Carrie Underwood and Talk:Liberalism: Difference between pages
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
Rick Norwood (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 1:
Contributions before 1 july 2005 can be found at [[talk:liberalism/archive]].
Those between 1 july and october 3 can be found at [[Talk:liberalism/archive2]].
== Neutrality and accuracy disputed (NPOV) ==
I dispute the neutrality and factual accuracy of this article. Although some improvements have been made to what was originally a propaganda piece, there is still a long way to go. The problem does not lie with the non-standard use of the term ‘liberal’ in the United States. In most of the world, liberalism is classified with the political right. Most of those who contributed to the article seem to understand that - but you would not guess that from the text.
1. The article gives almost no recognition to liberalism as the foundational ideology of western society. Coverage of the conflict between liberal western society, and its Islamist opponents, can not be understood without explaining this.
2. The article presents liberalism as a list of unqualified benefits. If liberalism meant only that you get rights, liberties, and dignity, then why is it so controversial? The benefits must be qualified, and it must be explained that they are not the whole truth about liberalism.
3. Some liberal values, such as freedom of expression, are presented as absolute truths rather than as contested political and ethical demands. Others can, and do, absolutely reject freedom of expression, and indeed the whole liberal idea of freedom: submission to God is central to Islam.
4. In practice the European Liberal parties consistently support restrictions on freedom of expression, and liberalism’s general claim to support it should be qualified with this fact. The article is extremely biased in omitting the historical reality, that these parties were among the strongest supporters of restrictions on civil and political rights during the Cold War. They still are, but now their anger is directed against Islamists.
5. The article omits the political reality in the European Union, which is that the Liberal parties are among the strongest opponents of immigration, and support severe restrictions on freedom to travel, and detention without trial of undocumented immigrants. Liberal claims to promote freedom should be qualified to this extent. Liberal claims to promote human dignity should be qualified by these parties support for a hard-line against immigrants at the external borders of the EU, and the treatment of illegal immigrants there. The razor-wire fences around [[Ceuta]] and [[Melilla]], where several Africans have died in the last few weeks, were put there at the urging of Liberals in the European Parliament.
6. The article does not acknowledge the existence of Enlightenment liberalism, which does not set out to provide a framework for debate, but rather states certain Enlightenment values as absolute truths, in opposition to superstition and unreason. [[Ayaan Hirsi Ali]] and her deliberately provocative crusade against Islam give an excellent illustration of the conflict arising from this attitude, which is an important element in liberal thought. (U.S. readers can compare it to [[Objectivism]]).
7. The article omits the general principle that liberal freedoms do not apply to liberalism itself - i.e. liberals do not generally recognise the right to choose a non-liberal society, and often reject their existence. In this liberalism is no different from other universal ideologies - but the article tries to suggest it is.
8. Specifically, liberalism has theoretically, and in political practice, opposed the right to choose a non-market economy. That has a recent political expression in the attempt to make the free market economy compulsory in Europe, through the (now rejected) European Constitution. This principle has had enormous political and social consequences, and should be included in the article.
9. The article omits the cost in human life attributable to liberal principles, starting with the deaths during the [[Irish Famine]] directly attributable to the laissez-faire policies of the British government.
10. The article omits a reference to negative aspects of liberal societies, which are related to the ideology - notably the inequalities of wealth, income, health, and life expectancy. Poverty existed before liberalism, but it was not until liberalism that a major ideology advocated abandoning the poor.
11. The article omits the political reality that the European Liberal parties are the strongest opponents of environmental regulation in the European Union, and can be described as ‘’de facto’’ pro-pollution parties.
Please do not make this list unreadable by inserting comments in the middle: place them separately below.[[User:Ruzmanci|Ruzmanci]]
=== Shimgray's reply ===
:I've got two simple, short comments.
:Firstly, you're hopping between current and past liberalism interchangeably - try and make it clear which parts are which, as I think we can both agree "indirectly starving Ireland" is not a policy of any current UKian party! (Well, maybe the BNP...)
:Secondly... ''what liberals are these''? See, I am a European, I cast my vote for a liberal party to go to Brussels and represent me. I like to think that I know who I'm voting for. I... simply don't recognise them in your above comments, which read as a laundry list of assertions. I don't particularly recognise your points looking at the overall liberal groupings there. Am I just missing a ''lot'' here? I suspect there is a simpler explanation... [[User:Shimgray|Shimgray]] | [[User talk:Shimgray|talk]] | 13:27, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
=== Norwood's take ===
::To take the points one at a time,
::1. The article mentions that liberalism is the foundation of western democracy.
::2. Certainly, Christian and Islamic fundamentalists, communists, and fascists do not consider liberalism an unqualified benefit.
::3. To say that liberalism favors freedom of expression is not to say that freedom of expression is good. As you point out, many religious people believe that freedom of expression is bad. There was a letter in my Sunday paper this morning claiming that, "Freedom of speech does not include freedom to blaspheme against God".
::4. The article mentions that liberalism is opposed to communism, and therefore on the right rather than the left. It is usually opponents of liberalism who characterize liberals as lefties. Also, much of the article was written by Europeans.
::5. There is a current crisis in European liberalism, and that should be dealt with extensively in the article on European liberalism. 6. The article mentions the roots of liberalism in the Enlightenment.
::7. The article makes no claims that non-liberals do not enjoy all of the rights that liberalism advocates. In fact, a great deal of the backlash against liberalism comes from the idea that liberals are 'soft' on the 'so-called' rights of 'criminals', 'terrorists', 'atheists', and other 'undesirables'.
::8. The requirement for a market driven economy is NOT built into the constitutions of most liberal democracies. Almost all liberal democracies -- all that I know of -- are a mixed economy, part free market, part socialism.
::9. I've heard liberalism blamed for a lot of things, but never before for the potato blight!
::10. This viewpoint is particularly strange, since I have never heard any liberal say anything in favor of abandoning the poor, though I suppose a person on the extreme libertarian fringe of liberalism would say so. The article discusses libertarianism, and not in exclusively positive terms.
::11. If, in fact, European liberal parties are in favor of continuing to turn the Mediterranean sea into Europe's toilet bowl, then this should be discussed in the European liberalism article. [[User:Rick Norwood|Rick Norwood]] 15:05, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
===
::I wouldn't say that the liberal democracies are a mixed ecomomy, part free market, part socialism, but replace socialism by social democracy. For the rest I agree with Rick Norwood and with Shimgray. Furthermore, liberalism remains a pluriform ideology. The discussions at the last ELDR congress (sorry, but I was there, don't blaim me) made it clear that many liberals are not anti-immigration. What does abandonding the poor mean, abandoning poverty? Many liberals are convinced that a liberal economy is better in fighting poverty then socialism was. One can discuss that, but you cannot say that liberals favour poverty. The liberals took part in the European Constitution project, as did many chirstian democrats, social democrats and greens. So do not blaim liberalism for the European Constitution. Liberals accept, encourage others to take part in the political debate. It is not a major force in most countries, but most of the time the third force. Liberals do not like a non-market economy, and would oppose a move in that direction, but they would not opposed the right to choose a non-market economy. If the majority of the people elect a government that does want a non-market economy, then it will happen. Liberals will oppose it, but as democrats will accept that. That is the democratic process. etc. etc. etc. Some of us made clear what there political background is. May be more should do that. [[User:Wilfried Derksen|Electionworld]] 15:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
=== Lucidish's opine ===
: The grounds upon which this has been disputed have been dealt with numerous times. Moreover, the observation that they have been treated numerous times has been stated numerous times. I entreat the interested reader to examine the responses already made on this page. Rehashing them again would be pointless. [[User:Lucidish|Lucidish]] 17:45, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
: Another thing: upon closer inspection, many of these claims are in want of substantiation. Cite your claims with respect to the text if you want to be taken seriously. [[User:Lucidish|Lucidish]] 20:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
=== Disputing the NPOV tag ===
The puropse of an NPOV notice is to state the issues in dispute. Others may comment, but there is no point in adding a dispute about the dispute. The NPOV issues cover both historical liberalism, and present liberalism as evidenced by the Liberal parties in Europe.[[User:Ruzmanci|Ruzmanci]] 11:03, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
: Nobody cares that the tag is there. If there's a dispute, there's a dispute. The fact of the matter is that it's a dispute over nothing.
: Disagree? Defend your arguments, don't repeat them. [[User:Lucidish|Lucidish]] 00:26, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
=== Anonymous's take ===
Ruzmanci wrong -
1. Calculating a human toll because of liberalism is a ridiculous statement to make. First the Irish famine was not the fault of fairly free trade or "hands off government" in fact the deaths were the result of hands on government where Victoria ordered the grains of England off the market for Irish people. Second, England was not a true free market state. Third, if england was a true liberal state it would not have been running Ireland as a serfdom...which is certainly an ineffecient way of running an economy. One can hardly blame liberalism for such outcomes when the government was not behaving or functioning liberally. (Finally, It would be logically fallacious of me to point out the human cost of illiberal governments like communism and fascism...which stands over 200 million dead in the 20th century alone...I won't point that out though).
2. Imperialism is not the result of free market liberalism. It is the result of archaic mercantilist thinking. The world's wealth is not a zero sum game which is exactly what causes Imperialism.
3. Liberalism does treat certain features as absolutes, including many civil and political freedoms, specifically private property. Liberalism stands directly opposed to moral relativists. Liberals believe these absolutes to be available for anyone and everyone not just western society.
4. Liberalism is not a "western" cultural aspect but rather something that can be achieved by any culture. To argue otherwise is to argue that all other cultures are inferior to the west, which is not true. The West achieved its great wealth and power through an increase in liberalism (economic freedom). But one, like Ramy, should not blame liberalism for too much government interference and abuse in the world.
5. Ramy displays a great deal of ignorance to assume that liberalism created a society uncaring toward the poor. In fact liberalism removed many from poverty. Liberalism itself did not create more poverty but only a more visible poor. During the so called time of hands off government and free markets private charities increased drastically, including hospitals, schools, money, food, clothing donations. The more liberal a society has gotten the more wealth is created, the less poverty is seen. The poor were not abandonned, stop making up facts.
6. Ramy sees the world through relative gains glasses: An economically fallacious way of viewing the world. Yes, liberalism produces inequality...a great deal of it. The problem is, it does not make people worse off. The poor may increase their wealth by 10% the rich may increase it by 200%...both have gotten better off! Ramy only finds it a problem because he believes the world's wealth to be a zero sum game...no credible person believes that today.
7. Liberalism is so controversial today because it argues that no or few government intervention is necessary to increase wealth, reduce poverty, and promote world peace. Its opponents are anti-liberal, and subsequently anti-democratic groups like Socialists, Communists, Fascists, Islamists who which to impose unfree and tyrannical governments on their people.
8. The more liberal (economically free) a country becomes the more civil and political freedoms it enjoys...they are more democratic. Again, opponents of liberalism are anti-democratic anti-liberty. That's not rhetoric that's empirical evidence. See the 2005 Index of Economic Freedom for starters. The Fraiser Institute also has its own index.
9. Ramy’s disapproval of the wiki page on liberalism is ideologically based not factually based and should be dismissed as the rantings of an angry “True believer” of big government.
10. Ramy stated "8. Specifically, liberalism has theoretically, and in political practice, opposed the right to choose a non-market economy. That has a recent political expression in the attempt to make the free market economy compulsory in Europe, through the (now rejected) European Constitution. This principle has had enormous political and social consequences, and should be included in the article." This so called "imposing" of free markets upon people is the result of fallacious reasoning which believes that free markets only work if everyone does them and no one behaves has a protectionist. In fact, if the United States droped all barriers to trade and unilaterally became a free trade state Americans would be better off. Nevertheless, the "Right to choose non market economies" means that states have the right to lie, cheat, steal, and exploit their own citizens. Non-market oriented economies have not worked and will never work. An understanding of the price system and the laws of supply and demand will help you understand that.
---------------------------
: Point 3. I don't know what you mean by "moral absolutes". I'm a liberal, and I see no reason to say there are any; and I suspect that my irritation with that term is not idiosyncratic in this day and age.
: I do believe there are rights, for example, and that these rights ought to be upheld in good faith by people without much care for issues of sovereignty. But does that mean I think they're "absolute"? It depends on what you mean by that. "Absolute" is an ambiguous term. I don't agree that there are unalienable rights, for instance, or that they are objectively true rights. Those are both "absolutes" in some sense. And I would agree that rights arise out of the real world, on the basis of particular contexts; and within some bounds, I think morality is up for debate; in both of those senses, I'd be a "relativist". So what's at issue really needs to be clarified here.
: Point 6. That's an incredibly flippant dismissal of relative wealth comparisons backed by plausible theories of value, i.e. the labor theory of value, which (though appropriated by Marx) originates from Locke (!). Perhaps you disagree with it; it is not clear, however, that all liberals would.
: Point 7. It is not correct to label "socialism" as anti-democratic. IE: democratic socialism. And I must confess a confusion when it comes to the word "Islamism". Is that now a word that denotes only radical preachers of Islam? Seems a bit inappropriate to me.
:[[User:Lucidish|Lucidish]] 22:26, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
-------------------------------
=Moral absolutes, like right to life, liberty, property. If you prefer call them amoral absolutes, but they are absolutes none the less. Any government denying such rights to their citizens are not truly sovereign or legitimate for civilized society. Yes that is an ideological statement but what other options do you have left but governments sovereign and legitimate through coercion? The less liberalism the more coercion required. That is not ideological but a fact.
Some moral relativists tend to assume that because there are so many diverse cultures that not all rights are wanted or needed by them. They tend to use this relativism to excuse policy preferences favored by them like elimination of property rights, or something quite "modern" governmental controls like forced retirement savings. Essentially relativists argue that democracy or liberalism is no good for their culture...which in the end actually implies they are incapable of achieving it. That being said, liberalism is not something that defines a culture, but something that can be achieved by any culture. Liberalism simply represents the highest form of freedom...and efficiency in the political-economic realm of governance. That’s not an ideological statement, there has yet to be anything that has promoted more civil and political freedoms, more wealth building, more prosperity, and more sustainability of peaceful government. Nothing to date.
- What exactly is the point of relative wealth comparisons? It's almost deceitful to even make such a comparison and its almost always made without clarifying that while someone may be poor or getting poor relative to someone else that they have actually gotten better off. Rarely is that stated. This is because they intentionally dismiss or ignore these points in pursuit of a socialist/Keynesian ideological explanation or argument for the world.
- I believe it is correct to label socialism anti-democratic in our loose non original meaning of the word. In its classic sense socialism is extremely democratic. After all democracy is only a tyranny of the majority...which socialism tends to be. Socialism requires the denial of rights and freedoms of many of society’s individuals in order to satisfy the collective wants of the majority...hardly democratic from our modern understanding. Then again, people use the word democracy and flip meanings as necessary...and whenever they are not in the majority. Example, slavery and segregation are very democratic in the classic understanding, except to those who are against slavery and segregation. Take those same people and assume they argue for wealth transfers from rich to poor, a majority taking advantage of a minority (Same as before) and they would argue they were behaving as perfect democrats.
- Islamists was a reference to radical fundamentalist Islam which is very un-democratic. To be fair, these Islamists have the same anti-liberal economic policy preferences as Pat Robertson. Unless I misread Ramy, Islamism was just copying a word he used. I prefer Islamist to describe their fundamentalists.
- Gibby aka Anonymous.
-----
- If you're just using the phrase "moral absolute" to mean rights which should be upheld regardless of context - that is, where an accountable person who violates the right is necessarily blameworthy - then I'd agree. But what I want to point out is that there's another sense of the phrase, where morality is a part of objective reality or somesuch, and I think that's largely nonsense.
I'm not sure whether or not liberalism can be said to be less coercive than, say, anarchism, since in that particular case people are talking about a utopia where domination (and the state) is eliminated entirely. But even barring that: there's a lot of coercion involved in liberalism, both in modern and classical sorts. The difference is that liberals will say that such instances of coercion (policeman shoots a robber, for example) are meant to protect liberty in some sense or other. Yet classical and modern liberals would argue with each other about who is protecting more liberty. So even if liberalism were less coercive than the alternatives, some strains of liberalism might be less coercive than others.
- The point about making relative wealth comparisons, presumably, is to achieve social justice. This is usually done by holding up the comparison between the actual profits of the two parties, to what they ideologically "ought" to get. Obviously there are many hypothetical ways of making that comparison. In the Marxist case, it involves the labor theory of value, which says "Since this product never would've been made without my labor, it is I the laborer who ought to receive the benefits". More libertarian folk would say "Well you laborers entered a contract and so the just amount is whatever you negotiated". More capitalistic types would say "Look, you laborers aren't necessary, I can get scab labor, it's only the means of production and entrepeneurial spirit that matters to making profits and both are mine."
What I first want to point out is that I sympathize with Marx in that it's true that no product could be made without the labor that goes into it. But I'd emphasize that it's really the consumer who creates the value of the item, upon which both capitalist and laborer are parasitic.
What I point out in the second place is that the groundwork for the labor theory of value can be found in Locke's second treatise on government (though he goes in an entirely different direction).
- I mean in the modern sense of democracy. I distrust democratic socialism, sure, and I think it will actually lead to absolute corruption, but it's wrong to attribute an anti-democratic stance to socialists on the whole.
- This is pure semantics now, of course, but I guess I feel better with "Islamic radicals" or something. But whatever. [[User:Lucidish|Lucidish]] 22:00, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
----------------------------------------------------------
- I think this notion of objective reality is a bunch of relativistic hooey, originally aimed to disrupt liberal thinking and now aimed toward religious (Christianity) in America to defend certain multicultural and socialist preferences of leftist persons. People may believe their certain set of morals is correct, like the morals of socialism. But I believe what one thinks and what is actually correct can be two separate things. I believe the right to liberty and property to be absolutes that the morals of socialism attempts to destroy and or distort. And as such they are morally wrong. Relativism only excuses their behavior.
Remember, moral relativism will ultimately (if you are logically consistant) lead you to defending Nazi concentration camps and their attempted extermination of the jews. No one wants to walk down that path, but that’s where the logic of moral relativism leads if you so choose to believe it. There are moral absolutes (and forget religion, perhaps you are hanging up on Christian or Islamic morals).
-As far as coercion is concerned in liberalism its very narrow and very limited. People are to be free from coercion from both the government and from other people. Essentially the government creates rule sets of fair play and competition, and protects members and punishes those who don’t play right. Example murder or thievery is punishable. Doing harm to others requires punishment to provide an incentive for not cheating the system. People are rational actors after all. If the costs associated with cheating are less than the gains people cheat…its as easy as that. But I don’t consider this to be real coercion when it comes to protecting the most basic rights to life liberty and property that is simply the basic and most natural function of government. JSM said it best:
The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant
- John Stuart Mill
- Looking at relative gains in the market is fallacious reasoning. It does lead to Marxist and socialist thinking because it makes people assume that correcting such inequalities are desirable…only because they assume the world has a fixed income or wealth. Which it does not. One cannot eliminate poverty by redistributing existing wealth, one can only eliminate poverty by creating new wealth. Markets are the only way to do that, and free markets are the best above all else.
-As you are well aware wealth transfers create major incentives toward certain behaviors and disincentives toward others. Rich to poor makes the rich less likely to work hard and innovate while making the poor less likely to create wealth for themselves.
-I believe the outcome of socialism to be so disastrous that it is totalitarian in nature. All those who may advocate a democratic means of achieving it will ultimately be required to use extreme coercion to “make it work” thus they must become very illiberal…very undemocratic. Remember the ends don’t justify the means.
- Gibby
-----
- The "objective reality" sort of claim is not crafted by moral relativists as a strawman. Some theologists, for example, would say that moral laws are a part of the universe as much as physical laws. This was a big theme in the middle ages. Maybe it can be used against liberalism and Christianity, but not by necessity. I mean, in some ways it seems like the opposite: if there were certain human rights inherantly in the universe, it certainly would make talking about them a lot easier. Anyway so long as you're talking about "absolutes" as in "stuff I would lay down the line for independently of context and think you should too", then we agree.
- Still, some strains of liberalism can conceivably promote liberty more than others. So even if one says "liberalism is less coercive than the alternatives", they can go on and say "but some sorts of liberalism are even less coercive than others".
- I'm afraid that I don't see how the limited state of wealth has an effect on issues explained in, for instance, the labor theory of value. It certainly doesn't seem to assume that.
''"One cannot eliminate poverty by redistributing existing wealth":'' not if the wealth is continually redistributed, or if that redistribution in itself goes towards creating wealth (going to education, for example, or setting up police departments to allow for commerce). However, as the Marxists might put it, this is talking past the issue, and word "redistribution" is a misnomer for their plans. Rather, they would characterize themselves as setting up a just distribution of wealth in the first place.
- I do not agree with your position on this point because it smacks of trickle-down economics. People need capital to produce; they don't need capitalists. Anyway, it's not necessarily a liberal position, either (in either modern or classic senses).
- I agree with you, since the centralization of economic power will lead to the centralization of political power (something that modern oligopolistic markets are a case study in). But still I think in political discussion it's important to keep in mind that democratic socialists don't intend for totalitarian ends, but may perhaps be naive about the means. [[User:Lucidish|Lucidish]] 15:53, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
-----
- I'm not talking about religious absolutes...people tend to assume morals is a religious matter. My graduate classmates always assume this, but never assume their values of "social justice" are morals themselves. Which they are. My colleagues believe that property rights are not rights that should be enjoyed by all people on the planet...they believe that not every culture wants or needs private property for example. Despite this relativism they hold certain absolutes like the "right to work" or the "right to housing" or the "right to healthcare" aka all their own moral absolutes. Despite this, they always claim morals are relative to each individual and society.
Which if you believe in this relativity means that you must defend the NAZI extermination of Jews...which no one does, afterall, murder is an absolute wrong.
- I'll get to your point on the labor theory of value labor later, but I believe it was never originated to make laborers want to form unions or advocate socialism... what it simply stated, I do believe, was just real values of goods. aka An XBOX 360 costs $400 (US) and you make $10 an hour, the real value would be 40 hours of labor. Other explanations on how the price of a good is derived from the labor put into the manufacturing of such good is bunk. Anything that ignores supply and demand is simply bunk, it is working all the time, and it cannot be ignored. This is why macroeconomics keeps coming up short, this is why communism failed. Its why price controls are a stupid idea.
- Marxist distribution of wealth is no better than current socialist redistribution of wealth. Neither produce wealth, neither make society better off. At best a distribution of wealth that is not naturally occurring makes society indifferent to the wealth transfer...which does not mean society got better off!
And this does not calculate the effects of disincentives toward efficiency and innovation that cause society further harm by reducing wealth further. You may not have noticed but no socialist/macro/Keynesian society has lasted more than 30 years without being "forced" to liberalize just a little bit to sustain their policies. Communism lasted 70 years but most of that was at the behind the barrel of a gun.
- Socialists may not intend to create a totalitarian state, but like I said that’s where they end up. But when you openly advocate the elimination of private property, force businesses to be state owned, and control the labor and future labor of your citizens, your no longer democratic or free by our modern understanding.
- just having capital will only build wealth so far. YOu need private property and property rights that are egalitarian to all (Aka very little government regulation which puts too much costs upon obtaining property on the poor, which makes property something only the rich can work for). You need free markets. You need a de-regulated government so the government is no longer distorting information which hampers the market at work. You need privatized industries and an end to all subsidization. Most of the above will turn your entire society into capitalists.
-Gibby
-----
- We seem to agree when it comes to the sense of absolutes you mean. I just wanted to flag that the phrase "moral absolutes" has a history of being used to mean other things. It's not the best phrase to use because of that equivocation.
- To be sure, Locke didn't advocate socialism or whathaveyou. Marx presents an explicit calculus, to which he would say, everything earned from the sale minus the overhead belongs to the workers. Locke on the other hand doesn't present any calculus like what Marx suggested, or anything like what you suggested either.
But what he has in common with Marx is the notion that ownership of property is justified only with respect to the labor put into it. Take a look at chapter 5 of the Second Treatise on Government: "He that is nourished by the acorns he picked up under an oak... has certainly appropriated them for himself... That ''labour'' put a distinction between them and common: that added something to them more than nature, the common mother of all, had done; and so they became his private right." More succinctly: "The labour that was mine... fixed my property in them."
Locke wouldn't have thought of unions. It would be anachronistic to expect him to have said boo about them.
But I don't think he would have been hostile to them. Classical liberalism isn't hostile to unionization, either, at least not by my knowledge. You'll have to justify your comments by providing citations.
I see no reason to agree with your other comments, and have offered suggestions why they're mistaken. Anyway, to debate them would be ideological, but my goals here aren't. My main concerns with your critique had to do with what I interpreted as a rash dismissal of the labor theory of value, which (as I hope the above demonstrates) has a part within the classical liberal tradition.
- I agree about the totalitarian thesis. I just wanted to make sure that the socialist position was first properly understood on its own terms before critiqued.
- A government regulated by the people is the point of liberalism. I think you must have meant something other than what you wrote.
If you mean the regulation of industry, then you're likely to find some classical liberal writers who support your views, but some who won't. For instance, even F. Hayek (the 20th century's icon of classical liberalism, who provided an inspiration to Margaret Thatcher's neoliberalism), in the original "The Road to Serfdom", acknowledged that limited regulation was necessary for the public good. As to how regulation necessarily "distorts information which hampers the market at work", I don't know, and wouldn't venture to guess. The curbing of externalities, pollution, etc. is hardly a "distortion of information"; and plenty of information is distorted in the laissez-faire state, anyway, unless you believe that all agents will be honest about all information, which is troublingly naive.
But anyway: these are tangeants. I think we agree on the things that I wanted to clarify.
== Ruzmanci's edit ==
Ruzmanci asked to edit, not revert his edits. I started editing his edits, but that will take some time I do not have at this time. Will Ruzmanci also add a paragraph on contemporary North American, East Asian and African liberal policies? If not, does his text on contemporary european liberal policies belong in this text? And a small question: if somebody (who is Wil Aerts ?) posts a contrubution on liberales.be or fdp, does that mean that it is the contemporary liberal policy?
At the moment under the present version, the totally disputed tag belongs in the article, due to the content of this paragraph. - [[User:Wilfried Derksen|Electionworld]] 11:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
:Ruzmanci should edit his own contributions. However, after repeated requests, nobody has come forward who agrees with Ruzmanci, which suggests that his claims that liberals favor child labor and forced prostitution are without merit, and have no place in the article. Ruzmanci, if I may address you directly, you have latched onto some extremely fringe views and now assert that these are mainstream liberalism. You also repeatedly confuse liberalism with libertarianism. The difference is that liberals favor three ideals: liberty, equality, and democracy, and recognize that there must be tradeoffs between the three. Libertarianism, in contrast, favors only one ideal, individual liberty, and rejects all competing claims. Thus, under libertarianism, as I understand it, child labor and prostitution are perfectly ok (though not forced child labor or forced prostitution). Under libertarian ideals, the question of whether a woman should be forced into prostitution to get government help would never arise, because there would be no government help for anybody. I might also mention that I've heard about an interview in which one of the founders of Wikipedia described libertarians as wingnuts. [[User:Rick Norwood|Rick Norwood]] 13:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
:I've looked over Ruzmanci's changes as edited by Electionworld, and most of them seem fine to me, but the long section on European liberalism clearly does not belong here. This article is already too long. I've created a new article, "European liberalism", and moved it there. [[User:Rick Norwood|Rick Norwood]] 13:05, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
All the opposition to anti-child labour laws came from laissez-faire liberals. The present policy on the obligation to prostitution in the Netherlands was created by three successive governments toughening welfare laws. Five political parties participated in those coalitions, so it is not solely a liberal error. I quoted it as an example of what liberal freedom can mean in practice. I will add a new-subsection with the three earlier quoted examples, to illustrate the liberal concept of freedom. If the free labour market leads to a person doing work which they find humiliating, liberals believe that person is free. That distinct liberal idea of 'freedom' belongs in this article.
Real liberal policies, of official mainstream liberal parties, belong in this article, because they illustrate the reality behind the claims to support 'dignity' and 'freedom'. Transfer of qualifiers to another article is not acceptable as an editing tactic in NPOV disputes, (unless the propagandistic claims are moved as well).
Quotes from liberal websites and forums can illustrate aspects of liberal thought. It is not disputed that liberals are generally hostile to the government providing free services paid for by taxation. The quote illustrated that well. I will add other quotes, where possible, to illustrate other liberal attitudes in liberal political thought.[[User:Ruzmanci|Ruzmanci]] 10:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
:I won't react to everything here. Only two remarks: 1. I have to remember the reader of my reaction to the prostitution case above. The sources used by Ruzmanci, made it clear that it is no policy to force anybody to work in prostitution. 2. I think we can delete the article on European Liberalism, since it was created to find a place to discuss the practical policies of European liberal parties. Since the text is now restored into Liberalism, we can delete it again. [[User:Wilfried Derksen|Electionworld]] 12:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree that a long section on European liberalism (or liberalism of any other special kind) has no place in this introductory article, and should be deleted. On the other hand, I would like to see a good article on European liberalism, which has taken what seems to me some surprising turns, and which I would like to know more about. [[User:Rick Norwood|Rick Norwood]] 13:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
:What do you mean with 'surprising turns'? The present text of that article lacks accuracy and neutrality and needs many edits. First we have to find an agreement or a majority view on the question of this paragraph belongs in the article. When it is in this article. I will edit it here, if it in the other article, I will edit it there. [[User:Wilfried Derksen|Electionworld]] 14:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
- I don't believe any liberal would argue that child prostitution is ok. Child labor, however, they would argue is practically a necessity among developing nations and only becomes detested once that society has built up enough wealth so that it can afford NOT to have their children work.
-- Gibby
== Fundamental principles ==
I've removed from the "fundamental principles" list those ideas that confuse liberalism and libertarianism. There is an article on libertarianism. Maybe they belong there.
I really prefer the earlier version on this subject, but am willing to compromise. In particular, I left in two ideas I find doubtful, but am not sure about. I've quoted them below. Are these a part of fundamental liberalsim? [[User:Rick Norwood|Rick Norwood]] 13:14, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
*Anti-utopianism - rejection of a prior plan or design for society, both classic utopias and state planning.
*Competition as social ordering - the belief that a collective benefit results from individuals competing against each other.
: The link between libertarianism and liberalism cannot be shut off. Laissez-faire types deserve all the criticism that they get, and they are still a species of liberalism.
: I don't know how much anti-utopianism plays into it. The second principle is unobjectionable though. [[User:Lucidish|Lucidish]] 16:10, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
'''Libertarianism is a form of liberalism.''' In what other ideological tradition woould it fit? I dropped the term anti-statism, which is indeed recent libertarian usage, but added that liberal suspicion of government dates to John Locke (among others). For anti-utopianism see above all Karl Popper. Anti-perfectionism is the term in philosophy. Its modern form is the liberal distaste for the planned economies of the Soviet bloc. The idea that competition brings collective benefits is straight from Adam Smith. All of these things are standardly quoted as elements of liberal thought.
I restored the qualifier about equal rights, since the acceptance of arising inequalities is also central to liberalism. Liberals would typically oppose a maximum income, an old idea which is back in political debate in some countries.
[[User:Ruzmanci|Ruzmanci]]
: Yep, libertarianism can be considered right-liberalism.
: But the utopianism comment is arguable. Not to say it is completely out of left field, but just to say that there is some division. Rorty, to take a recent example, did not believe that liberalism was or is anti-utopian. It's a hot topic.
: I must confess I know little about Stanley Cavell's perfectionism argument or how it applies here. I will have to get into the meat of it before I comment on that.
: As has been stated both here and in the article, liberals tend towards a desire for equality of opportunity and not of results. [[User:Lucidish|Lucidish]] 19:19, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
== Does liberalism = social darwinism? ==
I made an effort to keep the "basic principles" section shorter -- it seems to me that a basic principal should be something that can be said in a few words. If you need a lot of caveats then it isn't really a basic principle. Others believe that the basic principles need to be longer. Let's discuss that.
Current version:
"Formal equality under the law, in combination with of social and economic [[inequality]] arising from fair process, and rejection of [[egalitarianism|egalitarian policies]]."
Question: Is social and economic inequality really a fundamental principle of liberalism? I would like to see a quote from a major liberal thinker in support of that statement, or I think we should go back to the simpler and more direct "Equal rights under law." If it should happen that everyone was socially equal, would that really violate fundamental liberal principles?
:Generally liberals do not favour economic and social equality, since it does not benefit the collective. Economic and social differences are not considered a bad thing by liberals and are considered to help society further (compare the principles of John Rawls in [[A Theory of Justice]]. What do you mean with social equal. If it means that all incomes are equal, liberals wouldn't favour that.[[User:Wilfried Derksen|Electionworld]] 14:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
::I meant more like is anyone going to look down their nose at you if you invite a poor person to your tea party. I take the "rejection of egalitarian policies" to mean essentially "rejection of a graduated income tax", since that is the only egalitarian policy anyone seems to fuss over these days -- the idea of Ben and Jerry that the CEO shouldn't earn more than a thousand times as much as the soda jerk is something even Ben and Jerry had to give up on. So, is rejection of a graduated income tax a fundamental liberal principle? [[User:151.141.84.66|151.141.84.66]] 15:43, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
:::No it isn't. Some parties favour falt tax, other favour a progressive tax system.
Current version: "The belief that the role of government should be as small as possible, whereby liberals differ in the question what as small as possible is."
Comment: "Who governs least governs best" seems to me one of the few things liberals and conservatives agree on in principle but seldom practice. I'm not sure the idea is specificly liberal.
:Conservatives do not necesarily want a small government. Liberals in principle do, so I think it is a specificly liberal idea. Maybe the sentence could be replaced by : The belief that there should be a balance between government and private responsibilities, whereby government should be limited to what is necesary. [[User:Wilfried Derksen|Electionworld]] 14:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
::I like that formulation better. In the US, the official conservative position is in favor of small government, and they accuse the liberals of wanting big government. In fact, as soon as anybody gets into office, they want THEIR government to be as big as they can make it. [[User:151.141.84.66|151.141.84.66]] 15:43, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
:::I Changed the text [[User:Wilfried Derksen|Electionworld]] 17:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Current version: "Competition as social ordering - the belief that a collective benefit results from individuals competing against each other."
Comment: This sounds more like social darwinism than liberalism. Again, I would like to see some evidence that this is a major principle of liberalism.
:The sentence is written in a negative way and should be rewritten. I would say that the collective benefits from private initiatives and competition. [[User:Wilfried Derksen|Electionworld]] 14:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
::Why don't you attempt a rewrite -- I'm worried that I may be doing too much rewriting already.
BTW, "the collective" is one of those phrases with different meanings in US English and European English. In the US it means a communist collective, specirfically, and is never used as a noun in any other sense.
:::I will attemot a rewrite (but I am rewriting a lot also). [[User:Wilfried Derksen|Electionworld]] 17:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Current version: "Governments should rule with the consent of the governed, although this does always not mean explicit consent to all their policies and consent of all governed."
Comment: The qualifying clause seems to me to be unnecessary, since it would be understood by any reasonable person. I would like to remove it in the interests of brevity.
:I agree [[User:Wilfried Derksen|Electionworld]] 14:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
The rest of the section seems fine to me, though to say the same thing in fewer words would be even better. [[User:Rick Norwood|Rick Norwood]] 14:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
::On the subject of my rewrite of the "modern liberalism" section -- the phrase "persuit of happiness" is in the Declaration of Independence but not in the US Constitution and not a right under law. [[User:151.141.84.66|151.141.84.66]] 15:43, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
NOTE: 151.141.84.66 is Rick Norwood. For some reason my login was not recognized.
: Social darwinism is not != political apathy towards inequality. Social darwinism is the most horrifyingly awful form of the latter, sure, but they're distinct concepts. Where the latter has room to say "well private charities can help people", the former says "let the bastards starve, because that's survival of the fittest". [[User:Lucidish|Lucidish]] 19:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
The original text said 'acceptance of inequality' and that has now been restored. Acceptance of the outcome of fair process is a central liberal principle, and liberals do reject redistribution.[[User:Ruzmanci|Ruzmanci]] 19:28, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
: Confused as to why that comment is in this section
: Re, redistribution: some do, some don't.
: To repeat the comment I make above: ''As has been stated both here and in the article, liberals tend towards a desire for equality of opportunity and not of results''. This is not "acceptance of inequality" in all forms, just some of them. [[User:Lucidish|Lucidish]] 00:18, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
== Liberalism today ==
It seems to me that the "liberalism today" section has some good material in it, but is way too long. I'm going to attempt to condense it, and make it more encyclopedic. [[User:Rick Norwood|Rick Norwood]] 14:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
:I wait for your edits. I planned to edit this section later today. [[User:Wilfried Derksen|Electionworld]] 14:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
::I saw your edits and made the remaining text less anti-liberal (European). [[User:Wilfried Derksen|Electionworld]] 17:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
User Wilfried Derksen (Electionworld) should not delete items containing direct criticism of his own party, or its record in government, which form the basis of some of the liberal positions listed. Such deletions can not be considered as fair, since obviously he has a vested interest in a positive image for his party. Incidentally, I do not understand how he has time to edit here, given his international political function (and his work as a judge), and the possibilty should be considered, that several people at the party's office are editing under this name.[[User:Ruzmanci|Ruzmanci]] 19:20, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
:Your constant allegations of bad faith are getting tiresome. Please stop. [[User:Shimgray|Shimgray]] | [[User talk:Shimgray|talk]] | 19:34, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
::Thanks Shimgray, do I ask where Ruzamci gets his time from. Nobody else does my edits. BTW I didn't delete the list of practical European liberal policies, I wanted to edit it. [[User:Wilfried Derksen|Electionworld]] 20:31, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
:Ruzmanci, I deleted your editorial on current European liberalism. This is a general article on liberalism, and as you will note in the heading to the article, information about liberalism as it is understood in certain countries or regions belongs elsewhere. [[User:Rick Norwood|Rick Norwood]] 22:40, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
== Liberal violence and text on revolutions ==
*The place of the text on liberal violence is not logical, I moved it directly below the revolutions itself.
*Text on neo-jacobinism doesn't belong in section on revolutions (historical order), now in paragaraph on liberal fundamentalism
*Paragraph on Foreign policy and regime change is not essential for liberalism. Liberal parties were divided about the regime change in Iraq. I deleted this paragraph (old text follows)
::''From the mid 20th century, transitions from totalitarianism to liberalism (certainly to [[liberal democracy]]) have also been imposed by external force. The introduction of a liberal [[Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany|constitution]] and democratic [[pluralism]] in [[Allied Control Council|occupied western Germany]] by the western Allies, served as a model for later theories of [[regime change]].
::''During the [[Bosnian War]] in the 1990’s, [[Daniel Goldhagen]] and some other liberals suggested the military occupation of [[Serbia]] for this purpose, specifically citing the German experience. In the event, the model was first applied, controversially, after the [[2003 invasion of Iraq]]. Liberals were strongly divided about the legitimacy of this invasion. The process of 'nation-building' under occupation [http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/bookrev/dobbins.html], refers to concurrent [[regime change]], [[democratisation]] and [[liberalisation]]. In this way, some liberal thinkers are called [[unilateralists]], or "[[neoconservatives]]", as they see such externally-driven transitions as legitimate. They are to be contrasted with [[internationalism]], which is historically part and parcel with liberal foreign policy.
::''Internationalism has been harshly criticized by some neoconservative commentators like [[Christopher Hitchens]], who note the poor responsiveness of international institutions like the United Nations in cases of human rights violations, and suggest that this must be replaced by unilateral interventions.
::''Neoconservatism often appeals to Francis Fukuyama's [[end of history]] thesis for justification, by suggesting that a shift towards liberalism is historically inevitable. Other liberal thinkers, like [[L. T. Hobhouse]] in "Metaphysical Theory of the State: A Criticism", explicitly deny such hypotheses.
*Made some new division in sections
*added the opposition in the new section on the effect of liberalism.
*added a section on liberal fundamentalism.
Furthermore I merged the article [[European liberalism]] into [[Liberalism in Europe]]. That's all for now. I hope in this way the article is balanced. - [[User:Wilfried Derksen|Electionworld]] 18:52, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
== European practices ==
I really agree with [[Rick Norwood]] that the section on practices of European liberals doesn't belong in this article, which is about liberalism in general and not about [[Liberalism in Europe]]. Until now, nobody else than Ruzmanci wants this section to be in. Furthermore: it is a personal selection of opinions selected from the mentioned websites and sources. Some of these are indeed a general liberal policy. Other opinions one could certainly find in some of these sources, but one can also find diverging opinions. As an European liberal democrat (Sorry that I am one) I agree with some of these opinions, but others I reject. That will be the case with most liberals. E.g. In my party there is often a debate on the republic. Many want to modernize monarchy, others want to have a republic. One can say that monarchism is liberal. I don't think so, neither is republicanism.
It is good to have criticism on liberalism in the article, it makes it more balanced and encyclopedic. Ruzmanci made a point. The way the article developped is good (although it became to long). But this section is overdone, inaccurate and a personal selection.
I was not the one who last deleted this section, and won't do this today, but as long as there is not much support for having it in the article, it doesn't belong in. [[User:Wilfried Derksen|Electionworld]] 21:22, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
I can imagine a new section ''Criticism of liberalism''. On the basis of Ruzmanci's edits I made the following suggestion. It should be completed with a summary of criticism on American liberalism to keep the article in balance and with a text on the protection of liberal democracy against e.g. [[islamism]].
I ([[User:Wilfried Derksen|Electionworld]] 22:44, 11 October 2005 (UTC)) would suggest a text like:
:''As all ideologies Liberalism has its adherents and its opponents. Opponenents criticize either the - alleged - liberal implementation of their ideals or the ideals themselves. One has to make a distinction between criticism on Liberal democracy as political system (''see [[Liberal democracy]]'') and political liberalism as described in this entry. ''
:''Since liberalism is not an homogenous ideology, some criticism comes from the right-wing and other criticism comes from the left-wing. For criticism on American liberalism see ''[[American liberalism]]''. ''
:''Most opposition comes from the left-wing. Below a selection of criticism is given. One has to realize that most of the opinions described in tghe critics can be found within the liberal spectrum, but often one can also find diverging opinions."''
:''Some would argue that the [[laissez-faire]] thinking of liberals increases poverty by reducing the [[minimum wage]], and accepting low pay as a social necessity. They would criticize liberals for reducing most forms of tax-funded [[social welfare]] benefits, such as [[unemployment benefit]], sickness benefit, and disability benefits, restrictions on the number of people who receive them, and on the period for which they are available. In this view liberals deliver less job security and see insecurity as a positive factor, encouraging ‘flexibility’ and mobility on the [[labour market]]. At the same time they consider inherent to liberal politics national and European [[competitiveness]] as a moral imperative, and as a guideline for personal life choices. Typically, Europeans would be encouraged to choose their education, their profession and their job on the basis of what would best contribute to competition in the [[global market]], especially with [[Economy of the People's Republic of China|China]] and the [[Economy of the United States|United States]]. They object to the liberals' support for [[liberalisation]] and [[deregulation]] in economic policy, splitting and [[privatisation|privatising]] former [[public utility|public utilities]], including [[electricity generation]] and [[electricity retailing]], [[telecommunication]] utilities, the [[postal service]], and [[rail transport]], and the introduction of competitive markets among the newly created entities. ''
:''Some opponents argue that liberals limit personal freedom by promoting longer [[working hours]], more night working, and an end to protective provisions for specific groups such as pregnant women.''
:''Opponents disagree with the introduction of an [[entrepreneur|entrepreneurial]] style of [[management]] in [[non-profit]] and publicly-funded organisations previously run on the assumption of a [[ethics|care ethic]], e.g. in [[hospital]]s, [[clinic]]s, and [[care home]]s. They argue that the institution must enter into market-like competition with others, and the medical provision and care is treated as a [[Product (business)|product]]. Some would argue that liberals oppose to any ‘’beneficial’’ role of the state, and insist that [[autonomy]] means that each human being must be tough enough to cope with society on their own. An example: [[Belgium]] is one of the few EU countries to experiment with free [[public transport]], but Belgian liberals oppose it, and all free provisions by the state, arguing that they undermine personal responsibility. ''
:''An other critics is that liberals oppose restrictions on [[pollutant]] emissions, since the costs almost always fall on the [[private sector]]. This includes opposition to measures designed to safeguard [[public health]], reduce [[disease]], and lower [[mortality]]. Some even say that liberalism is the only ideology which openly opposes measures to reduce [[Air pollution#Deaths|pollution deaths]], in such conflicts of policy. In this line they criticize support for the privately owned [[automobile]] as the main form of passenger transport, opposition to, and reduction of, [[subsidies]] to [[public transport]], opposition to taxes on vehicle fuel, and (in Germany) opposition to [[speed limits]] on the [[Autobahn]] as well as support for road-building, especially the construction of new [[motorways]].''
:''Another critics is that part of the liberals oppose [[immigration]], impose conditions and restrictions on immigrants as well support compulsory [[assimilation (sociology)|assimilation]], while at the same time partially exclude [[illegal immigrants]] from [[health care]], limiting provision to emergency cases. These opponents criticize support of liberals for a restrictive policy on [[asylum]], a general hostility to [[asylum seekers]], and demands for deportation of those whose claims are rejected.''
::I like the idea, but I think what you have written is too long. Also, I don't think liberals should write the "criticism of liberalism" section, it should be written by critics of liberalism who have some expertise on the subject. [[User:Rick Norwood|Rick Norwood]] 22:59, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
:::I agree. What I did was to take the text of Ruzmanci and write it as criticism, not as facts. When I have to choose between the long list of Ruzmanci and this text, I think this text fixes better. But it is better when a critic of liberalism with expertise makes an attempt. [[User:Wilfried Derksen|Electionworld]] 05:45, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
I will merge all the listed policies into the Liberalism Today section, which is the appropriate place. I will also source them one by one, although that will take time. Obviously, if a Liberal minister advocates and implements a policy, then that is an example of liberalism, not a crtique of it. I did invent things like the obligatory handshake advocated by the Dutch [[VVD]], and it is not a critique. That is simply the current state of Dutch and Belgian liberalism, that they think in this way. It is not a criticism of the VVD or the [[FDP]] to say they advocate new roads: they do. It is simply a fact.
What is Wilfried Deksen disputing in these cases? He is familiar with Dutch and Belgian liberalism. he knows that, for instance, his own party and the VVD have just proposed a ban on the burqa. It illustrates their concept of freedom of religion. So is he saying, no, this is not in fact true, the minister did not say that in parliament? Or is he saying, OK, but she is not a true liberal.
This is the recurrent problem with these policies. They are in fact things that liberals advocate. Some are disputed by other liberals. But critique they are not.[[User:Ruzmanci|Ruzmanci]] 12:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
: ''"Obviously, if a Liberal minister advocates and implements a policy, then that is an example of liberalism"''.
: No. If a Liberal minister advocates and implements something, it might still be entirely illiberal. That's because we're talking about historical philosophical outlook, not the BS that comes with power, corruption, and malice.
: To use another example, the French law against wearing religious gear to school is anti-liberal. Those who call themselves liberals who advocate such views, are either liars or are ignorant.
: Analogy. Just because the French phrase "agent provocateur" is used widely in the English speaking world, doesn't mean it spontaneously becomes an English phrase. [[User:Lucidish|Lucidish]] 17:28, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
===Why list these issues anyway?===
For clarification, most of these issues are there as qualifiers of claims about liberalism. If the article says that liberalism promotes free choice in religious matters, then it is a counter-example that Belgian and Dutch Liberal parties want to ban women from freely wearing a veil or burqa. The claim is inaccurate, and that is not region-specific, so dispatching the qualifier to another article is not acceptable. The other way to deal with this NPOV issue is not to make such braod claims, and to concede that liberalism does not advocate general freedoms, but typically specific and culturally limited freedoms.[[User:Ruzmanci|Ruzmanci]] 13:57, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
: Liberalism is not necessarily = actions of "liberal" parties. As said many times before. Read. [[User:Lucidish|Lucidish]] 17:28, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
== too many edits in one day ==
The stated goal of Wikipedia is to create a body of knowledge of lasting value. This suggests that each chance be small, carefully thought out, carefully written, and fully discussed before the next change.
I would like to suggest that those of us working on this article concentrate for the time being on getting the introduction short enough so that the table of contents is visible in most browsers in a full screen view of the top of the article. It may be as easy as adding headings to parts of the introduction. [[User:Rick Norwood|Rick Norwood]] 22:55, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
: Fixed intro. The sections, however, seriously need to be revisited. Much of this is redundant material. [[User:Lucidish|Lucidish]] 00:56, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
:: What I did is adding small edits with a summary to make clear what I am doing. It was rebalancing the text and delete inaccuracies, and that meant a lot of edits. Sorry. [[User:Wilfried Derksen|Electionworld]] 05:46, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
== progress ==
I think we are getting somewhere. I've done a rewrite of the introduction, mainly for style, and to remove repetition. I've tried to keep all more at least most of the ideas that were there, and still have the ToC peek out above the bottom of the screen.
I've also removed the "totally disputed" flag, since I believe we have discussed here the major issues involved. [[User:Rick Norwood|Rick Norwood]] 19:23, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
I've looked over the section on the origin of liberalism, and I think it is good, but needs to be shorter. I plan to sleep on it, and maybe tomorrow I'll have thought of a way to condense it without leaving out any of the more important ideas. [[User:Rick Norwood|Rick Norwood]] 19:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
NPOV templates should not be unilaterally removed. Wikipedia guidelines say that mere complaint on this issue is generally evidence that an NPOV dispute does in fact exist. If you want the template off, you can request an administrator to do that.[[User:Ruzmanci|Ruzmanci]] 12:38, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
: True. Keep the tag there indefinitely. It has no bearing on the truth of the matter. [[User:Lucidish|Lucidish]] 03:17, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
== Principal tenets of liberalism ==
The list is disputed (NPOV) because it presents a positive image of liberalism, as beneficial. Opponents of liberalism do not believe it promotes freedom , or diginity, or indeed individual rights, or anything positive or beneficial. I propose to move the tenets to a spearate section, directly under the intro, and to list two versions, liberalism as seen by liberals, and liberalism seen by its opponents.[[User:Ruzmanci|Ruzmanci]] 13:43, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
:As has been explained to you many times, this article is a general article about liberalism, which is a philosophy or ideology spelled out by many writers over time. According to the original sources, and to secondary sources such as encyclopedias and dictionaries, liberalism is the philosophy that favors individual freedom. For example, taking the nearest dictionary to hand, The New Merriam-Webster Dictionary, "liberal" is defined as "suitable for a free man". Now, you can argue that people call themselves liberal who aren't. I would agree. But to say that "Opponents of liberalism do not believe it promotes freedom" is to go down the murky road of saying words do not mean what the dictionary says they mean. But without a common meaning, there is no point in using words at all, and me might as well go back to grunting at one another like animals. Opponents of liberalism are opponents of freedom. (In particular, opponents of a free market, or opponents of free speech, or opponents of freedom of religion, or opponents of freedom for certain races or classes, and so on.) There are plenty of real opponents of liberalism. But you oppose a brand of liberalism that is either rare or else, as has been proved to you over and over, does not exist at all (e.g. your assertion that "liberals" support child labor or forced prostitution).
:Once again, in the spirit of assuming good will on your part, I urge you to make small changes in articles, and to discuss them first, instead of making sweaping changes without discussion [[User:Rick Norwood|Rick Norwood]] 15:20, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
:I think there is probably some good material in Ruzmanci's latest edit, but it is mixed with statements that are not only patently false, but whose falsity has been pointed out to Ruzmanci many times. Also, the additional material makes an already too long article much longer. My inclination is to revert the whole thing, because I think people should write carefully, and edit their own material before inserting it in Wikipedia. Does anyone have any objection to reverting Ruzmanci's latest edit? [[User:Rick Norwood|Rick Norwood]] 16:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
:I oppose your plan on methodological grounds. Also because you don't know what liberalism means. Cry for NPOV all you like, it has already been achieved. [[User:Lucidish|Lucidish]] 03:15, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
You mean western dictionaries. I wonder what the Great Soviet Dictionary says about liberalism? Not, I think, that it is the ideology of freedom. American dictionaries are not the fount of truth.[[User:Ruzmanci|Ruzmanci]] 19:11, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
:I have tried to discuss this dispassionately with you, Ruzmanci, but when you assert that Soviet dictionaries give a more accurate picture of the English language than American dictionaries you place yourself outside the mainstream of educated thought. [[User:Rick Norwood|Rick Norwood]] 20:20, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
::I think my position is somewhere between Nick and Ruzmanci. His lasts edits were fare more constructive than earlier edits. Sometimes ''c'est la ton qui fait la jusqie''. Adding criticism on liberalism in the article is an improvement. So I would not necesarily want a revert. Furthermore: in Wikipedia nobodies edit is his or her posession. So it is up to contributors to improve the text in the article. I wanted to edit the Ruzmanci's version. What I would do is editing in response, not deleting criticism. The article needs a separation of the discription of liberal principles and positions at one side and criticism at the other side. In the description it is logical to follow wwhat liberals say themselves. Therefore I would both in the intro and in the general overview as well as in the impacxt section separate description and criticism. I would add some general critical remarks. Generally in the criticism much is presented as a fact, it would be better to describe it as an opinion.
::It is not a liberal principle that the state is an evil (it might have been a principle in the past). Neither is liberalisation a liberal principle, but it is a way to realize limited government (which would be the liberal principle.
::The use of the term right and left is not preferable, since than we first have to start a debate on these words. I used some other terms. The text on social security is unbalanced and certainly not true in general, the same goes for economic policy.
::The text on European liberalism in realignment needs also modifications and another title (Liberalism and the multicultural society). I would also prefere another place in the article. Did any liberal official proposed a prohibition on speaking foreign languages? The example of the protestant university of Amsterdam is not relevant for liberalism. I do not think zero liberalism is an issue for "many liberals".
::I think (but who am I) that the text would be more balanced after my edits (which I didn't make now) could be acceptable for most. The length shouldn't be a problem.
::About the Great Soviet Dictionary: One could add a paragraph about Communist propaganda against liberalism, but that is completely different of what an encyclopedia should be. BTW Even my "Kleines politisches Wörterbuch", a GDR dictionary published in 1985 mentions as goal of liberalism: "die freie, vom feudalabsolutistischen Staat unbehinderdete Entfaltung der Individuen".
::I now wait for a while. [[User:Wilfried Derksen|Electionworld]] 20:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
:I agree that there is some good material in Ruzmanci's edit -- I said so above. But there is also a lot of nonsense. The question is this -- is it up to us to sift through all of these huge edits Ruzmanci makes, or is it up to Ruzmanci to be more moderate in his views. If I seem impatient, it is because I and you, Electionworld, and several others have spent many hours over the past few months trying to arrive at some kind of compromise with Ruzmanci, and to provide a version of this article that meets encyclopedic standards, only to see Ruzmanci rewrite the whole thing to his own point of view. In particular, every time we get the introduction short enough for the ToC to be seen, Ruzmanci doubles its size with a lot of stuff much of which is nonsense. Certainly the article benefits from points of view that disagree with liberalism, but not from points of view that think the Great Soviet Dictionary is more accurate on the subject of the English language than the Mirriam-Webster Dictionary. [[User:Rick Norwood|Rick Norwood]] 21:08, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
::We have spent some hours (as did others), but the point is that we should have a section with criticism. It should not be placed directly after the intro (The ToC should be visible), but somewhere after the political positions. On the basis of Ruzmanci's suggestions, I could make a more balanced text. Being aware of the discussions, even a liberal could attempt to write a section with criticism. BTW. The text on regime change does not belong in this article, since it a criticism on the way western countries act, not specific for liberalism. See also my earlier remarks. [[User:Wilfried Derksen|Electionworld]] 07:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
:If you want to write the criticism section I have no objection, but I think it would be better if some major Wiki conservative wrote it. I'm going to ask. [[User:Rick Norwood|Rick Norwood]] 13:09, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
==Anonymous contribution==
I moved this item from the top of the talk page, new contributions go at the bottom of the page, or in their respective headers. Users should preferably not hijack the top of the page in this way.[[User:Ruzmanci|Ruzmanci]] 10:35, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree. I did that when I first started contributing to Wiki, but I've learned better. [[User:Rick Norwood|Rick Norwood]] 13:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Glaringly absent from the start of this discussion is the most basic, consistant, and universal meaning of the word. Latin- a non-spoken language- (or the contemporary derivitive, pseudo-latin) is our choice of language used to describe and preserve important concepts in science, law, and politics. Because Latin is a dead and non-spoken language, the meaning is preserved over time.
Any discussion of an important and historic concept should be preceeded with the root meaning of the word. Although I do not hold myself out as an expert in latin or language, liberalism means something very close to- an "ism" (or ideology) of matters fit for free (hu)man.
"These days "liberal" is a confusing word, with many connotations" It's not confusing at all if we excercise the root meaning of the word. The confusion is the result of 30 years of propaganda that is used in the United States that has been promoted by pundints, entertainers, and the historic enemy of a democratic society- those who want totalitarian control of society instead of democracy. To override propaganda, we must repeat fact as often as the propaganda is repeated. There is fact in the root meaning of all words. (posted anonymously).
: Well, yeah. That's kind of our point. [[User:Lucidish|Lucidish]] 17:00, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps more attention to be paid to the meaning of "liberal" as the word is used in the USA. It is, after all, a large and significant country. It would be fairer to say that the word has a meaning that varies regionally, rather than simply gloss over the American meaning as though everyone in that country is somehow mistaken about the real meaning of the word. We don't want to fall into the [[Etymological fallacy]]. In the USA, policies such as rigid gun control and support for anti-vilification laws, which by any reasonable definition could be considered to restrict freedom, are considered to be liberal.
To provide contrast to this, the leader of Australia's major conservative party (which is in fact called the Liberal Party) can say without paradox or irony that his party is the trustee of the two great traditions of liberalism and conservatism. (http://www.pm.gov.au/news/speeches/speech1554.html) [[User:Ordinary Person|Ordinary Person]] 12:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
: Far from being a fallacy, examination of etymology is the very first thing you ought to do in calculating a meaning. You should never commit yourself to taking etymology literally, however. For example, "muscle" means "little mouse" in latin IIRC, and in a literal sense that's absurd, but in a metaphorical sense it's sensible (and sort of charming).
: It's even farther from being a fallacy here because "liberal" is being used both idiomatically (as in "social liberal") and literally (one who supports liberty). Those things you cite are actually promoted on the basis of protecting liberty of would-be victims.
: And nothing is being "glossed over" about American liberalism. It has been well accomodated. Its placement within the greater liberal tradition, noted. [[User:Lucidish|Lucidish]] 02:20, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
:: "Far from being a fallacy, examination of etymology is the very first thing you ought to do in calculating a meaning." No. The very first thing you need to do is examine usage. Etymology can be completely misleading as a guide to meaning. [[User:Ordinary Person|Ordinary Person]] 08:21, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
::: I never said usage was irrelevant. But on a weighting scale, you first take a look at etymology, and then at usage; and if usage (and its reasons) contradicts etymology in a flat and clear way, then you reject modern usage. That is why the phrase "could care less", when used to mean "couldn't care less", is banned. Same with "irregardless" wrt "regardless".
::: However, in an etymological examination, you should never be literal. This leaves you with a wide range of permissible uses; and in that case, you favor the popular uses, or idioms. Example: etymologically, "can opener" can be used to describe anything that exists in some relation with "opening" and "cans". That could mean "a device that opens cans", or "cans that open things", or any other crazy combination of that sort. But semantically, we refer to ordinary use to set the particular relationship between them: namely, a special device that has these little gear-looking things which clamps to a can and which opens them. To put it another way, the meanings of the parts are the building blocks, but the overarching construct is ordinary use. [[User:Lucidish|Lucidish]] 23:05, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
::::''"and if usage (and its reasons) contradicts etymology in a flat and clear way, then you reject modern usage."'' No, I don't reject it on that basis. Who does?
::::''"That is why the phrase "could care less", when used to mean "couldn't care less", is banned."'' Exactly where is that extremely common phrase banned?
::::I do think you should check out the wiki on the [[Etymological fallacy]]. [[User:Ordinary Person|Ordinary Person]] 03:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
: A) Anyone who cares about avoiding miscommunication will. Perhaps you don't. In that case, bfiewbfpqibfuqpifbq-frwbgwrglw.
: B) The phrase is "banned" in the sense that it's not justified. Nothing said about actual performance, where people can say it until they're blue in the face and each time are just wrong as the last.
: C) If you read that article you will find it argues nothing against my above comments. It is your radical semantic individualism that requires justification. [[User:Lucidish|Lucidish]] 21:23, 24 October 2005 (UTC)
:::: The phrase "I could care less" is part of modern English. Its meaning is well known. If you pretend you don't understand what it means, you are retarding communication. That's why people who care about communicating effectively concern themselves with primarily with usage, not etymology. "bfiewbfpqibfuqpifbq-frwbgwrglw" on the other hand is not part of modern English. The article on the Etymological fallacy covers succinctly and tidily the problem with your viewpoint.[[User:Ordinary Person|Ordinary Person]] 00:22, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
: I know what it means. It means there is a certain amount below your current state of caring, below which you might care.
:This is the paradigm case where what you intend is at odds with what your words mean. If you cared about usage, you would care about the conventions that govern it so that you can be friendly to the listener; and if you care about conventions, and interpretation, then you'll care about etymology, because a) people tend to have a grasp on parts of words (unless the parts are from another language, or are for all intents and purposes idiomatic), and b) use by etymology presumes nothing about the speaker's idiomatic knowledge.
: What that article (Etymological fallacy) provides is an explanation that's parallel to mine. With the example it offered, it explains how a certain set of morphemes or lexical units, put together, can be used in a number of different ways; but common use sets the correct way. Again, perhaps if you're going to cite something, you ought first to read it.
: As for the rest of it, perhaps you have not understood my position, which is why you keep citing an inappropriate source. I did not say that the meaning was ''identical to'' etymology. I said it was the first thing you look at in an analysis.
: What's more, if you don't like "bfiewbfpqibfuqpifbq-frwbgwrglw" example, then I can follow the spirit of it with this one: "tis Hawks treeing. flowerbed fifteensheep short moonbeams of". Presumably, by your logic, you would consign it the status of English if I produced an appropriate code for you to sort it out. But it isn't English, because whatever community of English-speakers confers these things, has no access to that kind of idiosyncratic code.
: Incidentally, when I'm talking about meaning, I'm talking about how to interpret on the basis of english conventions -- IE, [[Semantics]], or the meaning of words. I'm not talking about on-the-fly, novel, negotiated utterances, like metaphors, or idiosyncratic uses -- I'm not talking about mere meanings of speakers, or [[Pragmatics]]. People can have fun in making their own codes and use languages according to however they like, but while that has some bearing over the meaning of their ''uses'', it has no bearing on the meaning of ''words''. [[User:Lucidish|Lucidish]] 00:16, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
== Regime change and NPOV ==
Regime change is advocated by prominent liberal thinkers, for the specific purpose of extending the reach of liberalism and liberal principles. It belongs for that reason. The other reason is that is it counters the claim to non-violence of modern liberalism, and shows that liberals are no different from others in this respect: they kill their opponents to further their ideology. Unless the claim to be non-violent is also removed, this is an NPOV and balance issue.[[User:Ruzmanci|Ruzmanci]] 10:39, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree. There are prominent liberal thinkers who would advocate regeme change, even by violent means, as a response to slavery or genocide. I think most liberal thinkers would prefer economic pressure or other non-violent means, but some no doubt would advocate violence in extreme cases. [[User:Rick Norwood|Rick Norwood]] 13:14, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
: Some do, some don't. So long as that's made clear, I don't care if it's in the article. [[User:Lucidish|Lucidish]] 17:01, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
== Language discrimination by liberals ==
I added three sourced examples where liberals advocate discrimination against people on the basis of language, or deny to freedom to speak a chosen language. Here they are in case they are deleted:
:All nation states have similar policies: most have an official national language. From the perspective of the nation-state, immigration is a threat equal to separatism, since it too undermines national unity. With the collapse of the [[multiculturalism|multicultural consensus]] in western Europe, most Liberal parties explicitly reject neutrality on culture and language issues, in most cases demanding official [[monolingualism]] and [[monoculturalism]]. For example, the Belgian Liberal ([[VLD]]) housing minister wants to refuse social housing, to those who do not speak Dutch. [http://www.medinews.be/full_article/detail.asp?aid=1050] The Dutch liberal minister for immigration considered a similar policy [http://www.vandale.nl/nieuws/taalnieuws/45549]. In the Amsterdam borough De Baarsjes, the liberal VVD [http://www.baarsjes.amsterdam.nl/asp/get.asp?xdl=../views/baarsjes/xdl/Page&ItmIdt=00000297&SitIdt=00000002&VarIdt=00000001] punishes parents, if their children speak foreign languages in or near school. [http://www.baarsjes.nl/asp/download.asp?file=../contents/pages/00000507/040629raad.pdf], [http://www.vvddebaarsjes.nl/index.cfm/menuid/4/HoofdCat/205], [http://www.eenveiligamsterdam.nl/?s=282&id=813&s=282].
Like earlier (deleted) examples of liberal policy, there are abundant sources for the repressive nature of liberalism. Since they are counter-examples to the claims to neutrality and liberty under liberal thought, this is also an NPOV issue. I will add more of these examples, among others from [[Ayaan Hirsi Ali]], who seems to invent a new repressive measure every week.[[User:Ruzmanci|Ruzmanci]] 10:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
This is a mix of the reasonable and the extreme, but it makes points that do belong in Wikipedia. However, since the points all involve current events in Europe, they belong in the Liberalism in Europe article rather than here. [[User:Rick Norwood|Rick Norwood]] 13:16, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
:No, since generalizations and factual inaccuracies do not belong in either article. We have to work on a good criticism section. [[User:Wilfried Derksen|Electionworld]] 16:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
Irrelevant sources: such measures are illiberal. [[User:Lucidish|Lucidish]] 17:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
== Ongoing attempt to resolve dispute ==
Ruzmanci -- you are going to have to decide.
One option is for you to keep making huge rewrites every day, only to have them reverted.
Another option is for you to make smaller rewrites, and have some accepted and some reverted.
A third option is for you to abandon claims that are your private opinion, unsupported by any other source, keep claims that you can source, and put material that only applies to Liberalism in Europe in the appropriate article.
[[User:Rick Norwood|Rick Norwood]] 13:59, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
:The third option is just a way of moving the discussion. It will continue in that article, so I wouldn't favour that option. There is no homogenous European liberalism. [[User:Wilfried Derksen|Electionworld]] 16:34, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
:: It's somewhat moot what I would or wouldn't favor, since it's Ruz who decides. But it seems more appropriate to speak of idiosyncratic European liberal matters and infights in the Liberalism in Europe article than it does to speak of them here. This page, the Liberalism page, after all, is about the philosophy and goals, historically understood, complete with critiques. Regional pages have more room to discuss variations and the crazies who call themselves by the name "liberal". [[User:Lucidish|Lucidish]] 17:20, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
It says at the top of this article, "This article discusses liberalism as a major political ideology, not the usage of the term in specific countries. For links to articles about varieties of liberalism and liberal parties around the world, see Liberalism in various countries, below." Of course, Europe isn't exactly a "country", but Liberalism in Europe is the current sub-article that best fits where informtion should go for people who want to know what is going on in European liberalism today. [[User:Rick Norwood|Rick Norwood]] 21:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
:I don't agree. Many things Ruzmanci wrote is about three or four parties. Let him add this criticism to the entries on these parties. These sub-articles are better places and then the discussion can be there. [[User:Wilfried Derksen|Electionworld]] 21:24, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
I have trimmed the talk page to a manageable size. All of the relevant backstory to the ongoing dispute can be found at archive2 (linked at top of page). I have also added this page to Wiki's "request for comment" section.
Incidentally, while Ruz's particular complaints have no merit, it does strike me that a robust critique of liberalism ought to be attended to. That might be a positive project to work on.
Another positive project would be to determine what exactly Ruz actually is criticizing. It isn't the ideology of "liberalism", but it is certainly something or other. [[User:Lucidish|Lucidish]] 22:24, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
== Gratuitous swipe at Islamism ==
The section [[Liberalism#The_effect_of_liberalism_in_the_modern_world]] makes what seems to me a gratuitous swipe at Islamism, singling it out as an example of a present-day political ideology that doesn't accept liberal principles. While I would hardly say that Islamists as a group are generally liberal, from what I've seen, many Islamists (think, for example, of the reform factions in Iran) accept many, if perhaps not all of the principles of liberalism. Even the more conservative factions in Iran accept quite a few of them. Conversely, the governments of Burma, North Korea, and Belarus, none of them Islamic, seem to me much more firmly anti-liberal. And I could probably make a pretty good case that the Christian Right in the US is roughly comparable to the Islamists in these respects. So why are the Islamists being singled out here for what will generally be seen by most English-language readers as a negative? -- [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 06:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
:Good point, Jmabel. I've had a go at editing that. See what you think. [[User:Sunray|Sunray]] 08:36, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
::Which exactly are the principles of liberalism that are generally accepted by Islamists? - [[User:Nat Krause|Nat Kraus]][[User_Talk:Nat Krause|e]] 14:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
:::Generally? Perhaps none. But I think that is the wrong question. Are the principles of liberalism any less accepted by Islamists than by other theocrats, be they Protesant, Catholic, Jewish, or Hindu? This is an issue about theocracy in general, not about Islamism in particular, and it is wrong to single it out. On the more specific matter of Iran, my example above: Islamic Iran has had numerous reasonably free elections (less free than a genuinely liberal society, but more so than under the previous, secular regime of the Shah). They've been back and forth on freedom of the press and of artistic expression (certainly the reformist faction, also Islamist, is not notably bad -- or notably good -- on that issue). Women's rights are a matter of much struggle in Iran: again, the more radical Islamists are awful on this issue, but Iran (and likewise Pakistan) has been the source of some very interesting interpretations of Islam that take a very different view of the role of women from what has been traditional in Islam, all within an Islamist context. Islamism is a broad movement, and it has its (dare I say it) liberal wing. -- [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 06:24, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
:::::While many Muslims are liberals and Islam is compatible with Liberalism, [[Islamism]] is a specific ideology that is inherently non-liberal. [[User:Ordinary Person|Ordinary Person]] 12:37, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
== Neutrality ==
neutrality doubted?
how about neutrality non-existent?
: How about justification for your remarks and informed, reasonable conversation on the relevant topics? [[User:Lucidish|Lucidish]] 21:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
== A modest suggestion. ==
Let me continue to urge everyone to resist rewriting the whole article in a single day. One section at a time seems reasonable. [[User:Rick Norwood|Rick Norwood]] 23:29, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
: Most of my newest edits are stylistic -- putting one section before or after another one. The only serious substantive (non-stylistic) change I made was to add a subsection called "political deviances" which can act as a grab-bag of complaints against ostensibly liberal regimes. I also included a larger disclaimer (italicized) to the subsection previous to that one. [[User:Lucidish|Lucidish]] 00:37, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
== The article has gotten too long again. ==
I keep shying away from editing this article, even when I see things that clearly need a rewrite, because it has gotten so long.
Here are a couple of thoughts.
According to Wikipedia, liberalism is an "idiology" while conservatism is a "philosophy". Why?
Should we split off a separate article on the history of liberalism. Currently, the article gives the impression that nobody thought about liberalism until the Renaissance, when actually Renaissance thinkers were influenced by the Greek conflicts between the tyrants and the demogogues and Roman conflicts between the patricians and plebeans. That really needs to be said, but would just make the article longer.
Also, there still seems to be repetition between sections.
Maybe a brief history of liberalism here -- no more than half a page, and an article on the subject. Thoughts? Suggestions? [[User:Rick Norwood|Rick Norwood]] 13:28, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
: As far as I'm concerned, ideology is a sort of philosophy.
: The historical stuff anchors the ideas, so I think it's vital to keep in. Otherwise we'd be mired in a naive methodology, where whoever says they're a liberal is assumed to be a proponent of the ideology. But you're quite right to include classical scholarship.
: I think a lot of these sections are redundant and a lot of chaff can be cut off by a keen reader. For example, the first section (which I recently called overview) has respective sections that can be shuttled into other sections or eliminated entirely. (Though it's important to keep the "strains" bit somewhere near the top IMO.)
: BTW thanks for all the work you're doing, keep it up. [[User:Lucidish|Lucidish]] 20:21, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
::History has to stay in, but the overview of liberalism in diverse countries can be deleted. I upgraded the [[Liberalism worldwide]] article a bit, and the main article can refer to that article. Furthermore, the article doesn't really need a comparison with other ideologies. What should remain is information on libertarianism as something what could be considered a form of liberal fundamentalism and information on neoliberalism (which is not liberalism). I will edit these sections, and the article might become shorter. [[User:Wilfried Derksen|Electionworld]] 21:27, 17 October 2005 (UTC) (It was 67 kilobytes, it is now 57 kilobytes.
When you are removing large chunks of longstanding text, and are not merging them into other articles, ''please'' move the cut text to the talk page. See [[Wikipedia:Editing_policy#On_editing_styles]]. "...Whatever you do, try to preserve information... If, in your considered judgment, a page simply needs to be rewritten or changed substantially, go ahead and do that. But preserve any old contents you think might have some discussion value on the talk page, along with a comment about why you made the change. Even if you delete something that's just plain wrong, odds are that it got there because someone believed it was true, so preserve a comment that it is in fact wrong to inform later editors..." I am quite sure that what is being removed is ''not'' just plain wrong, and with the rejuggling of sections, it is hard to see what exactly is being removed. -- [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 07:05, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
:Sorry, I thought the way one can compare diverse versions was enough, but that is clearly not the case. With my next edit I will try and give an overview of what I deleted and moved to other articles. All the text on various countries has been added to Liberalism worldwide under the regions or countries involved. [[User:Wilfried Derksen|Electionworld]] 08:24, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
- this person makes a great point. Liberalism is more than an ideology...its more than a political prefrence or economic outcome. Liberalism is practically a way of life. Its about maximizing individual freedoms, increasing economic effeciency, reducing poverty, building wealth, promoting innovation, and world peace...all thanks to limited representative government and free markets. It practically covers everything.
- Gibby
== Large edit ==
In line with the last entry of JMabel I will outline my edit of 17 and 18 October 2005. Below I list the major elements of this edit. Smaller changes can be found via the comparison function:
*Intro
** I integrated and slightly changed the first two paragraphs of the intro.
** I deleted the third paragraph of the intro, but moved most of the text to the section Strains of liberalism
**Text was added from the section influence of liberalism
*Etymology and historical usage
** In the subsection Etymology and historical usage I moved most of the first paragraph to comparative influences, removing the original first paragrpah of that section (text had same meaning)
** The paragraph starting with the world liberalism is added to the first paragraph of this section.
**More philosophers were added to the roots part of this text
**Deleted from this section the text (since is has been dealt with in other parts of ther article:
:::''To some, liberalism remained in its late 18th century form: limiting the role of states as actors within the economy, except to the extent of providing a stable political, legal and monetary frame work - which included being responsible for protecting against threats from abroad and enforcing civil order at home, along with maintaining a stable currency, based on a "sound money" policy. Such minimalistic states are sometimes called ''[[night watchman state]]s''. With the coming of industrialization, part of the liberal thinkers focused on government institutions that are perceived to encourage "social progress," developing [[social liberalism]] as a current inside liberalism. Each of the various groups have continued to claim the name of "liberal" as their own. Disputes regarding both the right to the name "liberal" and the true meaning of "classical" liberalism continue into the 21st century.''
*Rewrote the section on strains of liberalism, since there is no homogenous European liberalism. I added some text from the section Influence of liberalism. I deleted the sentence ''In Europe, the term ‘social liberalism’ connotates adoption of more pro-market policies by [[social-democratic]] parties, and is associated especially with [[Third Way]] politics.'', since social liberalism and third way is not usually or especially associated with each other.
*deleted most of the section Influence of liberalism, since most of the text doubles with other parts (especialy the text on impact). The sentences on resolution of differences have been added to the intro. The deleted texts are:
::''Together with [[nationalism]], liberalism has shaped much of [[western civilisation]] since the late [[18th century]]. While the first modern [[republic]]s came into existence in [[North_America|America]] and [[France]] by [[revolution]], some came by way of gradual change. ''
::''[[Liberal democracy]], in its typical form of multi-party political pluralism, has spread to much of the world, though not without opposition. It does not solely belong to the liberal programme, but is supported by almost all western political groups (and generally taken for granted). Liberal principles such as [[free expression]] and [[religious tolerance]] are now part of the [[constitution]]s of many countries throughout the world, and supported by transnational institutions such as the [[United Nations]] and the [[European Union]]. This is a source of friction with non-liberals, especially [[Islamism|Islamists]], who reject the ideological supremacy of these principles. The universal claims of [[human rights]] are also disputed, since they conflict with the [[sovereignty]] of non-western countries.
* Added some info on Dutch revolution in Orogins of liberal thought.
* I removed the sub-titles in Revolutionare liberalism
* I removed in Liberalism against totalitarianism the sentence ''The concept has been disputed by historians, who consider that the reality of the regimes (power struggles, factions, and incompetence), did not match the [[dystopia]].'', since it doesn't say anything about liberalism. The same goes for the sentence: ''[[John Maynard Keynes]] wrote to Hayek, saying he was "deeply moved" by the argument that temporary government programs could become permanent tyranny.'', it doesn't seem relevant to me.
* I removed the sub-titles in Liberalism after World War II
* I added some notions to the paragraph on Impact of liberalism
* In the paragraph A general overview of political positions:
** I removed the labels left and right, since otherwise we could start a long debate of the meaning of these words and on the question of some parties are left or right. It is not relevant. Furthermore I moved the sentence on multiculturalism to the sentences about neutrality.
**I removed the United States Constitution from the disclaimer (it goes far to label that as a manifesto.
**I added text about liberal democracy, rule of law and civil rights (with a re-edit of Equality for law section)
**Enlarged the section on economics
**added a section on green concerns
**removed the D66 example: '' The Dutch liberal democratic party [[D66]] proposed, for instance, [[same-sex marriage]] and in a coalition with the conservative-liberal [[VVD]] and the social democrats enacted legislation to allow this. ''
*deleted from Political deviances the text: '', and operate a [[zero tolerance]] policy on anything that contravenes them. The former liberal European Commissioner [[Frits Bolkestein]] advocated the creation (by state intervention) of a European, liberal, Islam - a reversal of the traditional liberal [[separation of church and state]]. This is however not a general liberal policy and most liberals stick to this traditional liberal value''. I am not aware of a zero tolerance and the Bolkestein example should be in the article on VVD.
* I moved the content of Liberalism in various countries to [[Liberalism worldwide]].
* I integrated the text on comparison with libertarianism into Liberal fundamentalism
* I deleted the text on Comparison with other ideologies (since it is not really necesary for this article). Some subsections, related to neoliberalism and parts of social democracy and conservatism became the new section on Neoliberalism. The following texts were deleted:
::''As explained in the preceding sections, there are a number of ideologies and philosophies that influence liberals and liberal theory, or that share many common points with one or more branches of liberalism. [[Social democracy]] can be considered liberalism's closest "neighbor" on the left, while [[conservativism]] is liberalism's closest "neighbor" on the right. [[Neoliberalism]] is a certain type of pro-market economic policy that arguably rose from the liberal tradition. It is often adopted by conservative, [[Christian democracy|christian-democratic]] and social democratic politicians, not necessarily combining this with a liberal agenda outside politics. [[Libertarianism]] is discusses [[#Liberal fundamentalism|above]].'' and
::''Liberalism shares many basic goals and methods with social democracy, but in some places diverges. The fundamental difference between liberalism and social democracy, besides their different origins, is the role of the state in the economy. Social democracy seeks to achieve some minimum [[equality of outcome]], and upholds [[egalitarianism]] as the source of its moral values. Social democrats support a large [[public sector]] and the [[nationalization]] of utilities such as gas and electricity in order to avoid private monopolies, to achieve [[social justice]] and to raise the standard of living. Liberalism prefers much less state intervention, choosing for example [[subsidies]] and regulation rather than outright state ownership.'' and
::''''This last case has led to the odd situation where the Labour Party is seen by many as being to the right of the Liberal Democrats.''
*Moved Some references to the end of the article.
I would like to see an addition on internationalism. The historical text needs some elaboration. [[User:Wilfried Derksen|Electionworld]] 20:26, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
:Electionworld has made a significant contribution to the article, IMO. It is now a more compact and better organized article, by far. I've begun to do some editing/copyediting and will continue with that. [[User:Sunray|Sunray]] 23:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
---
: I encourage you to add some things on internationalism.
: I must say though that I find it inappropriate to delete the critiques section from the article and would like to see it put back. [[User:Lucidish|Lucidish]] 02:31, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
::In the list above I didn't delete criticism as far as I can see, I even added criticism. What sections do you miss now? [[User:Wilfried Derksen|Electionworld]] 15:43, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
::: The last one [[User:Lucidish|Lucidish]] 02:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
::::That is the comparison text on social democracy, not really a critique. Dit you really mean that text? I added this text to a new paragraph Headlines of critique. [[User:Wilfried Derksen|Electionworld]] 13:48, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
: Righto. That's the one. I've touched it up a bit. [[User:Lucidish|Lucidish]] 03:33, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
::Is it OK so? [[User:Wilfried Derksen|Electionworld]] 11:11, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
::: It could stand to be filled out a little bit, but yeah it seems roughly alright. [[User:Lucidish|Lucidish]] 18:05, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
== opening paragraph ==
I've mentioned before my reluctance to edit this article as long as others are making huge changes daily. But I do want to comment here on the following:
"Liberalism stresses the resolution of differences by peaceful means within the bounds of democratic or lawful processes and aims at realizing liberal democracy, the political system that enables this."
Awkward sentence. Somebody should rewrite.
"Liberals will therefore take measures to defend this system and some of them advocate the spread of liberal democracy as a political system by military force."
I would need to see a quote from a major liberal thinker before I agreed with the statement that some liberals advocate the spread of liberal democracy by force. Unless, of course, you consider George W. Bush a liberal. He is the only major political thinker I know of who advocates the spread of liberal democracy by force, and we can all see just how well that is working. [[User:Rick Norwood|Rick Norwood]] 22:56, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
:Why not go ahead and re-write as you deem necessary? Be bold! [[User:Sunray|Sunray]] 23:08, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
: Christopher Hitchens is one example. I had put him in there recently, but he got removed when that whole foreign policy section was removed. [[User:Lucidish|Lucidish]] 03:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
:Rick Norwood says, "Unless, of course, you consider George W. Bush a liberal." In many aspects, George W. Bush's policies are classically liberal. [[User:Ordinary Person|Ordinary Person]]
:: Not at all. He supported trade barriers against Canadian farmers. He tolerates, and even promotes, cartels, monopolies, oligopolies. Makes them richer. Etc. He certainly uses classic liberal rhetoric, but that's an indication of nothing because it's just a front for neoliberal policy. [[User:Lucidish|Lucidish]] 02:15, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
:::Some examples of George W Bush's liberalism are: 1/ the effective six year amnesty on illegal immigrants that is offered by the temporary worker program (despite the fact that this is being marketed as a tough policy); 2/ his opposition to affirmative action; 3/ his call for partial privatisation of Social Security; 4/ his opposition to the Kyoto Protocol. Certainly his platform has also included non-liberal policies, but my statement above is true. [[User:Ordinary Person|Ordinary Person]] 08:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
: You have named modern, contingent conditions to the ideology when what are at issue are the necessary ones: vs. trade barriers, pro-democracy, vs. cartels & oligopolies, etc. A classical liberal would call for the dismantling of SS entirely, BTW, and Bush has framed the entire SS question as if it were a question of ''improving'' it, because he knows that the American pubic loves that program.
: To put the matter to rest: he gives lip service to the "freedom from want", which is very much not a classical liberal point of view. CL sees freedom in negative terms. In that respect, if one were from Mars and entirely ignorant of the proceedings of his entire administration, and only paid attention to a select number of his speeches, then Bush would be a modern liberal. [[User:Lucidish|Lucidish]] 22:58, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
==Do we need the "totally disputed" tag?==
Question: Does the article still need a disputed tag at the top? I've looked over the previous objections and think that they have been addressed, where appropriate. [[User:Sunray|Sunray]] 23:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
:Be bold! Easy for you to say. I have probably spent a hundred hours working on careful rewrites of this article, one section at a time. My bold friends think nothing of doing what seems like a dozen rewrites a day. "Slowly!" I cry. They throw caution to the winds. Why spend time carefully choosing the ''mot juste'' in one paragraph when everything is going to be totally rewritten before I can even catch my breath? Let's wait until things calm down a bit. Then it may be time to remove the "totally disputed" tag. [[User:Rick Norwood|Rick Norwood]] 23:25, 18 October 2005 (UTC)
::You are a patient man! You also make some good points. Let's hear from others on this, as well. [[User:Sunray|Sunray]] 01:58, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
:: Just leave it in for now. Many of the points that Ruz has made have not been implemented in the slightest, because his/her points have been founded on misunderstanding. But they seem like a reasonable enough person, all things considered. Removal of the tag now wouldn't be appropriate unless one considered them a troll or vandal, but they're clearly not. [[User:Lucidish|Lucidish]] 03:43, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
::If you want to rewrite a section and need some time for that, why don't you use the a variant of the inuse tag. I could imagine that we can place this tag also at the start of a section, so that after the moment the tag has been places, everybody waits to continue editing that section until the date mentioned in the tag (insert a date max. two days in advance). [[User:Wilfried Derksen|Electionworld]] 11:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
{{sectioninuse|23 October}}
:The article has been revised since the tag was included. Critique was included. I think the moment has come to delete the tag. If somebody still disputes the neutrality of the article, a tag can be re-inserted. [[User:Wilfried Derksen|Electionworld]] 11:17, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
== New texts ==
I added a paragraph Headlines of critique and a text on the international policy of liberals. [[User:Wilfried Derksen|Electionworld]] 14:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
== And so it grows. ==
Let me once again urge both care and brevity on the part of rewriters. For example:
"Opponents of liberalism especially reject the view that the private sector is for collective benefit of the community, considering the har done to thoese individuals who lose out in competition."
Let me suggest that you compose rewrites using a wordprocessor that has a spellchecker, and then cut and paste them into the article when they are in finished form. [[User:Rick Norwood|Rick Norwood]] 21:19, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
:Sorry. [[User:Wilfried Derksen|Electionworld]] 11:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
== Picture ==
A picture of Adam Smith was added. It might be nice to have pictures in the article. I would suggest to either add pictures of John Locke, Montesquieu and John Stuart Mill or to delete all pictures. Since there is an explanation about the role of thes people for liberalism, it is not necesary to add an explanation with the picture. So what do you think? [[User:Wilfried Derksen|Electionworld]] 11:09, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
: I like pictures [[User:Lucidish|Lucidish]] 18:34, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
== Shouldn't this article be split? ==
into Classical Liberalism and Modern Liberalism? (anonymous)
:No that wouldn't be a good split. I wouldn't favor any split, but if one: one about history and one about liberalism today. [[User:Wilfried Derksen|Electionworld]] 20:11, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Isn't that the same: Classical (historical), Modern (today)? {{unsigned|69.223.85.229|2 Nov 2005}}
: Actually, no. "Modern liberalism" is synonymous with "social liberalism". Most "liberal" parties today in Europe are definitely ''not'' "modern liberal". "Classical liberalism" is a trickier term. Some people (I'm one of them) are very hesitant to apply it to anyone after about 1860; the libertarians often claim that they ''are'' "classical" liberals, which is to say that they reject the turn that liberalism took with John Stuart Mill. However, there is a lack of any clear continuity from the 19th-century classical liberals to the libertarians, although certainly there is a strong influence. -- [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 08:04, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
:I agree with JMabel that it is not the same. I disagree that modern liberalism is globally synonymous with social liberalism (it might be synonymous in the US or UK). If we split the article, the division should be history and liberalism today. I do not think a split is necesary. [[User:Wilfried Derksen|Electionworld]] 08:31, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
== Good Work ==
I just wanted to thank and congratulate all who work on this page, especially those who have taken ownership. Its an impossible task, and yet, you have performed admirably. You are crafting something far better than ever would have appeared in any static page.
Your work, painfully, tears at the very self-identity of a very large group of people who have been long in denial. That makes the work very hard. Yet truth seems to surge forward slowly. Best wishes to all. --[[User:Ej0c|Ej0c]] 13:40, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
:Thanks for your kind remarks, tho there may be some disagreement about who is in denial and who is clear eyed and bushy tailed.
: I agree that the article is in very good shape -- but it's too long, and some of the brief history in the Strains of Liberalism section is repeated in the History of liberalism section, which suggests splitting the History of liberalism section off into its own article. That has my recommendation, at any rate. [[User:Rick Norwood|Rick Norwood]] 15:11, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
== Critique Confusion ==
The use of the terms left and right are causing ambiguity, especially in one of the Comparative Critiques currently listed:
''Quote: Left-leaning opponents of economic liberalism reject the view that the private sector can be for the collective benefit, often citing the harm done to those individuals who lose out in competition. They oppose the use of the state to impose market principles on non-liberals, usually through an enforced market mechanism in a previously non-market sector. They argue that the dominance of liberal principles in economy and society has contributed to inequality among states, and inequality within states. They argue that liberal societies are characterised by long-term poverty, and by ethnic and class differentials in health, (infant) mortality and life expectancy. Some would even say they have much higher unemployment than centrally planned economies.''
Is the ''left'' in this case based on Socialist values? The remainder of this critique leads me to believe that the "Left-leaning opponents" are going on to state their beliefs rather than giving a genuine critique of economic liberalism, which the paragraph suggests it is doing. This is not helping with clarification. There is a sense of bias against economic liberalism here and the statements seem to be contradicting in nature.
This should be divided into two paragraphs. One for the 'left-leaning opponents', who ever they may be (clarify, please), and possibly additional paragraphs developed as the position of economic liberalism in contrast to democracy, socialism, and other forms of government.
: I don't see this as merely a rehashing of critical positions. What's been said here are empirical statements which can be understood as critiques.
: But you're right about the ambiguity. Sourcing would be a help.
: What I don't like much about the paragraph is that one of its points ("They oppose the use of the state to impose market principles on non-liberals, usually through an enforced market mechanism in a previously non-market sector") seems to imply that all of those critiques are made only by leftist sorts. Right-wing theocrats can have that style of argument as well, though restricted to the ___domain of cultural and moral works. [[User:Lucidish|Lucidish]] 17:53, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
::The political adjectives 'left' and 'right' seem to me to be left over from the cold war era, and should be obsolete. In the quote above, what does the adjective "left-leaning" add to the sentence, beyond an attempt at name calling. I favor deleting it. In fact, I favor deleting the entire paragraph. It sounds like somebody setting up a straw dog in order to beat it with a stick. [[User:Rick Norwood|Rick Norwood]] 23:57, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
::: It is most definitely not a strawman. I think there are some very persuasive claims to the argument. [[User:Lucidish|Lucidish]] 17:40, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
::The success of capitalism and the failure of planned economies seems to me at this point a historic fact. In capitalism, some people are poor. In planned economies, everybody is poor (except the planners, who usually manage to take care of themselves). Most opponents of economic liberalism I have read do not "reject the view that the private sector can be for the collective benefit" but rather say that the state must provide checks against the abuses of wealth and must provide a safety net below which even the poorest citizen should not be allowed to fall. The current debate seems to be not whether there should be some economic freedom and some social security, but rather where to draw the line. Maybe I'm wrong. If you have heard the point in the quoted paragraph made, then it probably should be in the article. [[User:Rick Norwood|Rick Norwood]] 22:42, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
::: Yet the comment says nothing about the success, or ''wealth'', of planned economies. Rather, it says that there would be a ''lower unemployment rate'' in a planned economy (presumably, among those who are willing to seek jobs). <s>This might be given the lie by empirical fact so far (I don't know one way or the next), but</s> one could at least conceive of situations where it were true. And to talk of their level of ''employment'' would still say nothing about their ''underemployment'', that is to say, the impact of having a job on their quality of life, which is probably horribly impoverished; let alone on the moral standing of the government, which as you indicate would probably be grossly corrupt.
::: Some people have some opinions, others don't. The position might be held by some, and not by others, within the leftist mainstream. The hard place that we're put in is trying to express that nuance without resorting to so-called "weasel words", as in "Some left-leaning critics say that...". But, as far as I'm concerned, a false hyperbole is worse than a weasel word, because while the one is just plain wrong, the other is in want of a citation.
::: I haven't heard it argued myself, and I agree with you that the "security" argument is more common. But the "employment" argument is plausible, so I think is deserving of keeping; and the "security" argument is already adopted enthusiastically by social liberals anyway, (though framed in terms of liberty), which makes me wonder how much work it would be doing in criticizing "liberalism". [[User:Lucidish|Lucidish]] 23:14, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
::: Capitalism is presumed to reside in an 'economic' liberalism, so it may be better to look at Libertarianism's perspectives on economy as a counterpoint to planned or legislated economies. If poverty is claimed as a flaw to economic liberalism, then other elements at play in a given nation must be considered. The point about employment and underemployment is especially useful when looking at the level of taxation and presense of socialist programs such as welfare or medicare. Or perhaps I'm totally wrong here, as Libertarianism suggests itself to be economically conservative, but liberty-oriented overall. From a socialist point of view, the thought that Jobs are not seen as a Right within an economically liberalist nation would likely be a negative critique. {{unsigned|64.30.63.63|10 Nov 2005}}
::In any case, the only question here is -- is this a position actually held within the mainstream. I can't think of a reference. [[User:Rick Norwood|Rick Norwood]] 00:06, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
::: A bit of research confirms the claim. It seems that, assuming you trust the source, this is a fact, whether or not it is within the mainstream.
::: "''Full employment was common to centrally planned economies. All able−bodied adults who were willing to accept employment were provided with a job as a matter of right. The result was, in many instances, overstaffing imposed administratively on state−owned enterprises (SOEs).''" "Historically Planned Economies: A Guide to the Data", 1993, by the World Bank. Page 32. Can be downloaded from Ingentaconnect.com if you have access. [[User:Lucidish|Lucidish]] 00:03, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
== NPOV tag ==
I think the NPOV tag can be removed now. There was no argument the last 10 days that thius article is not neutral or accurate? If somebody doesn't agree, plase write down what in todays article is not neutral or accurate enough. [[User:Wilfried Derksen|Electionworld]] 11:57, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
== Tricky phrase ==
There was a sentence, describing the change between the views of (say) Thomas Hobbes and those of John Locke, that previously read "The definitive break was the conception that free individuals could form the basis of political stability, rather than having license to the degree that they did not threaten political stability." Note the tricky construct: having license ''to the degree'' that they ''did not'' do something. This is somewhat archaic English. Probably only a lawyer or an academic would unselfconsciously use it today. A presumably well-meaning editor got the sense of it backward, and changed it to "…having license to the degree that they '''threatened''' political stability," which reverses the sense. I restored the original. Another doubtless well-intentioned (and experienced) editor still misread this, and changed it to "…having license to such a degree that they threatened political stability," which says something else entirely. I have now reworded it to "…having license only insofar as they did not constitute a threat against political stability," which means the same thing as the original, but is presumably easier to understand. -- [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 07:31, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
:The sentence clearly needs to be rewritten entirely. I think you've changed it back around to the wrong way, but in any case it should be replaced with a sentence not so easily misread.
:The point, as I understand it, is that early foes of liberalism feared the mob, and the definitive break from that view was the idea that free individuals could form a stable society and not a dangerous mob. First, do you agree that this is the point of the sentence? Second, would you like to try to make the point unmistakable, or shall I? [[User:Rick Norwood|Rick Norwood]] 13:19, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
:: Kind of agree. The sentence (which I did not originally write) doesn't ''disagree'' with what you just said, but its point was (and is, in my rewrite) slightly different. Its point is that prior to Locke, liberty (viewed as a danger, your point) ''was tolerated'' (missing from your interpretation) in moderation, with that toleration limited by the point at which an excess of liberty was perceived to become a threat to stability. Locke (and certain of his contemporaries) were novel in viewing it as a ''basis'' for stability, rather than a threat. Again, "to the degree that" is archaic, but not unclear. It does not mean "to such a degree that", it means "insofar as". I don't know how much you've read of Hobbes and Locke; I've read a good bit of both, though decades ago, so I can't easily cite, but the "before" view being cited here is essentially Hobbes'. -- [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] | [[User talk:Jmabel|Talk]] 21:59, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
:I'm going to see if I can come up with a sentence that makes that point without being so easily misread. Also, I see some typos that need fixing. [[User:Rick Norwood|Rick Norwood]] 00:12, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
== Liberal fundamentalism ==
I was going to attempt a rewrite of the Liberal Fundamentalsim section. It clearly needs one. But I cannot make heads or tails of what it is trying to say, so I'm not the one to try to rewrite it. I do think there is a good point or two hidden in there, somewhere. [[User:Rick Norwood|Rick Norwood]] 00:32, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
:Good work on the rewrite of the Liberal fundamentalism section. Now it makes sense. Two small suggestions, which you can take or ignore as you like. Third to last paragraph, drop the "in the first place". Last paragraph, expand the contraction. [[User:Rick Norwood|Rick Norwood]] 13:53, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
:: Done, except for the contraction bit, which I don't think matters. [[User:Lucidish|Lucidish]] 20:23, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
== Basic Principles & Two Errors ==
I think that, right at the beginning of the article, there should be a list of basic principles of liberalism. Yes, I know there used to be one and it got deleted - though I don't know why. Probably there was no consensus about all the principles. I suggest a short list of principles, with a disclaimer that any given liberal may disagree with one or more. Something along the lines of: If an ideology is more or less compatable with a majority of the principles, they are deemed "liberal."
Here's a list of liberal principles. Note there is some overlap.
*liberty/individual rights
*rule of law
*equality (of rights; under the law; anti-caste)
*minimization/limitation of government power
*local sovereignty aka self-rule
*anti-imperialism
*pluralism (politics-democracy; religion-tolerance; economics-free trade)
*free market (in goods and ideas)
*democracy (political pluralism and transparency)
On my first reading, I did find a couple of outright errors.
1) In the '''Revolutionary liberalism''' section, the article reads, ''"Franklin, Jefferson and John Adams would be instrumental in persuading their fellow Americans to revolt..."'' In fact, Franklin was a latecomer to the revolution, and was almost appointed Governor of America by King George at one point. So I will replace "Franklin" with "Thomas Paine."
2) In '''Post-revolutionary liberalism: Dignity, equality, liberty and property''', the example doesn't make sense. The article implies that slavery is compatable with individual liberty(!), and sets up a false conflict between liberty and dignity. In fact, the abolition movement had many (e.g. William Lloyd Garrison and Frederick Douglas) who opposed slavery ''on the basis of'' property rights. They often referred to slavery "man-stealing." The issue was not property vs dignity, but ''what is legitimate property.''
A more general criticism is: underemphasis on the ''limitation/minimization of government power'' aspect of liberalism. The whole anti-statist strain of liberalism is totally ignored in the article, as far as I can see. How can we omit the quintessential liberal [[Frederic Bastiat]]? (The best ''liberalism in one lesson'' essay of all time IMO is [http://www.ozarkia.net/bill/anarchism/library/thelaw.html The Law].) Where's Gustave de Molinari ("The Private Production of Security") and Herbert Spencer ("Social Statics", "The Right to Ignore the State"), Auberon Herbert, etc.? [[User:Hogeye|Hogeye]] 20:23, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
:Your recent addition makes a good editorial, but not a good encyclopedia article. (Also, the liberalism article is already too long.) I like what you've written well enough to leave it alone, but my guess is that someone will revert it, since it is definitely not NPOV.
:On the other hand, the paragraph you replaced is not NPOV, either. Both paragraphs suggest that one side or the other had control of the constitutional convention. The reality was that everyone had to compromise, giving up some of the things they wanted in order to get other things. Franklin's influence was probably what allowed the convention to actually produce a document that everyone would sign, instead of ending with no constitution at all -- a very real possibility.
:As you mention, a list like yours has been attempted several times with no success. I think freedom, democracy, and equality under the law cover most of the items on your list.
:The issue of property was one question discussed by abolitionists, but the morality was much more important. I can see John Brown and Harriet Beacher Stowe having a nice, quiet discussion over whose property rights were better served!
:Also, I think the anti-statist branch of liberalism gets all of the mention it deserves. This is another of those minor strains of liberalism that will always have their passionate supporters but will never appeal to a majority. Nature abhors a power vacuum. [[User:Rick Norwood|Rick Norwood]] 21:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
::There are a number of errors, grammatical and otherwise, in the editorial that Hogeye has added to the article. That Classical Liberals never considered redistributing the wealth suggests that the French Revolution never happened. That Woodrow Wilson, Jew hating member of the Ku Klux Klan and Princeton educated champion of the upper class, was the founder of modern American liberalism is -- well, surprising. That liberals are war hungry seekers after evil enemies to fight -- well ...
::On the other hand, the new stuff makes interesting reading. I'm going to hold off on doing any editing until things settle down a bit. [[User:Rick Norwood|Rick Norwood]] 00:48, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
== Hogeye's editorial ==
I had really hoped that somebody else would jump in and edit the huge changes that Hogeye has made to the article, all strongly POV (Business good! Government bad!). What he writes is too interesting to just revert and too POV to leave as is so, since nobody else is stepping up to the plate, I'm going to give it a try, a little at a time, with comments here. [[User:Rick Norwood|Rick Norwood]] 16:32, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
As I read over the article, I discover bigger problems than just Hogeye's edit. The first thing that is apparent is that the two sections "Origins of Liberal Thought" and "Origin of Liberalism" should be combined, together with other "origin" comments throughout the article. I'm going to give it at try. [[User:Rick Norwood|Rick Norwood]] 16:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
I've worked on 1.1, now moving on to 1.2. Please keep in mind, if your favorite passage is gone, that may be because it appears later on. Most of what I did was to eliminate repetition. [[User:Rick Norwood|Rick Norwood]] 17:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
Finished 1.2. Most of what I did here was to simplify and shorten. There was an awful lot of repetition. I tried not to remove any ideas. [[User:Rick Norwood|Rick Norwood]] 17:55, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
I've taken out of 1.3 topics that are discussed in detail in the next section. I've hardly even gotten to my original goal of editing Hogeye's changes, but the heavy repetition between the sections needed to be addressed first. Section two still contains a great deal of repetition.
I pause here for a day or two, so that others can comment on and improve on the changes I've made. I only urge that you remember that brevity is the soul of wit. [[User:Rick Norwood|Rick Norwood]] 18:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
:I agree with you almost completely, the article was in good shape, but is now in bad POV shape. The way social liberalism is described now is very negative. I would suggest to revert to the old version and then try to improve it. Brevity is for me not the main goal. [[User:Electionworld|Electionworld]] 18:32, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
::That would certainly be the easy way out, but Hogeye writes well, mostly, and makes some good points, so I would prefer to work with what he has written. Believe me, my finger hovered over the revert key for a long time before I decided the hard work of reworking what he has written was worth while. [[User:Rick Norwood|Rick Norwood]] 20:02, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
::For example, Hogeye's most recent edit is clearly an improvement. [[User:Rick Norwood|Rick Norwood]] 20:15, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
:OK, I start to rewrite some sections. The Hogeye text is at some places POV towards social liberalism and considers classical liberalism as the true form of liberalism. It is also too much about American liberalism. I attempt to use the good points and rewrites, and make it more neutral. Some additional remarks. In Etymology I removed Adam Smith. [[Minarchism]] is not classical liberalism's moderate form (it is quite radical). The citation of Bastiat is good for an opinion article. On discovered law, many liberals were prominent in codifying laws. Standaridzation of weights and measures was done by state authority, esp. by Napoleon, in many countries. [[User:Wilfried Derksen|Electionworld]] 13:10, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
::''Electionworld: "Minarchism is not classical liberalism's moderate form (it is quite radical)."''
::Minarchism may be radical by today's standards, but it was standard fare for the classical liberals. If you wish, I can trot out many quotes by Bastiat, Spencer, Herbert, etc. regarding their opposition to corn laws, govt education, govt interference in trade, pauperization (aka welfare, poor laws) and so on. So I put the minarchism ref back in.
::''Electionworld: " On discovered law, many liberals were prominent in codifying laws."''
::True - codifying, ''not'' decreeing. There is a difference between compiling past rulings (common law) and rulers making edicts. Blackstone did the former. Liberalism favors common law over political law. [[User:Hogeye|Hogeye]] 17:31, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
:It is is going to be possible for you to make a contribution to this article, you will have to accept that your view of liberalism is a minority view. You are well read and you write well, but your ideology does not correspond to the ideology of a majority of liberals -- as your reference to the "War for Southern Independence" shows. Most liberals accept more government intervention than you would, to, for example, stop slavery, genocide, rigged elections, or dangerous business practices. [[User:Rick Norwood|Rick Norwood]] 19:22, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree with Rick. Liberals were active in making a lot of new laws. In the Anglophone world they might have favoured common law, I don't know, but I do now that many liberals took an active rol in changing laws. [[User:Electionworld|Electionworld]] 22:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
== Liberalism vs Nationalism ==
We need to discuss how liberalism relates to nationalism and centralization of power. One main principle of liberalism is limitation/minimization of government power. Centralization is clearly anti-liberal. So is nationalism - the notion that States should coincide with cultural/language divisions. Liberalism prefers self-government and local sovereignty. In the article, the following sentence in the Revolutionary Liberalism section is contradictory:
:''The revolutions placed increasing value on self-governance and national unity, and that a people could not be properly governed by those who were not nearby.''
National unity is almost always centralizing, creating rulers who are further away - not nearby. The USAmerican revolution (strictly speaking a ''secession'' rather than a revolution) was anti-nationalistic. It politically separated the Anglo nation, devolving the US colonies not only from England but also Canada. The Latin American liberal secessions were also against "national unity." They separated the Iberian (Spanish-speaking) nation into many many parts.
I am aware that in Italy and Germany, various city-states and small entities were forcibly united, but this was an ''anti-liberal'' trend. Many/most liberal historians consider the Germanic/Italian small entities as ''more'' liberal than their centralized successors. Cf: the writings of Lord Acton. [[User:Hogeye|Hogeye]] 17:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
:Once again, your views are well argued, and would make an interesting article, but not in an encyclopedia, which must present mainstream views. The rules of wikipedia prohibit original research. [[User:Rick Norwood|Rick Norwood]] 19:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
It is interesting to debate nationalism and liberalism, but it is a fact that in the nineteenth century a lof of liberals were at the same time nationalist. This could lead to seccesion, but also to unification. Some parties were even called National Liberal Party. The german liberals wanted a democratic united/federal Germany as an alternative for the despotic rule in most principalities. That doesn't mean that 1870 Germany was a liberal project, but liberals favoured at that time unification. In Italy the liberal prime minister Cavour was one of the leading architects of the unification. [[User:Electionworld|Electionworld]] 22:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
==Kant==
I'm halfway through 2.1, and have, I hope, only elimited the worst of the repetition and streamlined the most convoluted sentences. Now I come to a question of substance. Was Kant a liberal? I would say not. Certainly, the purposes to which his writings were put by Belloch and the other English Roman Catholics were anything but liberal. So, I'm asking -- should Kant be cut? [[User:Rick Norwood|Rick Norwood]] 20:44, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
:I am convinced that Kant should be in, but now I have the problem I am not a native English speaker. In the book "Filosofen van het klassieke liberalisme", one of the chapters is dedeicated to Kant, it is clearly shown that his ideas were liberal, by putting the emphasis on the autonomous free man. This book refers to the book of G. Dietze: Liberalism proper and proper liberalism (1985). [[User:Electionworld|Electionworld]] 22:39, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
I've never read Kant. (I tried a few times.) So I'll take your word for it. Kant stays in. [[User:Rick Norwood|Rick Norwood]] 13:08, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
| |||