was a liberal in the classical era! A classical liberal! Introman (talk) 17:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Biased and extemist edits
I removed biased and extremist edits. Please keep this article NPOV and ensure that all edits are properly sourced to mainstream sources. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you, The Four Deuces. I'd like to place two quotes by Introman side by side here.


 * "Yes classical liberals were libertarians if by what you mean by libertarian is those that believe in maximum liberty and believe that is best achieved by minimizing government control over individual decisions."


 * "And I never said it 'means the same as libertarian.'"


 * His comment that he only edits ledes is also informative.


 * I think that we have said to Introman everything that needs to be said.


 * Rick Norwood (talk) 13:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Apparently you haven't comprehended what the above means. I'm saying "libertarian" is not a synonym for "classical liberal," but classical liberalism is a TYPE of libertarianism. Understand yet? Classical liberalism doesn't mean libertarianism. Libertarianism is a larger category in which classical liberalism is included. Let me know if you need me to break it down any more for you. Introman (talk) 16:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Classical liberalism is not a type of libertarianism and you have provided no sources that say it is. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't need to provide sources that it's a type of libertarianism because I didn't put that in the article. What I put in the article in regard to libertarianism is sourced for what it says. You really need to see the distinction in your mind between things that are said here and are said in the article. Introman (talk) 20:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Four Deuces, you didn't remove biased and extremist edits. You removed NPOV edits that were sourced to mainstream sources. Encyclopedia Britannica is not considered a "biased and extremist" source. Introman (talk) 16:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Introman, you need to build consensus for changes and the edits you inserted put a POV into the lead. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Four Deuces, don't give me that. You need to build consensus with me if you don't want me to revert your change as well. It goes both ways. And my edits were certainly not POV. Introman (talk) 21:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I question the sources you are using as well. American government and politics today appears to be a civics textbook and therefore more of a tertiary source.  The difficulty is the book has not been peer-reviewed.  Encyclopedia Britannica is also a tertiary source.  You should rely on academic writing.  The Four Deuces (talk) 21:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * "American government and politics today" was used simply to point out that "traditional liberalism" was another term for "classical liberalism." You have a problem with that? Yes, that and Encyclopedia Britannica are tertiary sources. And they are academic writing. There is nothing at all wrong with using a tertiary source. Intros are for summarization statements. Tertiary sources are the best sources for intros. Got any better objections than these? If this is your objection, then if I tack on a few secondary sources that say the same thing are you going to keep on deleting? Or are you just looking for any possible way to keep the information out? Let me know. Introman (talk) 21:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Introman: Your point of view has no support. You keep changing your justification for your edit. First you say Classical Liberalism is Libertarianism, then you say it is not, but then you assign Libertarian ideas to liberals of earlier times, justifying this with quotes that use "classical liberalism" to mean early liberalism, and then pretending that the quote says that early liberals believe what libertarians believe. "Traditional liberalism" is another term for classical liberalism in the first sense, not in the second sense. What you keep saying, without justification, is that in the 18th and 19th centuries, liberals were libertarians. That "information" is not going into the article without a source.

By the way, I don't share The Four Deuces dislike of tertiary sources such as dictionaries and encyclopedias, provided you don't distort what these sources say. On the other hand, high school textbooks are never acceptable sources.

Rick Norwood (talk) 15:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Rick: I don't know how many times I have to clarify to you, but I did not say that libertarianism are synonyms. I said that classical liberalism is a TYPE of libertarianism. If libertarianism is taken to mean simply believe in maximum liberty by minimization of government, then libertarianism includes a few philosophies. There's not just one type of libertarianism. Now, with that said, I never suggested or advocated putting any of what I just said into the article. So I don't know why you're calling for a source for this. I was just trying to educated you with some background knowledge. What I put into the article in regard to libertarianism, which was something other than what I said on the talk page, IS sourced. How about talking about sources for things that are put into the ARTICLE or for things that someone is actually advocating putting into the article? Introman (talk) 15:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

You said that classical liberals were libertarians, and they weren't. It doesn't matter how many times you say it, I understand perfectly well what you are saying, but it isn't true.

Rick Norwood (talk) 21:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * No I didn't. I said classical liberals were libertarians, but that libertarianism isn't a synonym for classical liberalism. Just like a car is a vehicle, but vehicle isn't a synonym for car (because there are other things that are also vehicles) Introman (talk) 21:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Introman, in both your edits to this article and to Social Liberalism it would be helpful if you would discuss the changes that you wish to make and gain concensus. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been discussing with you, but it hasn't helped. I'll continue to discuss them. Introman (talk) 22:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)