Talk:Classical liberalism

	Philosophy portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as high-importance on the importance scale.
Additional information: Related task forces (core areas): Social and political philosophy

/Archive 1

[edit] Help has arrived!

Look, I'm not going to ruffle myself in discussion below or flatter myself more. I've been going over the article and copyediting per the League of Copyeditors. Honestly, in the key thinkers list, it should be narrowed down to 3, with the others in a list. Baron's contribution, eg, belongs more for the democracy or seperation of powers pages. That's why he should go in the list. My method of narrowing it down is going to simply be who contributed more.

How did you determine who contributed more? Kant, for example, is a relatively minor figure in political philosophy in general, he's more known for his work on ethics. I think either Mill or Bentham should take his place here.SFinside 16:11, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Mill or Bentham was on the list? Of course, replace him (Kant). I took a course in political philosophy, and Kant was kind of the "golden boy," model if you will. So I guess its a bit of a systematic bias thing. Sorry. Go ahead, I read right over them if they were there. But "philosophers," like Jefferson-- sorry, but it was more of a hobby than his calling. Others, like Adam Smith and Locke, and Bentham, it was a calling. Go ahead and replace them. To satisfy Criteraeon 1A for New Jersey State Constitution, I'm trying to obtain "distance," so I'm limiting my contributions away from politics articles, which is, ironically, my main expertise. I would like some help copyediting it. Not like I'm asking anyone. Just like a sales pitch, you can slam the door on this one. P.S. If you want to know what I'm doing, I'm putting a week into Recent Changes Patrolling. Evan^{(Salad dressing is the milk of the infidel!)} 22:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article is contradictory, not NPOV anymore

The article, until several edits were made, was biased in favor of a Libertarian POV. It disproportionately cited Libertarian views (and sources) and doesn't reflect mainstream historianism. I pointed this out a while ago, however, I was too intellectually lazy to run to the library and pull out credible sources. But I can assure that there are a number of factual inaccuracies: mainly, that classical liberalism is too narrowly defined, when it was not so narrow of a movement. It is purposely narrowly defined in order to imply similarities with Libertarianism (and Neoliberalism) and exaggerate differences with American Liberalism. It was distinct from modern ideology in that liberals were often very free to disagree with eachother on even some of the most fundamental of issues. Today, virtually any American Liberal, Libertarian, or Neoliberal, could have been born 200 years ago and had the same views they have now, yet they still would not be considered any less "Liberal."

Anyway, the article is currently contradictory. It wouldn't make sense for an article to be both NPOV and contradictory, so I replaced the tag. After the contradictions are removed, the NPOV tag might need to go back up. For now, here is the list of contradictions that I can see:

First, there's the obvious:

• the philosophy developed by early liberals from the Age of Enlightenment until Herbert Spencer
• the same philosophy, as revived in the 20th century by Friedrich Hayek[2] and Milton Friedman.[3] This contemporary restatement of classical liberalism is usually called "libertarianism."

It doesn't emphasize that those are two different views which are disputed. It simply states both, without clarifying.

• It is a blend of political liberalism and economic liberalism[1] which is derived from Enlightenment thinkers such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Adam Smith, Voltaire, John Stuart Mill, and Immanuel Kant.
• The French tradition included Rousseau, Condorcet, the Encyclopedists and the Physiocrats
• The ideology of the classical liberals argued against direct democracy. For example, James Madison argued for a constitutional republic, with protections for individual liberty, over a pure democracy reasoning that in a pure democracy, a "common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party."

Hobbes advocated monarchism, John Stuart Mill had no preference for any particular system (he said in On Libert that a dictatorship is justifiable if it upholds liberty), and Rousseau advocated direct democracy.

I noticed that someone removed Rousseau from several sections in the article. Well, surely, if Hayek can call Rousseau a Classical Liberal, then it's credible, from any standpoint, for Wikipedia to make the same claim. Robocracy 16:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I think we've been through this before. The sources cited in this article describing and defining classical liberalism are not from "libertarians." It is just the normal mainstream view that "classical liberalism" is a laissez-faire philosophy. Anyone that you're calling a classical liberal that supports a welfare state simply isn't a classical liberal. Classical liberals and libertarians both support laissez-faire. That is why they are so similar. Classical liberalism is not very similar at all to American modern liberalism (welfare liberalism), at least not in economic matters. C-Liberal 03:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how the article is contradictory. There is classical liberalism, or just liberalism as it was then known. Limited government divided authority, free markets, capitalism, negative liberty. It began changing slowly, starting with JSM (who still believed in free markets but wanted limited provisions for the poor) to the opposite meaning under FDR in the 1930s where liberalism became known for big government, centralized authority, managed trade. Hayek and Friedman tried to, and Friedman continues to this day, to revive the original usage of the word liberal. In fact, they referred to themselves as liberals. What is more contradictory is how modern American "liberals" call free market, limited government advocates conservative, when it is these "conservatives" who are attempting to dismantle the regulatory big government welfare state...aka disrupt the status quo. That is not contradictory.

Next the debate over who is a classical liberal is a long one. Hobbes is at the beginning of the transition to liberalism, JSM is at the beginning of the transition out of liberalism. The lines are not always clear. The article should note that. But this does not mean it is contradictory.

Finally, the article is not POV simply because the sources are libertarian or classical liberal oriented. That is not a POV violation. The sources used are well documented and respected. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.120.4.1 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 17 October 2006.

This complaint looks dead.

[edit] POV, My view of this Article

Robo, I agree most of what you say, except that an article can't both be slanted and self-contradictory. It can, and this article is. Look at my other comments as to why this article is slanted. I've given up trying to edit this article. The ultra-aggressive libertarian editors of this article have a lot more time on their hands than I do, and have without fail reverted every change I have made.

The unchecked aggressiveness in which they revert changes that don't accord to the libertarian viewpoint is a structural problem of Wikipedia: extreme partisans and fringe groups like libertarians care more about their pet articles, and have more time to defend their views. If you want to take the time to mediate/arbitrate go right ahead, but be warned I've spent at least ten hours of my life trying to fix this abomination of an article with close to nothing to show for it.

So in summary, the article is uninformative libertarian propaganda, has been for at least a year, and there's nothing you can do about it in the face of its aggressive libertarian editors.

If all that seems gloomy, let me put it in a more positive way: Your time is much better spent improving the 99.9% of Wikipedia articles that don't have aggressive editors pushing a fringe ideology.Kitteneatkitten 08:51, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll get around to the library, eventually, and find several credible sources. I already know, offhand, that Classical Liberals were not primarily laissez-faire Capitalists. Anti-mercantilists, yes, but not necessarily anti-Socialist. They were also Georgists and in some cases, proto-Socialists. Quite a few weren't concerned with economics at all, whether laissez-faire or interventionist, and even among those that did, not all or even most advocated total laissez-faire, to the point that most of them, had any of them been alive today, would be ostracized by Libertarians for advocating some forms of economic intervention. Adam Smith advocated central banks -- on the contrary, Austrian economists and Libertarians reject them --- John Locke advocated a state-run church and communally-owned well-water. And John Stuart Mill advocated the abolishment of whorehouses and opium businesses. And Jeremy Bentham advocated animal rights and feminism -- but of course, Jeremy Bentham has since been removed from this article. It's fortunate Rousseau's name is even still left here, though the section on Rousseau has been removed. This article represents Libertarian revisionism, not mainstream historianism. I mean, the article cites Hayek four times and, until recently, the Cato Institute. Robocracy 08:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

JSM was a self-described "Democratic Socialist." Intangible 11:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

To quote the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

John Stuart Mill... ...was the most influential English-speaking philosopher of the nineteenth century. His views are of continuing significance, and are generally recognized to be among the deepest and certainly the most effective defenses of empiricism and of a liberal political view of society and culture...

...On the whole Mill supported the laissez faire economic policies that had been defended by earlier economists such a his father and David Ricardo....

...He came increasingly to re-examine the objections to socialism, and came to argue in later editions of the Principles that, as far as economic theory was concerned, there is nothing in principle in economic theory that precludes an economic order based on socialist policies. He therefore made the radical proposal that the whole wage system be abolished, and that it be replaced by a cooperative system in which the producers would act in combinations, collectively owning the capital necessary for carrying on their operations, and working under managers who would be responsible overall to them.

...In his economic theory Mill no doubt appears to the modern socialist to be a follower of Ricardo and the classical liberal economists, but to the latter, and no doubt to himself, he was clearly a socialist.

He's still usually considered to be the last "classical liberal," because of the views he had when he was young and still considered "liberal," because he was primarily influenced by liberals and primarily influential to liberals. Robocracy 04:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I added John Stuart Mill's name back to the front of the article and cited a source:

Classical liberalism stressed not only human rationality but the importance of individual property rights, natural rights, the need for constitutional limitations on government, and, especially, freedom of the individual from any kind of external restraint... ...The writings of such men as Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Jeremy Bentham, and John Stuart Mill mark the height of such thinking.

Robocracy 04:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm. Herbert Spencer died in 1903, John Stuart Mill in 1873. What gives? If one is going to talk about JSM and Bentham in this article, you could as well rename it to "19th century liberalism," because that's what we are talking about then... Intangible 14:14, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

And Carl Menger died in 1921. Where does "Classical Liberalism," end, then? Herbert Spencer was an anti-Marxist reactionary and marked the beginning of the split between economic and social liberalism, rather than the "end," of Classical Liberalism, because others (including the Austrians) continued work around the same time as Herbert Spencer. It doesn't make much sense to call Herbert Spencer a "classical liberal," when he existed in a time side-by-side with social liberals. I mean, are you going to assert that only economic liberalism is "true" classical liberalism, that "classical liberals" and modern liberals existed side-by-side? That can't be the case when figures such as Rousseau, Mill, Bentham, and Hobbes are called classical liberals by credible sources. And, as I've clarified, even those most frequently cited for their laissez-faire views -- Locke and Smith -- both had quite a few striking differences with modern libertarians. Now, I know that there are articles claiming Spencer was a Classical Liberal, but it needs to be clarified here that there's a scholarly dispute about it.

Do you agree with this, from the Columbia Encyclopedia?

The growth of industrial society, however, soon produced great inequalities in wealth and power, which led many persons, especially workers, to question the liberal creed. It was in reaction to the failure of liberalism to provide a good life for everyone that workers’ movements and Marxism arose. Because liberalism is concerned with liberating the individual, however, its doctrines changed with the change in historical realities.

The article certainly doesn't reflect any agreement with it, because it only reflects one view. And certainly, the Columbia Encyclopedia has more credibility than either Friedrich Hayek or the Cato Institute. Robocracy 20:20, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree with this. It's holistic hogwash. Intangible 23:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

You're using the term "holistic" as a euphemism for "NPOV." Robocracy 22:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

1. That Menger refuted the labour theory of value, and Bawerk Marx's capital formation ideas, does not make them classical liberals, they were actually quite a-political, and mixed more with the social democratic kind of types. Hayek became a liberal (he was a Fabianist in his early years) under the influence of Mises; Mises became a liberal because of his experiences at the Front in World War I.

2. Bentham and Mill should more properly be seen as philosophical radicals. Even that source about "Illiberal Libertarians" talks about the division (Freeman calls it "high liberalism") between classical liberals (Gauthier, Buchanan, Hayek) and other liberals (Kant, Mill, Rawls). Brebner writes:

If there is a fundamental conflict between Smith and Bentham (and thus Mill) how can they be united in a article which makes the suggestion of no conflict?

3. About Spencer, you might indeed call him a little bit reactionary, he only became a laissez faire liberal at the end of his life, simply because it was indeed the end of classical liberalism thought in Britain. In other countries, such as France, there were some classical liberals who lived into the 20th century, like Leroy-Beaulieu, Guyot and Molinari. I wonder about your sources though. Are they saying Spencer was not a classical liberal because he did not accept laissez faire in his earlier years?

4. Economic liberalism is indeed part of classical liberalism. Social liberalism started with Bentham, so classical liberals did live along them. However, in the first part of the 19th century these fractions both agitated against landowners, which was their chief political concern first. Only in the 1850s this difference between social liberals and classical liberal became more apparent (after the Corn Laws were repealed). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Intangible (talk • contribs) 23:42, 14 October 2006 .

Intangible, please don't alter my comments. It is confusing for you to post your unsigned reply in the middle of my comment. I've moved it, for easier readability. Now, to respond:

1. I never claimed refuting the labor theory of value would be a reason for Menger to be a Classical Liberal. In fact, your assertion that that's even a potentially rational assertion shows your total ignorance of the subject matter. The labor theory of value was invented by Classical Liberals, not Marx. So, your assertion, "He's not a Classical Liberal just because he disproved the labor theory of value," doesn't make any sense at all. Nor would being anti-Marxist necessarily imply Classical Liberal status. Ideological movements do not begin and end with people's lives, but with ideas, which shift and carry over. And so, Mill was the beginning of modern American Liberalism and the end of Classical Liberalism. It is trite to argue that Spencer was the last Classical Liberalism solely because he died after Mill.

Wikipedia acknowledges, in several articles, that Carl Menger was a "Liberal." My point is that if you're going to argue that Classical Liberalism is defined as being Liberals who advocated laissez-faire economics in the 19th century, then Carl Menger would fit the bill. I used him as an example to demonstrate why that kind of classification is poor. If I am wrong -- then are you going to say that Carl Menger was not a Liberal? Or Carl Menger was "reviving" Classical Liberalism while Herbert Spencer was still alive?

2. All Liberals were philosophical radicals. Anyone who calls Mill a "collectivist," hasn't read On Liberty. Smith, as I said, also supported central banks, and acknowledged in Wealth of Nations...

3. No sources to cite as of yet, as I still need to go to the library (hence, I haven't yet edited the article). However, Spencer's beliefs were defined by Social Darwinism and Social Darwinism is totally incompatible with Liberalism, and thus has been rejected by both Libertarians and modern Liberals. And so, even if he held laissez-faire economic views, holding laissez-faire economic views and support for minarchism in the 19th century does not automatically equate with Classical Liberalism, if he believed it was for the sake of the collective rather than the individual. Furthermore, his "organic," view of society was distinctly Burkean Conservatism, not Liberalism.

4. But it is not the most poignant aspect or more essential than their regard for equality or the conditions of the poor. With the laundry list of Liberals which disagreed upon even the most basic fundamentals of politics and economics, Liberals were not a monolithic group of activists, like Libertarians, but were united solely by their regard for liberty, according to how each scholar defined it. They advocated both social and economic liberty, and until the Industrial Revolution, no one considered that those two were in any way at odds.

Robocracy 23:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

1. There is nothing in Menger's writings that would make him a liberal or anything else.

2. Sure Mill was a collectivist. He wanted to use state powers for his activism.

3. Social Darwinism has two parts. The first is a theory that those fittest to adapt will survive (without any implication on how many are fit). The second is the use of biological principles in sociology, which is just as holistic hogwash as historicism and its children.

4. Are libertarians a monolithic group? I think libertarianism is as "ambiguous," if you like, as liberalism. Intangible 15:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Freeman

Just before the quoted text, Freeman writes in his article: "It is commonly held that libertarianism is a liberal view." Which means the text in ""Classical liberalism" and libertarianism" is incorrect. Freeman is representing a marginal view here. User:Slizor seems to have made some drastic changes recently to the article, not for the good alas. Intangible 11:53, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Drastic changes that removed the majority of the bollocks on the page and all of it irrelevant or biased.

I would be happy for how "marginal" each view that a source espouses to be reviewed. If you think that is a good criteria for encylopedia articles. So, shall we start by deleting this entire article and starting again? Wiping away the Libertarian (a marginal view, btw) bias? Slizor 19:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

This article has no "libertarian bias." The sources referenced defining and explaining classical liberalism are not from libertarians. Classical liberalism is much more similar to libertarianism than it is to welfare liberalism. That doesn't mean that the article is biased toward libertarianism. It's classical liberalism itself that is biased towards libertarianism. C-Liberal 04:04, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Your binary thinking shows your lack of clear thought on this subject (because it's not like welfare liberalism it must be like libertarianism.) There are important differences (including such basic things as time, how mainstream they are and how influential they are (not to even get on to the philosophy)) between Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism that are ignored or, in this article, revised so as to make them look the same. Slizor 11:52, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, they are pretty much the same. Libertarianism (in the U.S.) is based on classical liberal philosophy. That's rather a well-known fact. Doctors without suspenders 22:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

There are no political facts. Slizor 10:50, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes there are. How about this. Countries with more open economies are more wealthy, have more equality, more rights for women, higher literacy rates, lower infant mortality rates, higher life expectancies. Or this, minimum wages increase unemployment.

Or this. Paying people to do nothing means people will do nothing and get paid. See US TANF reforms in the 1990s or Englands poor law reforms in the early 1800s. See France today with there bloated unemployment rates thanks to government overregulation and protection of current labor. There are political facts and like gravity, politics does have its own laws. Politicians and some academics still ignore them, however. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.120.4.1 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 17 October 2006.

How about this - countires that are more wealthy have more equality, more rights for women, higher literacy rates, lower infant mortality rates, higher life expectancies and have more open economies (because they are in a better position to "compete")?

OMG, I turned your "facts" on their head and they still makes sense! How is this possible!? If you want a further response you'll have to come up with a better counter-argument. Slizor 00:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Easy answer...I'll get this one, countries that are more wealthy also have the most open economies.  :P

Slizor and the anonymous user with the IP address, 129.120.4.1, this is a discussion about how to properly write an article on Classical Liberalism, not a debate about Capitalism vs. Socialism. Wikipedia is not a battleground. If you're going to discuss things relevant to Classical Liberalism, then fine. This isn't a medium, however, for you to debate economics. For that, I suggest a political forum.

Robocracy 11:52, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Sarcasm, after the amount of time I have spent on this article, is not indicative of a battling mentality. If you hang around here a bit longer you may find the constant propaganda a tad irritating.

BTW, when did I mention socialism? Slizor 12:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

The two of you are arguing about whether or not Capitalism reduces poverty, decreases unemployment, etc. That argument is irrelevant to this discussion. Robocracy 12:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Libertarian Series

If the Libertarian Series doesn't belong here Silzor, you might want to consider editing the Libertarian Series template to remove Classical Liberalism from it. Harvestdancer 18:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Classical Liberalism did influence Libertarianism, I do not deny that. The reason I deleted the Libertarian series from the page is that Libertarianism is only one of the many philosophies influenced by Classical Liberalism and it is a minor obscure philosophy that has no mass support. It doesn't deserve to be on the page. Slizor 12:17, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

15% of the American voting population can be identified as libertarian. In fact, if Democrats had of pushed a more economically libertarian agenda they could have snatched a meager 9% of the libertarian vote from Bush in 2004 and carried the electoral votes in three states, thus allowing Kerry to win the election. That is hardly obscure. Little l libertarians have also been growing over the last 30 years and represents a sizeable portion of the under 30 voter. This movement world wide is hardly obscure and the fact that something has no mass support does not mean it must be deleted. Otherwise we'd need to delete a whole host of half baked left wing ideas like anarcho-communism...or hell, just communism. Your claims are arbitrary and represent your dislike of libertarian philosophies more than your commitment to truth and accuracy.

The fact is libertarianism is heavily influenced by classical liberalism, and if any modern philosophical wing can claim to be the closest to classical liberalism it is the libertarian movement. Little l libertarian philosophy and classical liberalism are not popular among right wing religious persons and statist left-wingers (Epstien 2006).

It's against my better nature to respond to posts like this...but I do. I'm not sure why. In fact I'm not sure why I come back to this page and allow fucking propaganda spewed at me all the time.

I'm sure 15% of the American voting population can be identified as libertarian........but who by? And who calculated the 2004 election thing? And where is your "evidence" of it being a worldwide movement? Libertarianism has no mass support AND is not even considered in respected academic circles.

It is a minor ideology and what is most closely related to Classical Liberalism is hugely disputed. Slizor 20:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Libertarianism "is not even considered in respected academic circles"? That's bunk. In academic circles is where you find the most libertarians. It's in the general population that there are less libertarians. What is your point anyway? Is it your contention that there are more classical liberals than libertarians? You say that libertarianism "is a minor obscure philosophy that has no mass support." Do you consider classical liberalism to be a major philosophy that has mass support? How are you defining libertarianism anyway and how do you think it differs from classical liberalism? C-Liberal 22:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I did a search on one of the ejournal search engines that my Uni subscribes to (SwetsWise, if you have access to it.) The result of the search through peer-reviewed academic articles on the keyword Libertarianism was "searched 21803245 articles - found 86 articles" and the first two were about left-libertarianism! It really is not big in academia. And, as you admit, it has no mass support. Thus it is a minor philosophy. It is also one of many philosophies that consider themselves to be the the heir of classical liberalism. By including the Libertarian series we are overemphasising a minor issue and appearing to validate on-going and disputed arguments. Slizor 10:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I love how slizor demands sources for someone trying to debunk his own unsourced claims. Interesting. Here:http://cato.org/pubs/pas/pa580.pdf Read it before you make any more outlandish and unsourced comments.

Please stop quoting CATO, it really does not help your argument. Slizor 10:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

And ignoring what they say while providing no sources of your own, does not help your own.

Why would there be a source on how obscure and minor Libertarianism is? How would that work? Slizor 16:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

There won't be, because its not. Eitherway you have to prove it with a source.

[edit] A Source for something does not mean it should be included

The use of sources (continual references to the CATO institute) as we have just seen does not provide a NPOV. The issues dealt with on the page are DISPUTED and that needs to be shown, not papered over with biased sources. Slizor 20:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah it does, that does not mean it has a POV. Read the rules again.

No it does not. Don't be so ridiculously idiotic. If I was to fill the Holocaust page up with sources from revisionist historians it would not be NPOV. Slizor 11:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

1. How is this guy not blocked? 2. You happen to be the revisionist here. 3. Libertarian sources and libertarian sections remain a minority of this article. 4. Articles can remain NPOV by citing respected sources and presenting the information as information according to that source. THis article has done just that. 5. You are reaching to delete things you do not like.

Maybe that section should just be renamed "Liberal Peace". Cobden et al were very much anti-imperialistic and very cosmopolitan. Intangible 15:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Intangible, have you seen the recent additions to the "Lassiez-faire to Interventionist" bit? It quotes two articles repeatedly, both from the CATO institute website. Unless this section becomes more balanced I'm reverting. This Anon is clearly agenda-pushing. Slizor 16:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

No you are agenda pushing. You have no counter sources to make your arguement and you are deleting and reverting out of frustration. These are books you have problems with are published by the Cato Institute, not the cato website itself. Cato is also a publishing house like Brookings Institute.

[edit] "Governs least"

From the article: "Thomas Paine's famous forumulation 'that government is best which governs least'". Is there a citable basis for attributing it to Paine? According to Civil Disobedience (Thoreau), "One of the most famous quotes mistakenly attributed to either Thomas Jefferson or Thomas Paine, 'That government is best which governs least', actually came from this essay," that is, from Thoreau's Civil Disobedience. Clearly one of the articles is wrong. I strongly suspect that it is this one. - Jmabel | Talk 05:11, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

A google search of the quote suggests Thomas Paine or Thomas Jefferson. In fact, any websites that list the quote with HDT reveal that he is not coining, if you will, the phrase, but repeating it in support (which then leads you to wonder, again, who quoted the phrase originally). There seems to be lots of debate and little agreement. At any rate, it does not matter, at the very least HDT could be added to this page...if not already.

A Google search suggests why this would be described as [often] mistakenly attributed. The citation from Thoreau is clear. The others appear so far to be hot air. - Jmabel | Talk 01:23, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

The quote has long since been removed from this article, but I'll address it anyway. The Civil Disobedience (Thoreau) article is correct. The Civil Disobedience article also states what Thoreau was paraphrasing: The motto of The United States Magazine and Democratic Review. (Thoreau uses quotation marks, but it was actually a paraphrase of the magazine he wrote for.) Monticello.org lists it as a "spurious quote" misattributed to Jefferson.[1] --JHP (talk) 05:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] I emailed the professors who wrote about Liberalism for Stanford

A couple weeks ago, I emailed the two authors of the article on Liberalism in Stanford's philosophy encyclopedia, to ask them their opinion regarding Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism. I essentially gave them my argument regarding Classical Liberalism in the form of a list of questions and asked for their responses.

One said that it would be a mistake to assume, "American Liberalism = Socialism and Classical Liberalism = Libertarianism," because Classical Liberalism was very multi-faceted, but that, yes, Classical Liberalism also had some kind of a regard for liberty, which manifested itself as a regard for property or a regard for equality. He said he didn't think one could accurately determine who was the "rightful heir," to Classical Liberalism or why it was even important.

The second author had a different view, suggesting, "There is some truth to this," when I mentioned the claim that American Liberalism = Socialism and Classical Liberalism = Libertarianism. And he went on, discussing how European Liberalism is very pro-market, unlike American Liberalism. Britain's Liberal party is not very much anti-market, though, and Australia's Liberal party is very Conservative (weak on civil rights), and so, he said it's a mess. He said that the tradition of social liberalism breaking away from economic liberalism began with Mill and nothing more can be said other than that. About Hobbes being a liberal, he said that Hobbes is an interesting figure, because it's only been recently that Hobbes has been considered a liberal. For most of history, Hobbes has been considered an anti-liberal authoritarian. He also expressed uncertainty, too, about Rousseau being a liberal. In response to the question about the "rightful heir," he asserted that the question stands within Liberalism, not outside of it. So, in that sense, American Liberals and Libertarians are both 'liberals' of a different tradition. Whichever one truly supports liberty is a matter for discussion, rather than labeling one side as authoritarian. T.H. Green and Rawls saw themselves as the rightful heirs to Liberalism, whereas Milton Friedman and Robert Nozick disagreed. The author's concluded by saying that Liberalism has a number of essential concepts (personal rights, property, concerns for the general well-being, democracy, justice, etc.) that can be organized to yield different versions, but that any article on Classical Liberalism should not try to address these questions.

Now, you can see that there are differing views, but there is a view shared by both authors: that the "rightful heir," to Classical Liberalism is somewhat ambiguous but property right was somewhat of an important part of Classical Liberalism. And so, though I concede that Classical Liberalism should undoubtedly be defined as having a regard for property right, the way that the article and other articles present Classical Liberalism as being synonymous with Libertarianism is false.

As said before -- I'll get to the library eventually and work on improving this article. As it stands now, it's sort of a mess, because it looks exactly like an article that was written by Libertarians, but then, American Liberals have tried to place in their own edits, so that now, the tone and some of the exact statements are inconsistent. Robocracy 06:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Well one "welfare liberal" writes:

Lewis E. Hill (1964). "On Laisses-faire Capitalism and 'Liberalism'". American Journal of Economics and Sociology 23 (4): 393. doi:10.1111/j.1536-7150.1964.tb00970.x. 

Although I not totally agree with what is said here, it makes for a good argument that classical liberal is based on a natural law tradition, and not utilitarianism. Intangible 00:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

No arguments here. However, I still think Mill ought to be cited because he is the transitionary figure, not necessarily that he's a Classical Liberal (he was when he was young), but that ideologically, he marks the end of Classical Liberalism and the beginning of economic liberalism vs. social liberalism. Robocracy 14:54, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you will find many social liberals who object to calling pre-Mill liberals "classical". The issue is whether this term can be appropriately applied to the Austrian School, the libertarians, etc. - Jmabel | Talk 01:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

1. i don't see why not, they are certainly closer than anything today. 2. This does not even make up a large segment of the article, why worry so much? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.15.112.129 (talk • contribs) 6 November 2006.

1. Again, this is not about one Wikipedian's opinion or another, this is about citing the range of how scholars actually use these terms.
2. So if some Islamist put a (nicely small) segment in an article saying that Al Qaeda are truly doing the will of God, that wouldn't bother you because it wouldn't make up a large segment of the article? The issue isn't whether the material makes up a large or small portion of an article; the issue is whether matters on which there is a difference of opinion are expressed as fact in Wikipedia's narrative voice. - Jmabel | Talk 02:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

If you are attempting to relate this to our article here your proper story would go like this " So if some Islamist put a (nicely small segment in an article saying that Al Queda believes they are truly doing the will of god" and provides a source, then NO, there would be no problem, because this is what Al Queda believes. Just as this article, in the small segment has provided quotes and sources that suggest libertarians are classical liberals (or most closely aligned to them), or that modern liberals deviated from classical liberalism then stole the term. Everything is presented as it should be. Your complaint is not legit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.15.112.129 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Classical Liberalism, Libertarianism, and the Quality of the Article

In the interest of preserving the scholastic quality of this article, I move that we attempt to preserve the distinction between liberalism and libertarianism. Some posters appear to be using this wiki as a springboard for their political ideologies by conflating the two theories of government and promoting libertarianism as the school of the original liberals. It's fairly clear that the early liberals (e.g. Locke, Kant, Rousseau) believed that the role of government is to secure liberty. Libertarians appear to equate this with the idea that the smallest government is the best one. These doctrines do not entail one another, nor is either necessary for the other.

Here are some suggestions for making this a good article, which, I hope, is the primary interest of all posters:

--Clean up the definition/introduction of Classical Liberalism(CL). I suggest Locke's The Two Treatises of Government (1689) as a primary source. --Put CL in proper historical context. Locke, in the above mentioned article, criticizes the divine rights of kings put forth by Sir Robert Filmer in Patriarcha. --The revived economic liberalism of Hayek and Friedman is out of place here, as is any "liberalism", including contemporary libertarianism, that seeks to trace its roots to CL with the hope of securing its legitimacy.

In general, more discussion of Locke and the historical context of his political philosophy is the right direction for this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shawn Fitzgibbons (talk • contribs)

Actually, Kant did say that the smallest government was the best government. Check in Perpetual Peace, I believe its the 1957 translation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.15.112.129 (talk • contribs)

>If accurate, non sequitur, although I highly doubt that Kant said that the smallest government is the best, simpliciter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shawn Fitzgibbons (talk • contribs)

If classical liberals, Kant being one of them, said, limited government is best for defending liberty (each with different ways of telling us this), and libertarians say the same, you think that does not make them classical liberals? Or at least so closely related making the claim is not a big jump? According to the libertarians they use the term because liberalism had changed so dramatically (this is documented here), otherwise they would have used the term. Schumpeter, Hayek, and Friedman continued to call themselves liberals and they existed before, during, and after this transition. Friedman today still calls himself a liberal (and welfare liberals, socialists).

I also disagree with you that you believe securing liberty and small government are two separate issues. I believe they are one in the same as did the classical liberals and today's libertarians. Small limited government secures liberty. Large intrusive government, as libertarians argue, destroy liberty and make people ends rather than ends in and of themselves (i.e. servants of the state). The fact that classical liberals did not make this argument overt is only because there was no welfare state at the time, thus no reason to make the counterpoint or distinction between protecting negative freedoms rather than protecting positive freedoms (which libertarians argue destroys real freedom). To say they are distinct issues is to already promote the idea that you believe in positive freedom as the means of securing liberty. At least that is what can be logically derived (but not even that is necessary, you state "These doctrines do not entail one another, nor is either necessary for the other." This simply is not true. I don't believe you can ever make the argument that classical liberals believed a welfare state could secure liberty by providing positive freedoms. To them, I would say, this was just a new face for an old game. At the very least, classical liberals make no mention of positive freedoms being necessary to secure liberty. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.15.112.129 (talk • contribs)

>Here's where you go wrong, you interject libertarian beliefs into the content of an article that is on classical liberalism--you have to first show that CL and libertarianism are identical before you can justly edit the article based on these ideals. There are several thinkers of the period who did not advocate any particular form of government, let alone make the claim that the smallest government is the best one. Your comment about why liberals of the time did not make this argument is highly speculative. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shawn Fitzgibbons (talk • contribs)

>There is already an article on libertarianism. If CL and libertarianism are the same view, then we wouldn't need two separate articles. But, given the nature of the controversy, we do need two separate articles, hence, they are not the same view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shawn Fitzgibbons (talk • contribs)

<-PS SFG, that is bad logic.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.15.112.129 (talk • contribs)

>It's in the form of modus tollens, which makes it a valid argument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shawn Fitzgibbons (talk • contribs)

I disagree, you are asserting that if something is the same (or in this case considered the same) then there is no need for two seperate articles. You are saying this is true, without it necessarily being true. It is not true because these are two valid terms that mean one thing for some and two seperate things for other. The libertarian article, I believe, does mention that libertarians also think they are classical liberal. As does a small section in this article. I do believe you used bad logic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.120.4.1 (talk • contribs)

>Modus tollens is a valid form of reasoning--the only reason why you think it is "bad logic" appears to be that you disagree with its conclusion. That doesn't make the argument invalid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shawn Fitzgibbons (talk • contribs)

What you are saying is this. CL and L are not combined. Articles that are similar are combined. Therefore CL and L are not similar. This is ONLY true if 1) Articles that are similar are ALWAYS combined. This was true for lassize-faire liberalism, classical liberals, and market liberalism. They were all combined with classical liberalism. But, it is also only true if 2) CL and L are NOT similar which is your conclusion. Clearly libertarianism was created in the 1960s. This is noted in the libertarian article. In the classical liberalism article we note the early liberal scholars, this is the primary focus of the article. The libertarian article also mentions them. So far we have differences and similarities. We also note in the Classical Liberalism and Liberalism article (no one is arguing they should be merged, in fact this was created because people on the liberalism page kept deleting refrences to liberalism implying free markets and limited government) notes that there was a change in the meaning of liberalism, specifically in the United States and to a lesser degree in Europe (todays liberals accept a lot more government intervention in the economy than earlier liberals, for sure. Now we have this split occurring from JSM to FDR (in US, perhaps Churchill in England who was a bit of a waffler on liberalism and toryism anyway). Yet to say that no one "held fast" to early liberal ideas is nonsense and untrue. Here way have Schumpeter, Hayek, Friedman, your early Mont Pelerin Society if you will...the good eggs as they called themselves. The people who did not sit back and re-invent liberalism to sell it to the voting populous. We now have 2 claims which, depending on where you sit can be one meaning or two. These two claims are this. 1) Classical liberalism existed from Locke to Mill. Mill helped developed modern liberalism which evolved from classical liberalism, but this ends the period of classical liberalism. The other interpretation suggests that classical liberalism never ends, that there is only one liberalism, and they continue to this day. Late Mill et al. represent a perversion of classical liberalism, for good or bad, but are not true liberals. True liberals had to rename themselves to avoid confusion with the public who now had a corrupt understanding of the word liberal. Much in the same way we all have a corrupt understanding of the word democracy. Your argument is not valid, nor is it correct. Your premise is not correct, nor is your conclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.15.112.129 (talk • contribs)

>You don't appear to understand the argument, so I'll be nice and spell it out for you

1. If CL and L are the same view, then we don't need two separate articles.
2. We do need two separate articles.
3. Therefore, CL and L are not the same view. (3 follows from 1&2 by MT)

The rationale for 1 is that if we have one topic with two names for the same topic, we don't need two pages for the same topic with different names attached to them. That would both be a waste of space and nonsensical, since the same view entails the same content, and identical content entails the same article. Stylistic differences are irrelevant here.

The rationale for 2 is that there is obvious disagreement about whether 'libertarianism' and 'classical liberalism' are synonymous. Such disagreement demands separate articles--to make them one article would be simply to give one side of the debate all the points for nothing. I daresay that the onus is on the pro-side here, and I have seen little to nothing in the way of an argument that they are the same view, and at least two professors of history (cited in the article and on the talk page) who claim that they are not. It's only fair to have two articles, and thus we need two articles until it is at least shown, with a great deal of scholarly work, that libertarianism and classical liberalism are identical doctrines.

The conclusion follows from the premises by modus tollens which makes this a valid argument.

Now, if you want to show that the argument is unsound, you need to "pick a line". That is, pick one of the premises and tell the rest of us why it is false.Shawn Fitzgibbons 10:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

This is an old and tired argument…see Slizor. There is no need for two separate articles. There is no interjection of libertarian belief into the content of the article. In fact any reference to libertarianism is cited as such. References to them being identical is also cited as such. The article does show the similarities between classical liberalism and libertarianism, it is also cited. Your claim that limited government and the provision of liberty are separate issues is highly speculative...and yet to be demonstrated. You will not find a classical liberal arguing for an expansion of government power, they almost always viewed government power as something to be watched, divided, and limited. They also spoke of freedoms in the negative sense, thus protecting liberty was allowing people to act free absent from coercion of others and the state. Not positive freedoms, thus the expansion of government roles to provide for all sorts of goods the market can provide. Some, such as Adam Smith make recommendations that the government can provide public goods when externalities arise in the market distribution of those goods, but NEVER the elimination of the markets ability to provide those goods (as advocates of large government and positive freedom maintain). Please make a case now.

Nevertheless, today's libertarians do believe smaller government protects liberty while big government destroys it. I still do not how or why there is such confusion the article clearly states the facts and makes the distinctions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.15.112.129 (talk • contribs)

>It's highly inappropriate to put "libertarianism" in the first heading of the article given the controversial nature of the claim that classical liberalism and libertariansm are synonymous.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Shawn Fitzgibbons (talk • contribs)

It appears to be cited that certain people and groups use the term interchangeably. The only conflict seems to be with modern welfare liberals who want the term for themselves, naturally. Disagreement is noted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.15.112.129 (talk • contribs)

>It's not enough say at the beginning of the article that 'classical liberalism' and 'libertarianism' mean the same thing (per use theory), and then, at the bottom of the article mention that it is a controversial claim. Controversial claims do not belong at the beginning of an article. Shawn Fitzgibbons 17:37, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Where does it say it is a controversial claim? The only reason I could think of for someone to call oneself classical liberal instead of libertarian is that classical liberalism seems to be more conservative, and not stressing the hedonism that is sometimes part of libertarianism. Intangible 17:45, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Saying that "libertarianism" and "classical liberalism" are terms that are sometimes used as synonyms isn't a controversial claim at all. All Male Action 18:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

It is only controversial to big government welfare liberal propagandists, for example New Deal supporters who waged war for the term in the 1930s. The article only claims the term is controversial for the benefit of these complainers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.15.112.129 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Locke and the tyranny of the majority.

There is this bit in the Locke section:

To Locke, property was a more compelling natural right than the right to participate in collective decision-making: he would not endorse direct democracy in government, as he feared that the "tyranny of the majority" would seek to deny people their rights to property.

This needs to be referenced. It also appears to be contradictory to the following from Locke's Two Treatises

And thus that, which begins and actually constitutes any political society, is nothing, but the consent of any number of freemen capable of a majority, to unite and incorporate into such a society. And this is that, and that only, which did, or could give beginning to any lawful government in the world. p386

It might be that the author is confusing Locke with Mill. Shawn Fitzgibbons 00:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The second quote is not necessarily an endorcement of direct democracy, in fact, I don't believe it is at all. Therefor it may not actually be a contradiction. I do not know who the author was of the Locke section however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.120.4.1 (talk • contribs)

>Regardless, Locke doesn't reject direct democracy--I was trying to be polite. In fact, in Two Treatises, Locke lists several forms of government in para 132 that are legitimized by majority consent, one of them "perfect democracy". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shawn Fitzgibbons (talk • contribs)

Actually direct democracy would be counter to Locke's arguments. In a sense, Locke's governments are all majority rule, because if they were not, these governments could not have come into being at all. Intangible 23:20, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The claim that Locke would have opposed direct democracy may be true or false, but the claim that his arguments run contrary to direct democracy is at best a fanciful interpretation of Two Treatises. Without a citation, it should be removed for being original research. I'd argue that even with a citation it should not be included, because scholars frequently put forth their own fanciful interpretations that are disputed by others. What Locke would've thought about direct democracy is one of them. Why not discuss Locke's views on gay marriage? Because it is a minute scholarly issue, there's no scholarly consensus (as Locke's writings are few, difficult to read, and not totally sincere), and so it certainly isn't relevant to include in an article on classical liberalism. This article will be vastly improved as soon as people start editing the article to describe Classical Liberalism, rather than to compare and contrast it with Libertarianism. Robocracy 00:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

The comparing and contrasting to libertarianism is such a small segment of this article. I find it so fascinating that some want to destroy this little piece of factual information. It is true there are a great deal of similarities between the two. It is also true that libertarians call themselves liberals or classical liberals. It deserves mentioning. It gets it, and so does the criticism of this view. But the main point of the article is the classical-classical liberals. Everyone needs to stop getting hung up on this little point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.15.112.129 (talk • contribs)

After re-reading the paragraph on classical liberalism and libertarianism I realize the part claiming libertarians may be classical liberals is 1 freaking paragraph + one sentence at the top. WHAT THE HECK! You people are complaining about NOTHING! There is more in the article claiming that the two are different than the same. Give it a rest already.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.15.112.129 (talk • contribs)

Ok there are 2 paragraphs. My bad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.15.112.129 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Could you please stop editing others' comments?

Could the users who like to edit in their comments into other users' comments please stop? It's bad wikiquette and it's damn near impossible to read because it's a conversation where we have NO IDEA where one person starts talking and another person begins. Please, make your comments beneath others' comments and sign your comments. Thank you. I am going to move some of the comments on this page for better readability (nothing will be removed or edited, but just properly formatted). Robocracy 00:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wealth of Nations and Laissez-Faire economies

Everyone knows Adam Smith advocated a laissez-faire economy and believed that an invisible hand would regulate the economy. Little is known that Adam Smith also recognized that monopolies would form, companies would try to collude and coerce, and externalities would arise. The generalized concept of Adam Smith's hands off economy is that there should be NO REGULATION what so ever. But Smith never actually says this. The believes that there are legitimate actions that governments should take to avoid externalities, prevent collusion and coercion etc. In fact, it is safe to say that Smith is a better and harsher critic of capitalism than Marx. Nevertheless he believes it works quite well without much intrusion from the government. The invisible hand laissez-faire economy requires no direction, no wage and price controls, no barriers to trade, no subsidies, or any protections.

The following quote which I removed is based off the incorrect interpretation of Adam Smith's laissez-fair but with an understanding that Smith recognized there could be problems in the market.

Adam Smith, one of the most famous classical liberals, however, was not an advocate of pure capitalism: "Adam Smith should be seen as a moderate free enterpriser who appreciated markets but made many, many exceptions. He allowed government all over the place."^[1]

Adam Smith was certainly no moderate, not then and not today. His acceptable levels of regulation in the hands off economy is far less than members of the left, or moderates, would be willing to accept. I believe these concepts should be cleared up and addressed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.15.112.129 (talk • contribs)

Walter Block's opinion of Adam Smith is particularly of note, because he is a well-respected Libertarian attacking Adam Smith. Walter Block's assertion is sourced. Your claim right now isn't. And even if there were a source, we should still include both points-of-view, rather than removing a scholarly observation solely because you, personally, disagree with it. See WP:OR. Also, please don't make substantial changes to the article without first seeking a consensus in the talk page over disputed edits. Robocracy 01:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

>The reason why I added the quote was because the original paragraph cited nothing but secondary sources, yet when I required primary sources for its justification, was told that secondary sources are prefered. Of course, any reputable historian will tell you that idea is ridiculous, and the fact that one cannot find primary sources to support one's claim is telling about its speciousness. Nevertheless, rather than trying to fight that battle, I cited a quote making an important exception using a secondary source. The quote is, therefore, legitimate. Shawn Fitzgibbons 03:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The quote is legit as a criticism of Adam Smith, not of classical liberalism. The quote is also misleading if not appropriately put into context. Adam Smith believed in a hands off free market economy. Allowing "government all over the place" is a baseless opinion. All over the place is a major exaggeration that distorts the idea of a free market laissez-faire economy Adam Smith talked about...but at least it notes that a laissez-faire economy has exceptions to correct externalities. This needs to be noted. We don't need out of context blanket statements to confuse readers.

We are not here to discuss your opinion of the content of the article.Shawn Fitzgibbons 20:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

We are not, we are discussing the context of this quote, I question your usage of it. The quote is probably intended in one of two ways. 1) To address critics of laissez-faire capitalism to inform them that they are mistaken on their own definition of the term and to inform them that laissez-faire allows for government regulation to correct externalities. Or 2) He is critical of laissez-faire capitalism, as described by Smith, believing that externalities are correctable without government (even given the low level of technology in the 18th century...this would be a position of a unrealistic hard core anarcho capitalist...I've never met one). I then think that you are attempting to use the quote in another fashion, to misguide readers into believing that Smith and classical liberals were did not desire or approve of laissez-faire economic systems, again being based on a poor understanding of that term. Even if I am mistaken on your intentions, I think the quote might be out of context.

The purpose of the quote is to show that not all classical liberals advocated pure capitalism. According to the professor who is cited, Adam Smith was a moderate when it came to the free-market. Readers are mislead when we make false generalizations, which was apparently a problem with the original paragraph. Nevertheless, I can see how the wording might be inflammatory to more libertarian viewpoints, so I have revised the expression of the content.Shawn Fitzgibbons 22:13, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

That WAS "PURE" Capitalism. Readers are mislead by left of center advocates of state control who paint a straw man of what free market laissez faire capitalism is. Adam Smith's real premise is that people act in their own self interest, this sometimes creates externalities, corporations attempt to collude, etc, etc. Government, or for anarcho capitalists, some authority, corrects these externalities through incentives and punishment under the rule of law. I know not one anarcho-capitalist in the world who believes that capitalism without any incentives or punishment would result in perfect harmony.

We are not here to discuss your opinion of the content of the article.

And we are not here to bring you up to date on what classical liberalism is and what defines capitalism.

[edit] Quoting "classical liberals" or referencing their ideas is original research unless a source says those particular ideas are part of "classical liberalism"

I'd like to point out that that "classical liberalism" is not the summation of every individual's ideas that was called a "liberal." It is original research for us to point out positions of any particular "classical liberal" and assert that those ideas are part of classical liberalism. Different liberals had some positions that contradicted each other. Some ideas of some "classical liberals" may not be consistent with "classical liberalism." What "classical liberalism" is must be left to scholars, and we have to reference those scholars. We have to rely on sources that specifically refer to "classical liberalism." The whole "Classical liberals" section should probably be removed. Maybe they could be moved to an article called Classical liberals. Economizer 02:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

>This is an interesting distinction you bring-up, but it's hard to tell what implications it has for this article. Should anyone who lays claim to the term 'classical liberal' be granted authority to say what a classical liberal is, or should we refer to thinkers of a certain era, or should we first define what classical liberalism is and then seek to draw non-trivial claims from classical liberalism? There are historical, political, and philosophical lines that cross each other here, making it difficult to give any particular group rights to it.Shawn Fitzgibbons 03:33, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it might indeed be best to remove the list of "classical liberals" in this article. I believe such a list is also present at Contributions to liberal theory. One can just put a see also note to that article. I'm more concerned with the concept of classical liberalism. The problem is that the concept seems to be generic, an ideal type, in some cases. Intangible 10:12, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I partly agree. Unfortunately, there is dispute over which doctrines are central to the concept of classical liberalism. In my opinion, the best way to resolve those disputes is to refer to primary sources of classical liberals from Locke to Mill. If we rely only on secondary sources, we are one step removed from the original ideas, and run the danger of promoting revisionism. There is simply too much politicizing going on to rely on secondary sources.Shawn Fitzgibbons 13:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you aware that there is a policy against "original research" on Wikipedia? If you take things that an old liberal said and present it as if it has anything to do with "classical liberalism," then you need a source saying that what is said is representative of "classical liberalism." We as Wikipedia editors are not free to make such a determination. That's a crucial rule in Wikipedia editing. Everything has to be sourced. Economizer 14:03, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to demonstrate that you are not doing original research is to cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and to adhere to what those sources say. So, which sources are unreliable or indirectly related? Nothing written by a classical liberal or about what he said would be (indirectly related). There's nothing in the original research clause that stipulates that citing a document by a figure taken as representative of any genre, field, school, etc. is original research.Shawn Fitzgibbons 17:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

This is an interesting point and I agree with removing the list of classical liberals, solely because every source I've found so far provides a different list of "classical liberals." There's generally less disagreement over what constitutes "liberals," with Rousseau and Hobbes being the only two contentious figures. As I mentioned above, the scholars for Stanford mentioned that Rousseau and Hobbes haven't been considered liberals until recently. However, I disagree with Shawn: As someone else remarked, what constitutes a classical liberal is subject to dispute. Interpretating primary sources would be original research. Even if we could cite words from texts written by so-called classical liberals, we could take them out-of-context, miss other relevant primary resources, and just simply using primary resources doesn't guarantee a better article. An article based upon good secondary sources will still be better than an article based upon bad primary sources. Though I understand why you'd want to seek primary resources with the abundant of biased sources currently cited (the CATO Institute, Hayek, Friedman, Tocqueville, and Block, to name a few off-hand). Robocracy 08:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Biased as apposed to what, left of center democrat voting academics from wherever? Come on. Don't throw the bias word around, everyones got it. Cut the crap. The article is good.

If we remove the list based on your reasoning that would mean we couldn't allow mention of any person considered classical liberal--that doesn't seem likely to happen. On sources: there is a difference between interpreting a primary source and using a primary source as evidence. If you have a general claim (e.g. all classical liberals believed in "that which governs least governs best"), and you have a primary source by a classical liberal (i.e. a member of the category of people that supposedly hold the above) that appears to violate the doctrine, you then have evidence that some classical liberals hold the contrary. As long as the source is cited, preferrably directly so that people can read it, then people can determine/discuss whether it is original research. That's basically what the original research clause says. But if the powers that be come right out and say citing primary sources in an article is original research, then by all means we should remove them all. Until that time, however, I will feel free to use them. But if we have further disputes over whether primary sources are allowed, we should perhaps seek moderation at a higher level to make that decision for us. On who is a classical liberal: it's uncontroversial that Locke and Smith belong to the category of classical liberals.Shawn Fitzgibbons 13:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem, though, is that there are so many primary sources for Classical Liberalism that selective usage of primary sources could still yield articles with different POV. I.E., writers could highlight Mill, Hobbes, Rousseau, and the Socialist tendencies of other classical liberal figures. Or, on the other hand, someone else could do the exact opposite and ignore Mill, Rousseau, and the non-laissez-faire beliefs of various classical liberals. If we sat here and went through every primary source imaginable, then yes, we could all work together to write a thesis which accurately represents classical liberalism. But we're writing an article. Because this is such a short article about such a broad subject, it's going to involve broad generalizations. In order to get the most 'correct' generalizations (or at the very least, generalizations which all parties find most agreeable) it's best that we stick with reliable, neutral, and mainstream secondary sources. Robocracy 15:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

What defines primary then? Is Joseph Schumpeter or FA Hayek not primary themselves? Oh right, again it depends on your definition of classical liberalism. SF, your rework isnt going to work. PS, my changes so far have been great, inclusive, and most logical. Your reverts have not been conducive to improving this article.

[edit] changes

I put in blockquotes to make it look better instead of the double (:) in some places. I also moved the criticism of classical liberalism as neo liberalism to the section on classical liberalism and neo liberalism. That CERTAINLY makes MORE sense. I also deleted a redundant statement on Arthur’s belief that modern liberals became more pragmatic, that is already in the quote. Its untrue, but its in the quote, so I will leave it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.15.112.129 (talk)

Your changes have been reverted. You need to discuss them and reach a consensus before editing content, specifically.Shawn Fitzgibbons 20:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

How bout you discuss the MINOR changes I made and logical changes I made before you make a revert. You're the ONLY one complaining.

Hey wow look at this, here is the section that discusses the changes. And see Shawn reverting the changes without discussion. YOU DONT NEED TO HAVE CONSENSUS before editing content. Especially if the changes are things like block quotes. IF that was the case then WE'D GET NO PLACE!

The term 'classical liberalism' may today often refer to the liberalism of the Jeffersonian phase, but many classical liberals do not state the necessity of the doctrine that the smallest government is the best one, and it is difficult to extract it from the rejection of feudalism in favor of representative government.

The above quote needs to go. It is unsourced, pov, and original research. I think everyone would agree on this one. The Schlesinger Jr. quote should also be moved, it does not fit in the front. In fact loading it the front appears to be someone pushing a POV, especially with the redundant, if not incorrect claim of "pragmatic" not methodological. If its not removed, and the quote not moved where it is more appropriate, such as the section discussing the change of the term liberalism, then I will put up a quote that demonstrates that the change of the term liberalism during the industrial revolution had everything to do with ideology and nothing to do with pragmatic concerns. I have them.

Just make sure your quote comes from a peer-reviewed source and I won't have a problem with it.Shawn Fitzgibbons 17:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A General Guideline for Editing--a Proposal

Since I'm not an arbitrator or a moderator of any sort I can't demand that any of these guidelines be followed, but I think they make sense and would appreciate any concerns or comments you might have.

When adding content, be sure it is referenced to sources respectable by all concerned. When deleting content someone else has contributed, be sure you have reached a consensus on this page before doing so. Otherwise, if someone merely deletes or hacks something I have added, I'm tempted to revert the article or re-add the content, whichever is easier. If you wan't to revise the article for style, that is generally acceptable without any discussion. If you wan't to make umpteen changes to the article in one sitting, you should make sure that whatever content you are editing is by consensus, otherwise, all your work might be undone by a reversion. When discussing issues on this page, do not state your opinions about the content of the article, that is, do not say things like 'Everyone knows blah blah blah' or 'Only communists think that' or anything else that isn't backed up by respected sources. We aren't experts on classical liberalism, we are merely improving an article in the interest of making it an informative, well-written read for people interested in classical liberalism.Shawn Fitzgibbons 20:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Shawn, most of us have been relatively civil and this has been a fairly constructive discussion. In response to the edit-warring, I've requested that the article be semi-protected. For now, all that needs to be done, I think, is for somebody to go to the library, dig out the Encyclopedia or Almanac of Liberalism and dig up more resources on the subject. Robocracy 11:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Several encyclopedia-like sources should be sufficient. How do we contribute to the article if it's locked?

Good question. I requested that it be semi-protected, but the admin thought it was a good idea to just fully-protect it. If you want to have edits made, we need to look at the article as it is and make one suggestion at a time, then build a consensus. After we have a consensus on all of the issues, we can either make a request for significant edits to a protected page or make a request for unprotection. To keep a record of what edits we want to make, you and others could copy the article to your user-page(s) and we could make edits to it there. Once we have a version which we all agree with, we just make one of the requests mentioned. Robocracy 03:53, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Block

http://www.jeetheer.com/politics/smith.htm The block quote is from here. As you can see the article starts out with an interpretation of a "conservative" interpretation of Adam Smith. This builds a straw man that the lef itself holds, not the right, and that is of completely deregulated with no government interference to correct externalities. FA Hayek, NEVER noted that Smith said there could be NO government intervention, neither did Friedman, who was certainly more familiar with the conservative Reagan and Thatcher governments. In fact, Friedman has been quoted as saying that Smith is a greater critic of capitalism than Marx, nevertheless, Friedman asserts that Smith believed capitalism and free markets would work. Smith was no moral believer in human rationality, as this article asserts, he was as cynical as Hayek. In fact, the reasons he criticizes capitalism is precisely because of human failings. Human self interest, will at times, drive us to do bad things to other humans, especially if we can get the backing of government to do it. But with the right incentives, such as the protection of private property, the rule of law, and competition, self interest benefits humans positively. Human self interest, greed, or as Smith called it self love, would be positive.

This article gets it wrong in so many ways. I doubt a libertarian would be making the same mistake, he was probably misquoted. Mostly likely this libertarian was attempting to educate the interviewer that laissez faire does not, nor did it ever mean, complete anarchy.

PS, ironically, this article makes supposed left wing claims of Smith that are consistent with other classical free market liberals such as Cobden, Schumpeter