text:
Talk:Liberalism/Archive 2

Robespierre
Recently added to the article: "Later under the leadership of Robespierre, a totalitarian, almost proto-socialist fraction took power." In what sense was Robespierre a "proto-socialist"? Jacques Hébert could probably be called a proto-socialist, but Robespierre had him killed! -- Jmabel | Talk 05:45, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
 * Good question. I do not know if Robespierre was a proto-socialist, but he sure was illiberal and totalitarian. Electionworld 06:36, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Liberalism in and outside the USA
In the past we tried to make an article on liberalism outside and inside the USA. Much of the discussion focuses on American liberalism and is really not about liberalism outside the USA. Though I wrote a lot in this article in an attempt to make one article, I would now suggest to make a clearer distinction and focus in this article on Liberalism in its international dimensions. The American stuff would then belong in the article Liberalism in the United States. I have made a small introduction. Electionworld 06:51, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

 * This is an excellent idea. Liberalism has developed independently in each country and means different things to different people. luketh 21:55, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Wonderful. There is an enormous amount of work to be done with respect to disambiguation for this term, since a bunch of WP articles are rendered meaningless because the label has opposite semantics on each side of the pond. Please continue this effort. (Liberalism in the United States is now at American Lilberalism, by the way. (Should that really be capitalised?)) Arbor 11:44, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Liberalism in South Africa
I agree with the above. I think that it would be particularly useful to have an article on Liberalism in South Africa. The Liberal Party was very influentual in the setting up of the Freedom Charter and much that came afterwards. It was involved in activism and banned. Liberal thought is still alive and important in South African debate even if it isn't always recognised as such.
 * There is allready an entry Liberalism in South Africa. Electionworld 19:16, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Libertarianism and classical liberalism
165.230.209.234 is me, sorry. I wanted to make the point that minarchists (as explained on the Minarchism page) do not necessarily believe in complete and absolute economic economic deregulation. Allens 06:13, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

User 207.200.116.72
This user has a history of vandalism including insertion of obscenity in Holidays, insertion of defamatory POV material in Liberalism and  --Dittoman 22:47:47, 2005-08-29 (UTC)

Collectivism
Do I correctly read the last sentence of the lead paragraph as claiming that free markets are collectivist??? "Liberalism also claims to oppose collectivist ideologies, particularly communism, although it generally favours collective process and outcomes (such as the free market) in social decision-making." -- Jmabel | Talk 03:59, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Libertarianism
Why is a politically (and historically) insignificant ideology mentioned on this page 26 times? Social Liberalism, an ideology that is and was hugely influential, is mentioned 3 times. I think we must address the problem of Libertarian POV trying to take over this page and change actual facts. Slizor 14:03, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm with you. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:33, September 8, 2005 (UTC)
 * But I think now this has gone too far the other way. 26 times was too much, but this has now gone down to near zero. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:29, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
 * I was the one who deleted some of the references to libertarianism. I just counted 10 references, so it is still more then social liberalism. I deleted references as far as they were not relevant in an entry about liberalism. There is still a seperate section on the relation between liberalism and libertarianism, but if you think that some of my deletions should be reverted, please re-add those texts. We then can discuss the matter. - Electionworld 07:12, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I think the key to this would be expansion of the section "Libertarianism and classical liberalism". I'm not going to try to deal with it right now, though. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:06, September 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree, but neither will I - Electionworld 18:47, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Termites at work?
From the lead paragraph: "Liberalism claims to oppose totalitarianism, but some liberals believe that liberal societies are the only ethically valid form of society. Liberalism also claims to oppose collectivist ideologies, particularly communism."

Why on earth the "clarification" (those are scare-quotes) "…but some liberals believe that liberal societies are the only ethically valid form of society"? Some adherents of any ideology think they have the only valid ideology. So what? Liberalism (in all of its currents) embraces Learned Hand's proposition that "The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right". To suggest that to insist on pluralism is somehow totalitarian because it excludes lack of pluralism is an empty paradox.

And why "claims to oppose" as against "opposes" or some such?

I can only suspect that termites have been at work, attempting to eat all meaning out of the article, weakening its framework.

I will edit these sentences accordingly. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:16, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Communism
Communism is liberal, it derived from extremely liberal thought. And I find it odd that it is opposed by liberalism, and yet this intro-paragraph goes to make a specific point about it (POV) and then it doesn't say anything about socialism, which is odd.

Keep in mind that this article clearly states that, "This entry discusses liberalism as a world wide ideology". And yet because the american liberals overall rejected all communist thought, this somehow ends up in an article which is about the world.

It is espcially wrong that this article makes the point that liberalism is not associated with communism (because liberalism is against totalitarianism), links to an article about communism which says nothing about it being totalitarian.

This is POV in three ways (is based on american liberalism, is against communism ideology and says that communism is totalitarianism), and I understand why it is being said: the american liberals do not want the communism brand name. So I propose two changes, since this is POV in both how it says communism is totalitarianism and that the intro paragraph's author has the intention of disassociating communism from liberalism.

Proposed change #1: Remove this from the intro paragraph all-together. What NPOV need is something so specific written in an intro-paragraph about an already very abstract article (something specific in an abstract of an abstract... this should set the POV flag shooting straight up).

Proposed change #2: Since these kind of articles seemed to be dominated by a majority of POV voters/writers, that is, whoever wants the article to say or not say something will win by majoirty, and not on the basis of presenting NPOV articles, I proposed a compromise: link to an article about the totalitarian implementation of communism in the USSR (ie: the [Communist State] article is good for this) and word it as being against totalitarianism, not against communism.

And lastly, I want to say is, I am a liberal (not defined very well by this article...), and an advocate of socialism/communism, which I see as being no different in their aspect of being against ruling class, which uses conservatism... I look forward to working with you all in resolving this. Thanks.--So Hungry 12:26, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm stuck on the first sentence. What is "liberal thinking"? Lucidish 16:31, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't really know what to make of the foregoing. Politically, American liberalism, with its strong admixture of social democracy leading to an openness to big-government solutions, falls considerably closer to communism than does most European liberalism. To say that the statement that liberalism is anti-communist is specific to American liberalism is just absurd. Can you name even one country where a liberal party and a communist party were political allies (other than during the Popular Front era when the Communists made a tactical decision to back liberals against the far right)? -- Jmabel | Talk 18:35, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

 * Liberalism and communism are clearly antipodes. Liberalism is based on the development of the individual, communism is collectivist. Liberalism is democratic, communism most of the time not. What a nonsense to say that communism is a form of liberalism. I am waiting for the next one who claims that fascism is a form of liberalism. - Electionworld 18:47, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Wouldn't quite go that far. There are startling similarities and there are startling differences. It depends on the kind of liberalism you're talking about, really. Modern, social, or "American" liberalism has "positive rights" in common with socialism, but as you mention, Marxist communism justifies a pursuit of that on the basis of collective rights, while social liberalism does it on the basis of individual rights. By contrast, classical liberalism deeply disdains communism and does not share as much common ground; instead, they have far more in common with capitalists. Lucidish 21:38, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Lucidish, am I correct in understanding that we are basically in agreement here? -- Jmabel | Talk 02:48, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes. I just wanted to be totally clear. Lucidish 05:52, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for the miscommunication... I never said communism was liberalism... I said it was liberal, trying to show similarity between the two words... yet I'll just refrain from that since it really shouldn't even be tried.... dictionary.com Communism was definetly liberal, read the defintion of liberal, then remember this well known quote from the Communist Manifesto, "All the powers of old Europe have entered into a holy alliance to exorcise this spectre: Pope and Tsar, Metternich and Guizot, French Radicals and German police-spies." Liberal, ie: new thought, clashing with conservative institutions. However, this does not make liberalism = communism and I am completely for this article make the disctinction. Liberalism isn't for collectivism and communism isn't for trade of any sort. So why do you all find the need to make such a point that liberalism is against communism?

So back on topic: Read the proposed changes. I wrote them after only getting 5 hours of sleep and waking up tired so I think I should better write them now...

Proposed change #1: What NPOV need is there for communism to be added into the introduction paragraph? It is odd how the author seems to have a debunking mission, to tell all reading this entry that liberalism is against communism... like some sort of eager-leaflet-handing-man at the airport... The POV flag goes off immediatly when I see something so spefic written in an INTRODUCTION paragraph of an already not very specific entry (american liberalism is spefic, this concept "liberalism" is more abstract). The proposal is to remove this last, awkwardly inserted sentance...

Proposed change #2: If for some reason you all agree that it is important that this be exactly here, remove the link to the communism article. The author meant communist states as an example of totalitarianism. Which is odd that an example has to be used, being that 1) their is already a link to totalitarianism and 2) most already have a good idea of totalitarianism (what need is there for example?) 3) it derived from an interpretation of USSR and therefore implies communist states. I would say it is overkill to use communism as an example after all of this, but I would say it is just enough being that the objective of the author is communist-bashing.  Be that as it may, link to an article which is about totalitarianism (eg: communist state).  Wikipedia should not have inaccurate articles and worst of all, inaccurate articles that conflict with each other (liberalism is saying communism is totalitarian, yet an entire article about communism says that nowhere... (because it is an article about communism as an ideology (non-totalitarian) and not about the USSR or other communist states (totalitarian)).--So Hungry 03:16, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

 * The remark about communism is there to position liberalism relative to other currents of political thought. If you look at, say, right-wing politics you will find a similar discussion in the intro. It completely escapes me why you see this as specifically tied to American liberalism. As several people have remarked in response to you, this is even truer of the main currents of European liberalism.

 * No, liberals have not simply been opposed to totalitarian states. They have been opposed to collectivism, as the article says (and, again, more emphatically the case for most European liberals than for most American liberals). 1848 is the last time that communists and liberals were even arguably on the same side of the barricades. Communism is not (or at least not specifically) here as an example of totalitarianism, it is here as an example of a collectivist ideology. If that isn't clear, a minor rewording would be in order. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:36, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

 * No need to apologize. These days "liberal" is a confusing word, with many connotations. You mean "liberal" as in "reform" or "progress", which are relative kinds of terms. But the sense of "liberal" that's most familiar in modern and historical usage (in these contexts) is liberalism in an absolute sense, an ideology itself and not just the characteristic of an ideology.
 * I agree with you in the sense that I don't know how much liberalism is against communism. First and foremost, liberalism is anti-authoritarian; the extent to which it tenses up with Marxist socialism, depends on the extent that Marxism is authoritarian. And it seems to me that Marx's methods, and especially those of his "followers" (Lenin, Stalin, Mao), were very authoritarian; so in that sense liberalism would have nothing to do with it.
 * Second, like Jmabel said, it's anti-collectivistic -- price controls, etc, are generally considered bad ideas. But this doesn't mean that collective interests aren't considered; rather, they're just not placed above the rights of individuals.
 * Third, (though this is really a pedantic remark,) "communism" is technically the end-state utopia in the Marxist socialist system, and I don't think any liberal (or any person, really) objects to a utopia. Lucidish 05:52, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Jmabel, it isn't me who is caught up on American liberalism influencing this article...

American Liberalism is also part of the west, therefore making the distinction that European Liberalism is more opposed to communism means nothing... And last of all, please explain to me how proving that American liberalism isn't effecting the content of this statement in the intro-paragraph somehow qualifies its innacuracy and inconsistency? You seem to simply pick your favorite point, make the best arguement you can (oh-ho-boy, Jmbael: 1, So Hungry: 0, GJ) and then leave it at that as though you "won". I remember, and if you scroll up you will also remember, that this entire discussion is not just about how not only POV the introduction paragaph is, but how it is incosistent and of a low standard (something which shows sign of POV's).

Again, back on topic: The fact that the informtion in this intro paragraph is wrong shows how POV it is. So often do people get in a fervor that they become inconsistent; this objectional, baised perspective (POV) can be seen in errors, like the one in the INTRODUCTION paragraph. The first standard to maintain is accurate information, however, ideally it would also make since that such an odd statement be removed from an introduction paragraph. It only leaves the reader misinformed that one, of all the ideologies out there, is picked to be opposed by liberalism (what of sociaism, facisim, etc... and now we found ourselves in an entire section, hence why I think this shouldn't be in the introduction paragraph). Read the proposed changes again. I believe #2 should be resolved very soon, being that it is a dispute about information in this article that is false.

 * Made some changes. Lucidish

 * The organization of this new introducation is much better; much more coherent. And the accuracy about the statement has improved too.

 * However, I recommend changing "Liberalism now defines itself in opposition to totalitarianism and collectivist ideologies, particularly fascism, neoliberalism, and Marxist socialism." to simply "Liberalism now defines itself in opposition to totalitarianism and collectivist ideologies." (what need is there for such spefic examples in the introduction. These examples are good, in a section which deals with how liberalism varies or is opposed to these other ideologies.)  If the examples are agreed to remain, please say how current liberalism is against neoliberalism (I see them as both very much the same, at least not in the same category as liberalism opposed to socialism).  Also the wording of this sentance implies that all examples are both totalitarian and collectivist.  If examples must be used I recomend this statement:

 * Liberalism opposes totalitarian ideologies, particularly fascism as well [communist states]. Liberalism is also in opposition to collectivist ideologies such as socialism and communism.  |insert sentance about how liberalism differs from neo liberalism|

 * I do not know the differences of neoliberalism and liberalism to write the last sentance.--So Hungry 20:25, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Check out the neoliberalism article for more info. The jist of it is that neoliberalism is collectivistic when it comes to the economy. It advocates open borders as a rule (which is a feature it tends to have in common with liberals), but differs in that it has little to no interest in regulating monopolies, oligopolies, and cartels (which both classical and modern liberals absolutely insisted upon, right from Adam Smith to F. Hayek). Lucidish

Etymology
Within the Etymology section, there are a number of side comments, e.g. "All liberals present themselves as friends of freedom." which have absolutely nothing to do with Etymology. Would anyone like to volunteer to shorten and clean up this section so it is all Etymology? Rick Norwood 21:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Levellers?
What is the claim for the Levellers as an origin of liberalism (at a distance of some 200 years)? They are clearly part of the origin of European republicanism, but they didn't exactly believe in the free market, which was a touchstone of early liberalism. Unless someone has a good citation for this, it should be removed. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

 * No one seems to be providing a citation, I am removing. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:00, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I don't know a lot about the Levellers, but I'm interested in the subject. What's your information that the Levellers were anti-free market or that they were not part of the basis of early of liberalism? - Nat Krause 11:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I think Jmabel is right; the Levellers fit more neatly into the category of populism.Grant65 (Talk) 15:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Critique of liberalism
Unfortunately it is a characteristic of liberals, that they are convinced they are the bearers of the ultimate truth on human society. Doubt about liberal principles is one thing that liberals are not prepared to accept, and that is an important characteristic, that needs coverage in the article. Most of the other descriptors in the intro don't stand comparison with reality. The German FDP, which is the archetypal continental-European Liberal party, demands a government-enforced national culture (Leitkultur). European liberals were influential in the attempt to have the free market made compulsory, in the (stalled) European Constitution. European liberals are among the strongest supporters of repressive measures against Islam - closure of Islamic schools, censorship of Islamic media, and so on. So scepticism is valid, when they denounce totalitarianism and collectivism.

Of course liberals claim to support freedom, but who doesn't, at least in the west? The article should separate the liberal self-image and political claims. It is arguable, for instance, that competition rather than freedom or rights, best defines the nature of liberal societies.Ruzmanci 11:27, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Four things.
 * 1. This is an article about liberalism, not "liberals". The faults of ideologues caught in the heat of passion and irrationality do not necessarily reflect the faults of the ideology.
 * 2. Those who claim to be liberals are not necessarily so.
 * 3. Your claim about the "unfortunate characteristic of liberals" are without scientific backup. Provide polling data, etc.
 * 4. Totalitarianism is a political system, not an attitude. Unshakeable faith in liberalism (or anything) is not "totalitarianism". Lucidish 16:27, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

 * And Lucidish's point 4 is what is really germane here. Otherwise, as I said, we are down to the same kind of paradox under which (for example) a dislike of bigots is deemed to be "bigotry against bigots", etc. -- Jmabel | Talk 18:48, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

 * It seemed to me that all four points are germane, since as a whole they refute the post being replied to. Lucidish 21:32, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

New intro
I rewrote the intro to describe the general characteristics of liberal societies, as advocated by the ideology of liberalism. Liberalism is a major ideology, of great historical influence, and it is insufficient to simply state the etymology or to say that it 'supports freedom'. Classifying it as a pro-rights ideology is also insufficient, that does not describe the kind of society liberalism advocates. In particular the free market is more than simply 'property rights' although they are an essential component.

In error I deleted the disclaimer about usage, and I reinserted it with a slight chnage, that the article is about a major historical ideology. It determined the form of western societies, so it would be innaccurate to limit this article to Anglophone Liberal parties and their current policies.Ruzmanci 10:31, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I think the new intro is basically good. It may be a bit much about liberal democracy rather than about liberalism as a political position. It may be overlong. I'm not going to try to address that, but I am making a small edit because "early modern Europe" is unnecessarily imprecise. --

I re-ordered the intro, and brought the point about liberal societies to the top. The major historical impact of liberalism is that 'we' (in the West) live in societies which are historically unique. Historians often say that 19th-century liberalism disappeared as a political movement because of its enormous success, almost all other parties in the West having adopted basic liberal principles.Ruzmanci 10:47, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Relativism
From the new intro section "Most liberals reject cultural relativism and moral relativism…" I'm not sure this is true or substantive. Between "most" and the slipperiness of both terms it is hard to be sure exactly what it even means. I'd be hard pressed to name a political ideology that specifically embraces moral relativism, and while I suppose some breeds of conservatism or anarchism embrace many aspects of cultural relativism, so do some breeds of liberalism. Am I missing something? Is there some relevant content in this sentence? Is it developed somewhere in the article that I'm missing? Is it backed by some citation indicating that rejection of these relativisms is specifically a characteristic of liberalism? If not, I think we should cut it. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The assertion that liberalism rejects cultural relativism is just plain false. It's an empirical sociological claim that any ideology, even a fundamentalist one, can accept. Irrelevant here, should be deleted.
 * Moral relativism can be accepted in some degrees by liberals to the extent that they accept values-pluralism. But liberalism cannot accept it insofar as it directly attacks liberal principles. It is impossible for liberalism (or have any political ideology!) to sit comfortably with the strongest of the moral relativisms, because it's obviously self-defeating, as politics involves the use of force and cannot pretend to have any legitimacy in exercizing it in a relativistic situation. Lucidish 21:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

This refers to cultural relativism as generally understood, but since the linked Wiki articles suggest that all ethics issues fall under 'moral relativism', I put that in as well. The 'sharia controversy' in Ontario this month was a good example. It refers also to multiculturalism, European liberal parties are now rejecting that en masse. US readers may not understand how strongly liberalism in Europe asserts monoculturalism, in the face of Islam, and how central that issue has become. The issue of human rights versus 'Asian values' is another example of the conflict. An example of liberals who argue for relativism would be interesting.

Ruzmanci 10:56, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Then they're not liberal and are just abusing the name. A bounded sort of multiculturalism follows out of the liberal conviction in the freedom of religion. Whether or not that impacts anything regarding relativism or whatever depends on the individual formulations of liberalism, but freedom of religion is an unshakeable part of the various liberal ideologies. Lucidish 21:45, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Although people are free to dispute that they are 'true liberals', if prominent members of official liberal parties in Europe, such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali, attack cultural relativism, and insist that 'enlightenment values' take precedence over freedom of religion, then it belongs in the article. She is not the only one who thinks like that, you would find the issue in Norway, Belgium, the Netherlnds, France and Germany. A separate section on this issue seems a good idea.Ruzmanci 14:56, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * A separate section might be good, but it doesn't belong in the intro. European liberals are not in a consensus on that issue. At the next ELDR congress it will be one of the debates. At the last LI Congress it was debated also, and opinions differed. So most liberals is surely not right. Ayaan Hirsi Ali might be a prominent Dutch liberal of the VVD party, she is not representative for all liberal leaders. In the debate at the last LI congress the prominent Belgian liberal Annemie Neyts was very clear in another direction as did the German and British contributors. I think that this is one of the strengths of liberalism: not allways knowing the definitive answer. Another remark: what official French liberal party do you mean? Electionworld 19:31, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * First, that doesn't sound like an attack on cultural relativism, rather it's an attack on moral relativism. Cultural relativism has to do with the claim that cultures happen to have different norms and moral systems (a claim about facts); moral relativism claims that all those systems are equally legitimate (a claim about values).
 * Second, the question of being a "true liberal" really is the essence of the article, as well as any issues we might want to talk about. And such discussions are not simply fruitless debates: for any definition, there at minimum has to be some historical claim in order for there to be legitimacy. I claim the Oxford Manifesto of 1947 as the starting point for modern liberalism. In it, freedom of religion is absolutely paramount. Rejecting it is illiberal.
 * Third, liberalism and freedom of religion is an expression of Enlightenment values. Lucidish 03:56, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

It is not surprising that Ruzmanci and others want the introduction to liberalism to include negative comments about liberalism, but it seems to me that this article should begin with the ideal of liberalism, and save criticism of liberalism for a later section, just as the article on conservatism allows conservatives the first say, and leaves the rebuttals for later. Rick Norwood 20:57, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I should give an example of what I was talking about above. Here is a quote from the current introduction: "Liberalism defines itself as guaranteeing, or at least maximising, individual freedom. However, that is a political claim rather than an objective fact, and not necessarily the most important aspect of the ideology, or of liberal societies." The second sentence is the one I object to. Liberalism has always been based on freedom. I am sure there are example of people who call themselves "liberal" and oppose freedom, or consider freedom to be not the most important aspect of their ideology or society, but as soon as they do that, they place themselves outside of the liberal mainstream, and their views do not belong in the introduction. Most of the liberal views currently fighting for their existance in the marketplace of ideas involve freedom: freedom from race prejudice, freedom for women, freedom from class prejudice, freedom for homosexuals, freedom from religious persecution, freedom of speech. Most of the oppostion to liberal views, whether in China or Australia or America, involve limiting freedom, supporting racial profiling, using insulting language to describe independent women, bribing using the government to support the upper class, putting religious commandments into law or, in the case of France, China, and Turkey, forbidding free expression of religion, limiting access to the internet (in China and Australia), limiting sexual freedom, and placing limits on freedom of speech, in the name or "order" or decency".

I propose that the sentence "However, that is a political claim rather than an objective fact, and not necessarily the most important aspect of the ideology, or of liberal societies." be removed from the introduction, unless it can be supported by objective evidence. Rick Norwood 21:21, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

 * The funny thing is, I wrote most of the introduction to the article Conservatism, and everyone has seemed perfectly happy with the fact that it is an introduction, not a polemic. But when I've (several times) tried to do the same here, it has always come under attack from people on the right, who just won't let it start out by explaining liberalism in its own terms. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:56, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

The intro should not consist of purely positive statements about liberalism, this is not a liberal website, it is an article about liberalism. The self-definition is relevant, but claims to motherhood values need qualification. Otherwise you get things like "The Democratic Peoples Freedom Party is the party which supports freedom and prosperity for the people". They all say that. In the case of liberalism, which is a broad and influential ideology, there is a good case for separating the etymology from the ideology, since rights theory, contractarianism, competition, pluralism, and anti-perfectionism can also be considered core elements of liberalism. Demanding 'objective evidence' will not help here, there is no 'objective evidence' that liberalism supports freedom either. These are disputed political issues, and should be treated as such.

From the European perspective, I agree there is a trend in the last few years, for instance to censor the internet, to ban religious expression and preaching, to arrest religious leaders, to cut satellite broadcasting links, to enforce specific clothing, to restrict government employment on grounds of religion, and so on...

However, the European Liberal parties are among the most fervent supporters of these policies, which are directed against Islam, Islamism, and terrorism. (These are often taken to be the same thing). This is why the 'Jacobin' element in liberalism, not only anti-clerical but anti-religion, needs coverage. Several commentators have noted the divergence on the headscarf issue, there is a current in European liberalism which sees the headscarf as a symbol of obscurantism and unfreedom, which ought to be banned regardless of whether the woman in question wants to wear one. Since this impacts on what exactly liberals mean by 'freedom' it ought to get more attention in the article, which is at present too much about US and British liberalism.Ruzmanci 12:00, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

 * The fact that there are some liberals taking the position Ruzmanci wrote about, does not mean that it is the general view betwene European continental liberals. See my earlier comment. European continental liberalism is pluriform and there are jacobin elements between the European liberals, but other liberals take an opposite position. So if this critics belongs in the article, it should be based on the right facts and not be included in the introduction. Electionworld 15:25, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

 * This is an argument about method of analysis: the etymological empiricism I advocate for the discussion of ideologies, versus your naive empiricism.
 * We can talk about that, if you like. I think the principle of charity calls for siding with the former. When being charitable, you must interpret people as they would like to be understood, as far as reason permits. An ideology is nothing more or less than the manifestoes it creates. So you interpret the manifestoes, with weight toward the historical ones, in the same way you would approach any word or meaning.
 * In this case I think there is very little weight against the historical approach, for these reasons. First, matters of ostensible "de facto" liberalism are not being blindsided, since you can find such comments and critiques in the rest of the article, and we're only talking about the introduction. Second, an ideology is far more nebulous than a political party. So your analogy doesn't hold up.
 * Also, I see nothing at all in the liberal tradition that considers it "anti-perfectionist". It's a mixture of the optimific and the satisficing, putting great weight on processes but with an inclination towards certain goals, namely liberty and welfare. Lucidish 16:35, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

a reply to Ruzmanci
This is not the place for a debate, and if necessary we can ask for arbitration on the negative comments on liberalism in the introduction. However, assuming good will on Ruzmanci's part, let me try to explain why the introduction is not the place to argue against liberalism.

Liberalism is a philosophy. As a philosophy, it means what the people who propounded that philosophy wrote. The liberal philosophy supports freedom, whether any particular self-identified liberal supports freedom or not. Liberalism as a political issue, rather than a philosophical issue, is also another question. Political parties are not philosophers, and they frame their platforms to win votes, not argue philosophy.

Ruzmanci says, "The intro should not consist of purely positive statements about liberalism." The intro should contain neither positive nor negative statements. It should say what the philosophy known as liberalism consists of in as neutral a manner as possible. Inserting negative statements, or statements about how some self-identified liberals fall short of that philosophy, belongs in a later section.

Ruzmanci says, "Rights theory, contractarianism, competition, pluralism, and anti-perfectionism can also be considered core elements of liberalism."

If so, then there should be subheads about each of those topics.

Ruzmanci says, "Demanding 'objective evidence' will not help here, there is no 'objective evidence' that liberalism supports freedom either." Of course there is objective evidence, the works of Locke, Jefferson, and other self-identified liberals are in print. The article should report what they said. Arguments against what they said should go in a later section, "Arguments against liberalism".

Ruzmanci says, "From the European perspective, I agree there is a trend in the last few years, for instance to censor the internet, to ban religious expression and preaching, to arrest religious leaders, to cut satellite broadcasting links, to enforce specific clothing, to restrict government employment on grounds of religion, and so on..."

If parties identifying themselves as liberal hold such illiberal notions, that needs to be said, but the introduction should be general; specific cases should come later, maybe in a separate article, "Modern European Liberal Politics" or some such.

Rick Norwood 16:49, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * What he said. Lucidish
 * Ruzmanci has had several days to reply if he cared to. I'm going to try for NPOV in the intro.  Comments are always welcome. Rick Norwood 21:38, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

new introduction
I've given it my best shot. I've tried to keep it short and simple. Please keep in mind that this article is not about modern American liberalism, it is not about modern European liberalism, it is only about liberalism as a philosophy propounded by John Locke, and others, in response to the philosophy of government by royalty, and the idea that rulers, and the ruling class, represented a natural order, described as the great chain of being. Rick Norwood 22:25, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I really don't like it. It gives little indication what the term has meant in living memory; also, by singling out Locke, it emphasizes the UK and ignores Continental Europe, including France, the place where liberal was first used as a political term. Also, liberalism is not a "philosophy". It can be viewed as either an "ideology" (if described from within) or a "political current" (if described from without), but it is not a philosophy. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:07, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree completely with JMabel. The article is about the ideology in its various forms. It is only about Locke, but also about later developments and developments in other countries. Electionworld 09:47, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * An ideology is a philosophy, so I don't know what Jmabel is getting at. (Strictly speaking, liberalism can be called a collection of philosophies.) But in others points, I agree with him, and think much essential historical material has been sacrificed. Lucidish 15:13, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

 * The new version bears no relation to what modern liberals in fact advocate, or to what modern liberal societies are like, and ignores their immense importance as the globally dominant form of society, and the radical opposition to them, and the resulting conflicts. Instead it suggests a branch of academic political philosophy, which is also true, but very far from the complete picture. The entrepreneur, a central figure in liberal thought, is not even mentionned. There was a similar problem at the Conservatism article, where an earlier version presented conservatism as a late 18th century English philosphy, ignoring all other impact of conservatism in world history. Edmund Burke was a conservative, but conservatism is not Edmund Burke. Locke was a liberal, but liberalism is not Locke.Ruzmanci 09:55, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all of the improvements to my attempt at a rewrite to the introduction. It is much better now.  Ruzmanci, I may be mistaken, but I think you are focusing on Liberalism in Europe or Liberalism in America, both of which have sections of their own.  As for the relationship between liberalism and the entrepreneur, I'm willing to listen, though my first impression is that belongs under capitalism.  Obviously, liberalism and capitalism were both in conflict with the same vested interests, and the freedom offered by a liberal government implies economic freedom as well as political and religious freedom.  How can we say that in the introduction? Rick Norwood 15:00, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

The article is about liberalism. It is not about what individual liberals think liberalism is - all political ideologies have disputes about who is the true representative of the ideology.Ruzmanci 10:27, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
 * You've just made the argument for an understanding of ideology on the basis of manifestos. Lucidish 20:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

New intro again
I re-ordered and added to a previous version, and replaced it. It adds many missing points:

 * historical perspective, emergence of liberal societies, 'liberal' now refers to these societies and not just to the idoelogy
 * consequent special position of liberal parties, who are seeking to make society more of what it is already, concept of liberalisation
 * western nature of the ideology and society
 * description of what these societies are like, competitive process
 * evolution from 'tolerance' (18th century) to 'pluralism' (20th century)
 * conflict with non-liberals, example of Islamism
 * global validity, should the whole world be liberal? as major issue, with Fukuyama as radical example.

The political conflict with non-liberals is largely missing from the article. If liberalism consists entirely of a list of benefits - you get right A and freedom B and right C - then you might wonder why it was so controversial.Ruzmanci

 * I'll read your new intro in a few minutes, but I wanted to read your comments here, first. I strongly disagree with your assertion that liberalism is exclusively or even primarily western.  It is true that the ideology began in Europe, but liberal countries now include India and Japan, and the liberalism of India has a very different flavor from the liberalism in the US.  Also, what passes for liberalism in Europe today doesn't seem like liberalism at all to me, but that belongs in a different article.

 * Of course, liberalism was strongly opposed. See, for example, the conflict between Benjamin Franklin and the Penn family.  We have come to take liberalism for granted, and even George Bush, who accused somebody or other of being the most liberal man in the Senate, pays lip serivce to freedom and democracy.  But back in 1776, freedom meant the freedom of the mob to trash and burn, and it wasn't long before the French Revolution proved the enemies of liberalism had a point.  And democracy was just another name for mob rule, in their eyes.  The King was chosen, not by an illiterate mob, but by God.  Before you bring modern politics into the picture you need to give the standard, dictionary definition of liberalism.  Only then is it appropriate to describe how far, in your opinion, liberalism has strayed from its original meaning.  Though when I say I am a liberal, I use the word the way the dictionary defines it. Rick Norwood 14:22, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I've given Ruzmanci's new intro a first reading. I'm going to read through it again, and see if I can come up with a compromise.  As a minor point, I think Francis Fukuyama's End of History thesis has been throughly discredited by current events, and does not deserve mention.

 * The big difference between Razmanci's understanding of liberalism and my understanding of liberalism is whether a free market is an essential part of liberalism or a separate idiology. I'll have to think about that, and read up on the subject. Rick Norwood 14:31, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I've tried to combine several ideas about what liberalism means in a form that will actually be useful to those who look up this article seeking information. Instead of posting it directly into the article, I am going to post it below, where everyone will feel free to rewrite it until an acceptable compromise is reached. Rick Norwood 15:36, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

 * In fact, the idea of rewriting the passage below is so appealing, I'm going to take the first whack at it myself. Rick Norwood 17:55, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

 * The ideology of liberalism originated in 18th century Europe, in the writings of John Locke and the thinkers of the French enlightenment. It was in opposition to then-prevailing ideologies which granted special privileges to monarchs, nobles, and the Established Church. Later it would also define itself through opposition to collectivist ideologies such as communism and authoritarian ideologies such as fascism.

 * Together with nationalism, liberalism shaped 19th century Europe, through liberal revolutions and liberal regimes. It was so successful that liberal societies became the standard in the Western world.

 * Principle tenets of liberalism include:
 * That all people have equal rights under the law.
 * That no person shall be deprived of life or property without due process of law.
 * That the freedom of individuals shall not be arbitrarily abridged.
 * That governments rule with the consent of the governed.

 * In the modern world, there are several currents of liberal thought. Many people who consider themselves liberal accept some of these ideas and reject others.
 * Libertarians consider the free market as the ordering principle of liberalism, and see the production of goods and services by competing entrepreneurs as the most important freedom. They would assign social status and advantage by competition among talents.
 * Civil Rights liberals stress the rights of minorities, and assert the responsibility of government to protect the freedom of all citizens.
 * Trade union liberals stress the freedom of workers to organize for the purpose of collective bargaining.
 * Egalitarians stress equality, and claim that there can be no freedom when wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few.
 * Free speech liberals stress freedom of expression, and claim a privileged position for the press and for the arts.
 * Political liberalism stresses the liberal-democratic principle of competitive multi-party political pluralism.

 * Liberal democracy, in the form of republics that guarantee the rights of their citizens, has spread to much of the world, though not without setbacks along the way. Liberal principles such as free expression and religious tolerance are now enshrined in the constitutions of the many countries throughout the world and in transnational institutions such as the United Nations and the European Union.

 * I like the idea of adding substrains of the ideology.
 * To answer your question, liberalism does necessarily advocate a free market, but there are a number of internal arguments as to what makes up a "free market".
 * Fukuyama's triumphalism deserves mention, I guess, but not in the intro. Lucidish 20:13, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Yes, the typology of currents of liberalism would be a good addition to the lead. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:43, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I think your version improves on mine, Jmabel, and there seems to be a consensus here. I do have one question.  In what sense if fascism collectivist?  I thought the fascisti were anti-communist, pro-Roman Catholic, and favored dictatorial, "strong-man" government rather than collectivist socialist/communist government. Rick Norwood 12:13, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
 * One formulation of fascism as given by Mussolini was as anti-liberal, a doctrine where the State is the supreme entity (individuals are subordinate to it): "Fascism has taken up an attitude of complete opposition to the doctrines of Liberalism, both in the political field and in the field of economics... Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State". As that, it's collectivist. It would be a mistake to call fascism like socialism except with respect to the fact that both are collectivistic ideologies ("Such a conception of life makes Fascism the complete opposite of that doctrine, the base of so-called scientific and Marxian Socialism") (1). And regarding the collectivist connection: "We are, in other words, a state which controls all forces acting in nature. We control political forces, we control moral forces we control economic forces, therefore we are a full-blown Corporative state." (2)
 * 1: http://www2.bc.edu/~weiler/fascism.htm
 * 2: http://www.worldfuturefund.org/wffmaster/Reading/Germany/mussolini.htm Lucidish 18:56, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Precisely. To glorify the state over the individual is collectivist. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:27, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Editing dispute: split the article?
Liberalism in Europe, and in fact in most of the world outside the US and Britain, accurately reflects the ideological development of liberalism since the 18th century. In particular it supports the free market, which by the late 19th century had become the dominant element in liberal ideology. A claim to describe its 'principal tenets' which does not mention the market, or free trade, or competition. is not just inaccurate, it is misleading. Since Rick Norwood has now stated several times that he does not regard contemporary European liberalism as 'liberal', and intends to discount it in his edits, it seems that there is now an editing dispute. There is a problem with Americo-centrism in this article, and that is a recurrent problem on the English-language Wikipedia.

In any case these points would be unacceptably inaccurate:
 * identification of the term with US usage
 * rejection of current mainstream European liberalism as a form of liberalism
 * claims that Locke was the sole or main inspiration for liberalism. What about Adam Smith?
 * presentation of a late 18th century English liberal position as a 'dictionary definition' of liberalism
 * glossing over the often repressive demands of modern Liberal Parties.

Outside the United States and Britain, liberalism is clearly understood to be an ideology of the right, and so far as that means being 'against the left' most liberals would accept that classification. Even in the United States, political theory classifies the United States as a liberal economy and society, and as a liberal democracy. George W. Bush is a liberal in that sense, there is absolutely no doubt about that, so is the entire Republican Party, and the Democratic Party. That is the sense of liberal - a major global ideology which shaped western societies - that should be covered in this article.Ruzmanci 10:47, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I don't see how many of those claims hold up. "Liberalism is an ideology, or current of political thought, that attempts to maximise individual liberty through a system of rights under law, in a system allowing economic competition and competition of ideas within a defined framework." -- from the edit previous to yours.
 * I don't believe that Rick has been saying anything against European formulations of liberalism; perhaps I missed something. What he has been saying, from what I've read, is that the article ought to be about a generic liberalism, liberalism on the whole, neither weighted toward American or European strains.
 * Sure, Adam Smith and the entire series of Enlightenment writers deserve credit for formulations of liberalism. So you can add them in and I don't think anyone would mind. Is this a point of contention?
 * On the last point, you have so far ignored any reasonable replies made. So it should, in turn, be ignored. Still. In slogan form: history owns the meaning of words. You must begin with philosophies and influential manifestos and then judge parties by how they fit up to them; you don't begin by watching what parties really do, and infer willy-nilly that that's the meaning of their ideology. Lucidish 17:06, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * As I understand the disagreement, Ruzmanci is determined that the introduction not include what seem to me the basic tenents of liberalism: freedom, democracy, and equality, and that instead the introduction emphasize capitalism and business interests. The problem is that the dictionary agrees with me, not with Ruzmanci.  If he wants to write a book on what he thinks liberalism is or should be, he is welcome to.  But the wikipedia article should agree with standard sources, not be a place for Ruzmanci to promulgate his own theories of liberalism.  I've tried to compromise, and keep Ruzmanci's ideas in, but he seems determined to take ideas such as "government by the consent of the governed" and "all people have equal rights under the law" out.  There is also a good deal of plain old bad writing in the current version.  What does this mean? "liberalism became the ideology of the existing order - 'the system' - in western societies, and the target of the political left there."  Unless someone can offer a good reason not to, I'm going to revert to an earlier version that several people have voiced support for.  But, because I don't like reversion wars, I'll wait a day for comments. Rick Norwood 17:35, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Your intro seemed better to me. I support a reversion to it. Adding "support for open markets and free trade" would not be uncalled for as main tenets, though. Lucidish 20:08, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

A summary of Enlightenment liberalism is not an article on liberalism. The article must take account of the historical reality that 'western society' and 'liberal society' have become synonymous.  It must take account of the change in the 19th century, when liberalism became the ideology of the market, and was opposed by the new socialist parties, and Marxist ideology. Liberalism in 1900 was not the same as in 1800. This evolution is not apparent from the other version.

The positions of liberal parties, which remain a major factor in western politics, can not be ignored simply because that might demean earlier Enlightenment liberalism. Certainly rights theories, formal equality before the law, the rule of law, and the evolution of liberal democracy, all belong in an article on liberalism. If they are political demands or claims, then that should be indicated. Statements such as 'liberalism stands for freedom' are obviously political claims, they are vehemently disputed, and that must be said. Liberals do claim to stand for freedom, and objectively liberals do define freedom in specific liberal forms, such as political rights. But whether that is in fact 'freedom' is in dispute.

I replied to earlier comments by explaining what is missing from the other version, and also the older versions of the introduction, and from the article in general. It seems that there is an editing dispute about the nature of the article, rather than specific points. It could be split in two...

 * one article on the Enlightenment tradition in political liberalism, not glossing over the violence of early liberals (mass killings of priests, for instance), or neo-Enlightenment radicals such as Ayaan Hirsi Ali.
 * one article on liberalism as the foundational ideology of western societies, and on how they differ from non-liberal societies, especially in being free-market societies. This article would also summarise neoliberalism and libertarianism, and refer to those articles. Modern liberal parties, which are predominantly market liberals, belong here. The article would be about the liberalism which will triumph in the end of history thesis, and which is so violently despised by Islamists.

There is no point in trying to merge diametrically opposed approaches, it will only lead to endless disputes such as those at the terrorism article. Splitting the article seems the best option.Ruzmanci 10:26, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

 * The earlier version of the introduction, which I and others put together to try to combine all points of view, included your point of view. The problem with your rewrite is that you took out the classical dictionary definition of liberalism, and tried to portray your view of liberalism, as essentially the same as free-market capitalism, as the only point of view.  I do not object to this point of view appearing in the introduction -- I strongly object to it being the only point of view appearing in the introduction.  I also vote against splitting the article.  I'll insert a few comments into your comments above, between.

<(Wedge bracket comments by Rick Norwood) Nobody ever said it was. But it is where you should start. It's a long article, but here we are discussing the introduction.>

 * So far, only Ruzmanci and Lucidish have expressed an opinion, so I will wait a few days and hope others join in. Rick Norwood 14:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I must admit confusion, since Ruz is making an argument against nobody. The intro to the article does talk about liberalism in general, neither Americanized or Europeanized. It does talk about the market. He has not justified his claims, or answered the comments and questions made previously.
 * Also, I agree that "liberal society" and The West are not synonyms. You may find liberal-like characteristics in Eastern societies, and you may find non-liberal tendencies in Western ones (protectionism, subsidization, etc).
 * Given that, I see no reason for the proposed split. Perhaps reasons can be provided; they have not been so far. Lucidish 15:14, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I moved the inserted comments. Inserting comments in other peoples comments makes it all unreadable. The proposed split is a response to an editing dispute, that’s all. The comment on FDR illustrates the problem. As far as political theory and ideology goes, Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair, Franklin Roosevelt, Theodore Roosevelt are all liberals. They all support(ed) a liberal form of society, including the free market. Although in American political usage Reagan may not be a 'liberal', and from a US right-wing perspective F. Roosevelt may be a 'socialist' or even a 'communist', the article can not base itself on this usage. It should be explained, of course, but deleting aspects of liberalism which don't meet the self-definition of US liberals is unacceptable.Ruzmanci 10:25, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I'll keep in mind that you do not like inserted comments. I won't do it again to your writing.

 * You seem to be alone in your views, and you keep asserting that someone is trying to delete your views. But your views are included in the earlier introduction -- they just aren't the only views in the earlier introduction.  Rick Norwood 14:18, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm going to go ahead and make the revert, now, since Ruzmanci has not offered either evidence or support for his point of view as the one right way to look at liberalism. Please note, Ruzmanci, that your point of view is included, in the section on modern versions of liberalism. Rick Norwood 17:10, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Of course Thatcher is a liberal; she's a neoliberal / libertarian, along with Reagan. Blair is a modern liberal, arguably a neolib, with a dash of neocon thrown in. FDR is the quintessential modern liberal. Teddy Roosevelt is a cookie-cutter neocon, but I guess he was sort of edging towards modern liberalism with some of his domestic policy.
 * American political usage of the word "liberal" unqualified is full of shite, but we all know that. Common usage of words is often at odds with their historical meanings, and pumped up rhetoric is the enemy of fine distinctions.
 * Again, nobody is restricting the definition to American usage; this aspect of the dispute is a strawman.
 * It seems to me that you do have a point about methdology, that is, about the difference between the meaning of the ideology in the abstract, and the fact of the matter about liberal societies. How to solve that dispute is an open question. Lucidish 23:56, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Just coming back from the congress of the ELDR, I had some time to read to new intro. For me it unrecognizable and I do not recognize most liberals I know in this description. I would agree with the intro suggested in the talk page. Electionworld 17:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Welcome back from the congress. I wrote the intro suggested in the talk page.  Jmable rewrote that into the version now in use.  I think more work is still a good idea, in the framework of a historical or dictionary definition of liberalism, followed by modern substreams of liberalism. Rick Norwood 18:18, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Could you explain a bit more, please? Lucidish 23:59, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Neutral intro
I took the pro-liberalism intro, and instead of a different version, I have added qualifiers to counter the propagandistic and triumphalist tone. For instance, it is propagandistic to describe non-liberal societies as a 'setback' to the expansion of liberalism. That is only true from the liberal point of view.

I also added a reference to the immense suffering caused by liberal economic principles - which is backed by abundant statistical data, even from liberal institutions such as the World Bank. Any attempt to present liberalism as an unqualified benefit, is by definition propagandistic.

It is now more clear what the problem is with this article, namely that it is being used to promote liberalism and liberal democracy. That is not its function. It would be better to have a more abstract descriptive article, but if that is not possible, then at least the propaganda should be qualified. For that reason, I added qualifiers to the liberal claims about liberalism being pro-freedom. Millions of starving people would disagree with that assessment, since it denies them the essential freedom to live. Removal of these qualifiers, without corresponding removal of the pro-liberalism claims, would clearly be a politically-motivated deletion.Ruzmanci 10:28, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

 * As usual, I'm reading your comments before turning to your rewrite. I agree that the use of the word 'setback' was non-neutral, and I'm glad you've fixed that.  However, to say that liberalism is not about freedom is to deny that the writers on the subject wrote what they wrote.  As for world hunger, it has declined greatly in the past twenty years, both in absolute numbers and as a percentage of the world population.  The idea that freedom means "free food" is at best tangental to the freedoms the liberal ideology actually proposes. Rick Norwood 12:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I really hoped that the new intro would be acceptable, but it takes out too much, and presents too narrow a viewpoint, a viewpoint that has garnered no evidence or support. I will now go back and do something about the word "setback" and put in the addition just before the two most recent versions. Rick Norwood 13:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I would agree to add a section criticism of liberalism but the kind of text that Ruzmanci wants to add to the intro do not belong in the intro. Electionworld 15:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I know liberalism says that freedom does not mean free food. If millions of people don't have the money to pay for food, and there is no private charity, then they should all die, according to liberalism. That attitude is one of the main reasons why so many people across the world detest liberalism, and its pretensions to morality, which are so over-represented in this article.Ruzmanci 16:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

 * That utterly depends on the sort of liberalism. Modern, social liberalism demands there be a basic promise of social welfare before we can discuss social freedom. Other forms disagree. Lucidish 21:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

"If millions of people don't have the money to pay for food, and there is no private charity, then they should all die, according to liberalism." This statement is a perfect example of why I do not believe your view of liberalism is in the mainstream. Rick Norwood 18:34, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Deletion-free rewrite
I rewrote the Norwood intro, without deleting a single word or comma. Every qualifier is now in the form of an addition. This makes it impossible to claim that anything is 'left out'. It also makes clear that it is others who are doing the deletion, although I hope they will stop now. Deletion of anything negative about liberalism (I added their support for child labour in the 19th century) is clearly politically motivated, and it is clearly not in good faith. If others are not prepared to accept anything negative about liberalism, then the article should be tagged as 'editing dispute'.Ruzmanci 17:43, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I understand that you believe that your views of liberalism are correct. I hope you also understand that most people do not share your views, and that therefore they belong in, perhaps, a "Critiques of Liberalism" section, but not in the introduction.  I don't know if you have run into some very bad liberals, or if you have been listening to politically motivated lies about what liberals believe, or if your emotions on this issue are so strong that you cannot see both sides of the question.  Incidently, the version you call "the Norwood intro" is a collaboration among several people.  It is not exactly what I would like, but I think it is a reasonable compromise.  I would also prefer to work out a compromise with you, but I think it is up to you to offer evidence or support for your point of view.

 * I hope someone who has been a Wikipedian longer than I have will advise me of what should be done if Ruzmanci unilaterally insists on having his say in the introduction. Rick Norwood 18:49, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm not sure of the Wiki rules about this, Ruzmanci, since Wiki is supposed to avoid personalities, but let me tell you a little about myself. I am 63 years old, and have been a liberal since I was 12.  I've discussed liberalism with people who are American, French, English, Australian, Jewish, Christian, Islamic, and atheist.  I have never heard a liberal express the views you ascribe to liberals.  I have no doubt that somebody, somewhere calls themselves liberal and holds those views, but this is a very minor offshoot of liberalism.  Where did you hear these ideas?  What is your source?  Rick Norwood 19:43, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree with with Rich Norwood. Ruzmanci seems to stand alone in his interpretation of liberalism. Though it is right also o include criticism in the article, it shouldn't be the main part of the intro. I reverted the edits. When necesary the article needs to be protected. Electionworld 20:30, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I have no objection to Ruz's interpretation of liberalism (which is true for classical varieties of it). What I object to is the fact that he is generalizing his interpretation across liberalism on the whole. This is utter nonsense, sort of like calling every animal a horse just because some animals happen to be horses. It is also just plain wrong, if you look at some actual liberal writers (Hobhouse) or politicians (Lloyd George). Those are good reasons for dismissal on factual and logical grounds, which ought to be enough.
 * There's also basic pragmatic Wikipedian grounds. You don't put criticism in the intro. You put it in the criticism section. Period.
 * And whether or not a criticism section even deserves to be put in in the form Ruz seems to want it is open for dispute. It's clear that he's ignorant of what liberalism means, both on the whole and in its strains. Anything that is put down will be a strawman if it falsely attributes the failures of "Liberal" parties to live up to the liberal ideologies. This is a severe problem of method.
 * All of this is compunded by the fact that he refuses to actually reply to the charges made against his scholarship. Until he deigns to get off his throne and actually reply to the criticisms made against him, I recommend reverting these edits, and if that fails, a locking of the article. Lucidish 21:55, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion for a new paragraph Criticism of liberalism (to be added before paragraph 7)
A text like this could be added as a new paragraph, but I made also some personal remarks on this criticism:

Opponents of liberalism dispute that it promotes or advocates liberty, and regard these claims as a false image of its true goals and social effect. It is also disputed that liberalism 'allows' competition, since liberal societies are - according to these opponents - so arranged that there is no alternative. ''This sentence forgets that liberals compete in multi-party systems in which also non-liberal forces take part in elections and often are dominant. ''

Claims that liberalism is simply a political ideology are also disputed, since sometimes western society is refered to as a distinct liberal form of society. Although there are liberal political parties, they are operating in a social framework which is itself liberal. These opponents do not make a distin ction between liberalism as a political ideology and liberal democracy as a political system.

Critics of liberalism, emphasise that:
 * Formal equality under the law is offset by its acceptance of social and economic inequality arising from fair process, and rejection of redistribution. Most liberals agree on certain forms of redistribution, though they maight want a lower degree of redistribution than social democrats. See btw the literature by John Rawls.
 * According to liberals anti-statism - the belief that the state is at best a necessary evil, and that the role of government should be limited. However, liberals themselves use the power of the state to impose liberal principles on non-liberals, by liberalisation. But of course it is in the state system to decide on issues like liberalisation.
 * Rule with the consent of the governed is not necessarily with the consent of the minority in a democracy. No form of democracy is, liberal democracy is I think the system of democracy taking more into account the minority than other forms of democracy. But do not forget liberal democracy is not synonym to liberalism.
 * Liberals see liberal principles as absolute truths, and generally consider that these may legitimately be enforced by the state. What a nonsense. Liberals as are other supporters of ideologies ready to defend there opinions and if they can form a majority, they can enact a liberal legislation. But they need a majority and without a majority it doesn't work. Typical for a liberal democracy is that the opposition can take over power when it reaches a majority.

Sometimes it is said that in the 19th century, liberals opposed early social legislation restricting child labour and long working hours. It acquired a negative image, which is still so strong in France that liberals do not use word, calling themselves reformateur instead. ''Not generally true: e.g. in a country like the Netherlands social legislation to ban child labour was introduced by a liberal government. Keynes was a liberal, Beveridge was a liberal, Rathenau was a liberal etc. Didn't American liberals introduce social legislation?''

Liberal democracy and competitive multi-party political pluralism have spread to much of the world, though not without opposition. Opponents of liberals claim that the spread of liberalism includes regime change by military force, at great cost in human life. Who knows any example of this? Liberal principles such as free expression and religious tolerance are now enshrined in the constitutions of the many countries throughout the world and in transnational institutions such as the United Nations and the European Union. To liberals this is an unqualified benefit, since in their eyes these principles are self-evidently good. Nevertheless, opponents of liberalism do not see these principles as sacred, as implied by the word 'enshrined'. These liberal principles, and liberal democracy itself, are generally accompanied by liberal economic principles, which resulted in widespread market-driven poverty and inequality. ''We could have a long debate on this, but which economic system was more succesful in this matter? Marxism?. BTW Free and fair markets is not the same as power for multinational companies and certainly is not compatible with monopolies.  As a result of the 'enshrinement' of liberal principles, there is no longer any legal route to a non-liberal society (Elections?)'', and some of liberalism's radical Islamist opponents have turned to terrorism against liberal societies.

''I think this could be a summary of Ruzmanci's criticism, but in my view he totally forgets that there is a difference between liberalism and liberal democracy. The latter system of government is not only the liberals' view, but many opponents of liberalism, like conservatives, christian democrats and social democrats agree on having a liberal democracy. Furthermore anti-statism is not necesarily part of liberalism. See the distinction made in the article between classical liberals and social liberals and all the variants in between. BTW Liberal democracy in itself sees the protection of minority rights as being part of the system. Electionworld 20:45, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Looks fine to me, I guess. It's full of strawmen, but critics can be as mistaken as they like.
 * One qualification: we have to make sure that any criticisms added are citations of scholarly works (as is convention). If we're to help popularize further confusion on this matter, it should at least be confusion on the part of people who are supposed to be familiar with the history of liberalism.
 * To my mind, there is nothing anti-statist about liberalism, unless by "statist" one means "fascist". Lucidish 22:02, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

That laissez-faire liberals opposed early social legislation is a fact, and it is also a fact that they got a bad reputation as a result. That liberalism, for instance, advocates competition is not my 'personal view', but a standard and recognised component of liberal thought. The article should include the negative elements of liberalism, and should not present its political claims as objective truth, or suggest that only a handful of people question them. Adding a separate section on critique is not an excuse to fill the rest of the article with propaganda. Any section on critique should be used for describing the major historical critiques of liberalism, not as a dumping ground for other editors attempts to correct pro-liberal bias.Ruzmanci 10:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Laissez-fair liberalism is not the same as liberalism, it is a form of liberalism. That is the problem with your critiques, you do not make a difference. Electionworld 12:04, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Sources for modern liberalism
What does modern liberalism in fact advocate? Liberal political parties cannot eendlessly present abstractions about liberty, they have specific policies. As sources for modern mainstrean liberalism attitudes in Europe I suggest among others

 * the forum of the German FDP

 * the Belgian website / thinktank Liberales.be

 * the ALDE fraction in the European Parliament, and self-identified liberal parties in other EP fractions, such as the UEN.

The image of liberalism which emerges, is that it is about low wages, longer working hours, lower taxes, deregulation, 'competitiveness' as principle of social organisation, reducing legal protections for employees, reducing state benefits for the sick and unemployed and making them less accessible, reducing health and safety protection in the workplace, and explicitly allowing more pollution, for the benefit of business.

A good recent example was the liberal opposition to the new EU air quality norms. Although the EU has established that harmful emissions are killing thousands of Europeans, market liberals oppose new limits, because that would hurt EU competitiveness (against China especially). The idea that a government should deliberately allow its citizens to be killed, in competition with other governments which do the same, seems typically and exclusively liberal. I don't know of any other ideology which advocates such behaviour by the state.Ruzmanci 11:11, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I just visited Liberales.be. What I saw was an article by Dirk Verhofstadt with the title: The danger of the lack of state. :-) UEN is generally not considered a liberal fraction. Did you visit the websites of the UK Libdems, the Dutch D66 , of Det Radikale Venstre www.radikale.dk etc. Electionworld 11:45, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * "Modern liberal" is used as synonym for "social liberal". Meaning, advocates both negative and positive rights.
 * What you cite are laissez-faire liberals (who are out of the mainstream even in the classic liberal tradition, incidentally, ala F Hayek and possibly even Adam Smith, who advocated certain limited forms of regulation on precisely this sort of ground). And these are certainly not social or modern liberals, which are very different from their LF cousins. Lucidish

Protection needed
Though I am an administrator I am not allowed to protect this page. I would like to see the page as it stands now to be protected. One contributor tries to impose an intro with which most other editors do not agree. I reverted the last version off Ruzmanci to the last version before him and tagged it with the two versions template. I did this because it seems the majority agrees with the non-Ruzamci version. Electionworld 12:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

deja view all over again
I can't believe we are starting this whole dispute all over again. Please, can we discuss this instead of just changing it! Rick Norwood 17:41, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Discussions have so far been fruitless. Ruz is not listening or offering genuine replies. His suggestions run headlong into pretty basic Wiki conventions: first introduce concept, then critique. Also, problems with argument based on facts, logic. Pointed out misreadings of other editors' texts. Etc. Lucidish 18:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Malicious deletion of second version
Despite the explicit request in the template, user Wilfried Derksen reverted a disputed version, so that the version he opposes is no longer visible. Obviously this is bad faith editing, and it has been done for explicitly political purposes (Derksen is an official of a Liberal political grouping). Since the deletion is aapparently irreversible, re-inserting the disputed text is the only option. The two-version template is supposed to function as an alternative for edit wars, but that assumes the willingness to respect it.

I think there is also an issue here, about paid employees (or officials) of interested groups using the time and facilities available to them, to edit relevant articles. Obviously George W. Bush could, if he wanted, pay staffers to do nothing else but rewrite the George W. Bush article in glowing terms. Any unwelcome content would be gone in 30 seconds. Most Wikipedia articles are written by those with a special interest in the subject, but that behaviour would not be an acceptable standard.Ruzmanci 18:21, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * There's enough bad faith editing to go around, it seems. Lucidish 18:28, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

 * It was not my intention to delete the intro of Ruzmanci. I explained why i reverted to an earlier version which seems to have the support of most of the contributors. The twoversions tag doesn't work well, since it only shows the difference between the two last versions. I think that happened also after I reverted.
 * I do mind calling my action bad faith editing, since it is my impression that Ruzmanci clearly tries to impose his vision on liberalism on the article despite all the reactions in the talk page. See further below.
 * The fact that i am involved in european liberal politics is not a reason to censure me. Electionworld 19:52, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Liberalism is not freedom
Introducing concept and then critique is not the same as 'first pro, then contra'. If the intro presents liberal political claims (maximising freedom) as fact, then it should be corrected there. The issue seems worth a separate section, to explain the position of 'freedom' in liberal thought. In general that is as an ethical justification for subjectively undesired outcomes of the market. "Poverty is not unfreedom" is a typical example, it is (I think) a quote from the Thatcher years, and I think the original source is Hayek, but I could not find them online.

I suggest these three examples of liberal freedom

 * in the child labour question, the laissez-faire liberals argued that the child was not unfree despite its suffering, but that it became 'unfree' when the government forbade the employers to employ children. You can still find this sort of argument on libertarian websites (definitely a branch of liberalism incidentally).

 * a modern equivalent is the obligation on unemployed women to work as a prostitute, if that is the only work available, supported by Liberal parties in the Netherlands and Germany. Liberals reject the idea that the state should pay people to do nothing, if they can work. Whether they like the work, or freely choose it, is not considered relevant. The woman is not 'unfree' in liberal thought, where 'freedom' refers to social arrangements, not to subjective free will.

 * a recent speech by Tony Blair saying that globalisation requires the abandonment of social security systems in Europe, and a liberal open society. The point here is that he explicitly said that he will not allow discussion, since globalisation is a fact, and therefore, it does not involve free choice. This line of argument is common among market liberals, and neoliberals.

All three illustrate the point that liberals do not in fact advocate freedom, they advocate an economic and social system, which they then claim to be the most free (in comparison with other systems).Ruzmanci 19:05, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

 * First bullet: Dutch liberal ministries enacted social legislation. The first social legislation act was the work of Samuel van Houten, who took action against child labour. The distance between liberalism and libertarianism is worked out in the article since a long time.
 * Second bullet: if one cannot work, state provides social security. When one doesn't want to work, one is free not to work, but why should the state provide an income to somebody who doesn't want to take the responsibility for its own income. I am not aware of any Dutch regulation that obliges any woman to work as a prostitute. Please prove your statement.
 * Third bullet: Tony blair is a social democrat, not a liberal. He might be a neoliberal, but the article explains the difference between liberalism and neoliberalism.
 * None of the three illustrates the point that liberals do not in fact advocate freedom. It sounds like demagogy or anti-liberal bias. As a social liberal I am strongly against child labour, against any obligation of women to work as a prostitute and against the abondonment of social security systems. Sorry. Electionworld 19:52, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

 * What is presented as fact is done so because it is fact. Your process-based argument supposes that all liberals agree on the various processes that are used to attain freedom; this is true only in the vaguest sense (ie, with respect to democracy), but allows for much variation within that. The only other explanation of the ideology, besides a collection of happenstance positions, is by appealing to values. Liberty, namely.
 * The systems you want to criticize are different from the ideologies that support them. For more information, read the many, many posts on this page that have responded to you at length. If you have a gripe with Blair, criticize Blair. If you have a gripe with classical liberals and neoliberals, then deal with them. If you have a gripe with liberalism, find the appropriate manifesto(s) and construct a critique. Don't generalize; it's nonsense. Lucidish 00:49, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Choice between two versions

 * In this place I addded yesterday a vote. Due to new developments and initiatives on the intro, I do not think a vote is necesary anymore, so now I can delete the text I added yesterday in this section.

two versions or three?
Both versions quoted seem to me to present extremes in which liberalism is primarily about economics. Both sides in this feud seem determined to remove any suggestion that liberalism is primarily about freedom.

Also, clearly a vote is not the answer. First, because we are only going to get a dozen or so votes, at most. Second, because if a million voters voted that 2 + 2 = 5, that wouldn't make it so.

I thought we were in good shape before Derksen's rewrite, but after castigating me for making changes without discussion, he has made changes without discussion.

Please, let us have an article that presents the historical mainstream of liberalism first, and modern extremes of liberalism further down the page.

Rick Norwood 20:06, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Suggested compromise and NPOV

 * In paragraph one, I've tried to present both economic liberalism and social liberalism. Paragraph two is the one that seems essential to me, but I've both shortened and deemphasized it (by the removal of the bullet points).  I have not made any changes in the third paragraph.  I have not added anything to the fourth paragraph, but I have shortened it, since I think the comparison of liberalism to other ideologies belongs further down in the article.  Let me know what you think.  If this is something you can all live with, I think we can move on. Rick Norwood 00:15, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Liberalism is an ideology or current of political thought that favors individual liberty, democracy, and equality. Different currents of liberal thought (described below) place different emphasis on the relative importance of economic competition and social equality.

Principle tenets of liberalism include these. That governments rule with the consent of the governed. That all people have equal rights under the law. That no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law.

Liberalism originated in 18th century Europe, in the work of philosophers such as John Locke and the French Englightenment thinkers. It defined itself through opposition to then-prevailing ideologies which granted special privileges to monarchs, nobles and the Established Church. Later it would also define itself through opposition to collectivist ideologies such as socialism and communism as well as to nazism and fascism.

Together with nationalism, liberalism has shaped much of western civilization since the late 18th century. Liberal democracy and competitive multi-party political pluralism have spread to much of the world, though not without opposition. Liberal principles such as free expression and religious tolerance are now enshrined in the constitutions of the many countries throughout the world and in transnational institutions such as the United Nations and the European Union.

 * I like your text, but please delete deprived of life without due process of law, since almost all liberals I know are totally against death penalty. BTW. The intro developped further and I can agree with its new content. Electionworld 08:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * If we can agree on the text if I delete the statement that liberals believe a person should not be deprived of live without due process of law, I can life with that. Maybe I should mention that I grew up in a place where it was not unusual for people to be deprived of life without due process of law, and that helped shape my liberal views.  I do not see any conflict between the belief that people should not be deprived of life without due process of law and the belief that people should not be deprived of life even with due process of law, but if you insist on the change I will make it. Rick Norwood 14:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

For a start the header which says libertarianism is not liberalism should be changed. Libertarianism is clearly in the liberal tradition. Loaded language such as 'enshrined' should be avoided, unless it is qualified by the observation that this is the viewpoint of liberalism itself.

If specific thinkers are to be named in the intro, then the philosopher Locke should be balanced by Adam Smith, for economic liberalism. The intro should, as an absolute minimum, say that liberalism supports the free market. Liberalism is the only ideology that does that, no non-liberal ideology does. It is untenable to suggest laissez-faire economics is not part of liberalism,as was suggested on this talk page.

This intro glosses over the violent nature of early (continental) liberalism, including the massacres of the clergy, and the fact that they often came to power by revolution. It also glosses over early laissez-faire liberal opposition to social reforms. All the Acts of Parliament in Britain, which limited working hours and child labour, were opposed by laissez-faire liberals. In addition, the employers who used child labour (including Robert Owen) were often themselves liberals.

This suggested intro now makes a distinction between economic and social liberalism. However, it fails to include under liberalism the broad liberal ideology, which should be distinguished from the political programmes of Liberal parties. Of course Tony Blair is not a member of the Liberal party in Britain, but when he advocates an 'open, liberal society' he is clearly advocating liberal principles.

I will add a template disputing the neutrality of the article, and begin to cover the pro-liberal bias in other sections, not only the intro.Ruzmanci 10:54, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Reaction ''Your position is clearly not supported by most of the editors now and in the past of this entry. Do not include anti-liberal bias in the article the way you did in the intro. I am aware that you do not like my edits since I am as you say a liberal official, but that kind of censorship is not acceptable. I try to be as balanced as possible in my edits, and sometimes it has been said that I am to market liberal, others stated that I am not liberal, since I am not a libertarian. I am somewhere in the left of European liberalism, being member of a social liberal party. That doesn't mean I am not open to criticism of liberalism. So I will keep on editing this article. As I stated before I am in favour of adding a criticism section in the article, and the bad effects of laissez-faire liberalism have allready been mentioned. See for example the following sentence in the paragraph Dignity, equality, liberty and property: One strain of liberal thought demanded laws against child labor, and requiring minimum standards of work and wages, while the laissez-faire'' strain argued that such laws were an unjust imposition on property and a hindrance to economic development.  Furthermore, do not forget that the first line of the entry includes the words:  defines itself.'' Some BTW's:
 * ''BTW 1: When adherents of other ideologies, like christian democracy or social democracy, agree with part of the liberal positions, doesn't mean that they are liberals.
 * ''BTW 2: It would be a good idea to add a sentence on violence during liberal revolutions, but do not forget that liberal forces were around the victims of jacobine terror. It would also be good to mention that some liberals enacted intransigent anti-clerical policies, leading also to cruelties, especially in Latin countries (it is not part of the Anglo-American or Northern European liberal tradition).
 * BTW 3: Personally I agree with the improvements of the article made by Stirling Newberry. -Electionworld 11:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Reply to Razmanci. The version, above, does not contain the remark about libertarianism.  Since Newberry restored that remark unilaterally, I think we can take it out, and leave a discussion of libertarianism for later in the article, with a link to the main article, where libertarians can have their say.  As for laissez-faire economics -- some liberals support it, others consider it is incompatable with social equality.  I think both my version above and Newberry's version on the main page make that conflict clear, though Newberry goes into more detail.  Since Newberry agrees with you that Adam Smith should be mentioned alongside Locke, I can live with that.  I also agree with your point about liberalism comming to power by means of violent revolution.  How about this sentence in paragraph two above, or in whatever compromise we arrive at between Newberry's version and mine:  "The first liberal governments, in America and France, came into power by violent revolution."  I would much rather reach a compromise than just live with a "disputed" flag.

 * Reply to Derksen. I also like some of the material added by Stirling Newberry, if we can just get something in there about equal rights under the law, which to me is the heart and soul of liberalism.  The newly formed American government failed to live up to the liberal ideal when it allowed slavery, and today without equal rights without regard to race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation there can be no true liberalism.

 * I suggest we work out a compromise on the intro and then move on to the later sections. One thing at a time. Rick Norwood 14:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I actually agree with the bulk of Ruz's newest commentary. Libertarianism is continuous with liberalism. However, this is already acknowledged in the article, and so is an irrelevant point. Inclusion of reference to Adam Smith is quite warranted.
 * All this might be cleared up through the indication of the various strains of liberalism. This includes, at the very least:
 * Classical, laissez-faire liberalism & Libertarianism
 * Social / modern liberalism
 * Neoliberalism (which is only arguably "liberal")
 * Acknowledging the violent history and so on is relevant, not in the intro, but in subsequent sections. This is for reasons already stated: Wiki pragmatism. Also because it is simply beyond the pale (both in terms of reason and basic ethics) to attribute responsibility for the acts of a historical few to the contemporary many. Lucidish 21:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Acknowledging the violent history and so on is relevant, not in the intro, but in subsequent sections. This is for reasons already stated: Wiki pragmatism. Also because it is simply beyond the pale (both in terms of reason and basic ethics) to attribute responsibility for the acts of a historical few to the contemporary many. Lucidish 21:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Obligation to prostitution and liberal 'freedom'
I gave the example of the obligation on unemployed women to work as a prostitute, as an example of what freedom actually means to liberals. Of course it is an extreme example, but it is a characteristic of a free market in labour, that some people end up doing jobs that they do not want. The liberal position, in general and in specific policies of European Liberal parties, is that state should not provide them with an income so that they don’t have to do the unpleasant work. Unless a rich benefactor is available, that means that they will in fact have to do something they do not want to do, in other words act against their own will. The liberal position is that they are nevertheless ‘free’.

Of course no person is under an absolute compulsion in this sense. They could simply do without an income, and this liberal concept of freedom was parodied in the derisory slogan “Freedom to Starve”.

Wilfried Derksen has queried the claim that a regulation exists which would oblige unemployed women to work as prostitutes, and demanded a source. It is difficult to believe that Derksen is acting in good faith here, since not only is there a regulation, it was introduced by a coalition government including his own party. The issue has been covered widely in the media in Germany and Holland, and the obligation to accept work as a prostitute was officially confirmed in a letter to Parliament by the Dutch Minister for Social Affairs. Derksen must know this. See these Dutch media reports at Elsevier and Intermediar and Planet. For the German obligation to work, which is supported by the FDP, see this English language report in the Telegraph and the apparently original source in the taz.

The non-liberal position on this issue, or at least one of the non-liberal positions, is that the state should indeed provide an income to people who are doing work they don’t like, so that they can stop working - or create a tax-funded pleasant job for them. If they like collecting stamps, for instance, then the state should pay them to collect stamps, instead of working long hours for low pay at Walmart or Lidl.

I know that would enrage many liberals, but that is the whole point. The article should, in effect, say that they are enraged. More formally, that liberalism rejects the idea that ‘personal freedom’ means a personal choice for what you like (or prefer).Ruzmanci 11:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Not liberal, but "classic liberal" or "libertarian". The distinction -- which is well known in political science, across the world -- has been pointed out to you over and over again many times in this thread. Social liberalism advocates welfare / workfare. This is well known. Please read. Lucidish 21:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

 * I know social-liberals support workfare. That is one reason why so many people in Europe dislike them, and the term.Ruzmanci 18:36, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Then surely you don't mean what you say. "The liberal position, in general and in specific policies of European Liberal parties, is that state should not provide them with an income so that they don’t have to do the unpleasant work." This is the opposite of workfare. Lucidish 16:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Dropping in briefly, since I was looking at the talk page - "German law forces women to work as prostitutes or lose benefits" as discussed in the Telegraph article is an urban legend; it's a sensationalised reporting of a rather innocuous German article, which explicitly noted that no woman could be forced into prostitution. Snopes has a quick summary; throwing the taz article into a machine translator, for those who nicht sprechen deutsche, may be informative (though garbled). Shimgray | talk | 14:41, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Reaction
I do not like the way Ruzmanci attacked my integrity for the second time. (not believing i was acting in good faith). I wasn't aware of the articles in the Dutch web sites. To make it clear. I am not a politician, not a member of parliamen nor working for any politician. I am an elected member of the ELDR party bureau. I do not know all policies of the Dutch government and am not responsible for anything Dutch government says. The articles are about a discussion in Dutch parliament between the christian democratic minister of social affairs and the parliament. The last article clearly states that pressure and sanctions by the autorities are not allowed (on the request of the VVD party) in the case of jobs in the sex industry. So these sources do not prove that there is any official regulation in the Netherlands of this kind. Furthermore, since the way Ruzamnci discusses with me, I decided to stop reacting on his interventions in this talk page. It just dosn't make sense, we'll never agree. Sorry, I hoped it to be otherwise. - Electionworld 12:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

 * Don't give up too soon. After all, there were a couple of places above where you and Ruzmanci actually agreed!  I think Ruzmanci has suffered from a particularly bad variation on the liberal theme, and is having a lot of trouble realizing that many liberals are not like that. Rick Norwood 22:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I won't give up editing the article. But if a person thinks I am not acting oud of good faith, I won't bother to react to his arguments. Electionworld 23:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I think that it is time
I think it is time to incorporate some of the things we have discussed here in the article itself, because while we are discussing, others are rewriting. I will try to do so with an even hand. Rick Norwood 21:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I wound up keeping in almost everything anybody wanted, so the introduction is too long, but I hesitated to take out anything that might spark another reversion war. I did try, wherever possible, to remove jargon, and use simpler language. Rick Norwood 22:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I wish you good luck in this. Electionworld 23:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

liberal violence
The recent improvements in the section "liberal violence" are certainly welcome, but the entire tone of the section seems to be to blame modern liberals for things that happend two hundred years ago. The revolutionry nature of early liberal movements is certainly an important part of the history section. The American Civil War was another use of violence in a liberal cause: the end of slavery. But the connection between those violent acts and modern liberalism seems spurious to me. In recent history it has been the anti-liberal forces, especially the Islamic anti-liberal forces, who have most often resorted to violence. Rick Norwood 23:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

The most recent edits leave ungrammatical sentences. I am also still at a loss how the liberal belief that a person should not be deprived of life without due process of law says anything about the death penalty. The clause, which is part of the American Declaration of Independence, is an anti-lynching clause, and has nothing to do with the legal death penalty one way or the other. Are you award that there were more than 10,000 lynchings in America between 1776 and 1942? Rick Norwood 00:00, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * This was about the intro. I was not aware of that meaning, so i restored 'deprived of life', but at the same time added the opposition to the death penalty. Electionworld 07:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

And the section begins "Although it is an embarrassment for modern Liberal parties in Europe..." In general, most European liberals I've ever met are generally proud, not embarrassed, of the role that liberals played in, for example, the Revolutions of 1848. Am I missing something here? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:12, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * In addition to Jmabel: Though the French revolution started with liberal roots, soon it developed into a illiberal terror of the jacobins and montagnards. Most liberals wouldn't consider them as being liberals. I would also be proud of the use of violence to end the Nazi occupation of and crimes agains humanity in Europe. Electionworld 07:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I added some lines about Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who has nothing to do with liberal violence, but has herself been targeted with death threats by islamfundamentalists. Electionworld 07:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Liberal support for the death penalty
I propose to add to the section on liberal violence, the support of laissez-faire liberals for extreme repressive measures against early trade unions, including the death penalty in the Seditious Assemblies Act 1795.

 * ...remain or continue together by the Space of one hour after such Command or Request made by Proclamation, that then such continuing together to the Number of twelve or more, after such Command or Request made by Proclamation, shall be adjudged Felony without Benefit of Clergy, and the Offenders therein shall be adjudged Felons, and shall suffer Death, as in the case of Felony without Benefit of Clergy.

Ruzmanci 11:17, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Liberal xenophobia
I propose to add to the section on present-day liberal politics, the almost uniform opposition of the Liberal Parties to immigration, their support for restrictions on immigration, their almost uniform demand to limit the right of asylum, and their support in some cases for abrogation of international human rights law in order to limit immigration (for instance by barring children of non-EU citizens, from joining their families in an EU country). Outside of Britain, everyone in the EU recognises that the Liberal parties are anti-immigration parties, and that they align with the nationalist-populist parties on this issue.Ruzmanci 11:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Mohammed a paedophile? Violence and free speech.
The edit on Ayaan Hirsi Ali receiving death threats is correct, but does not give the full picture. I propose to cover the controversy in more detail, since it illistrates several aspects of modern liberalism in Europe. First, the bitter (mutual) hostilty between liberalism and religious radicals. Second, the neo-Jacobin and crusading nature of some liberalism. Third, that this is within mainstream liberalism: Hirsi Ali is a member of parliament for a large Liberal party. Fourth, the idea that free speech is not accepted as an undisputed benefit, and that others may wholly reject the principle on religious grounds. (The fact that not everyone sees liberalism as a 'list of good things' is largely unrecognised in the article).

The murder of Theo van Gogh (film director) for directing a film with her anti-Koranic script, and Hirsi Ali's statement that Mohammed was a paedophile, made after the murder, illustrate both the liberal absolutism as regards free speeech, and the violent reaction it provokes. Her party did not approve the statement, but did not disapprove it either. Supporters of Theo van Gogh and Ayaan Hirsi Ali did engage in violence after the murder, attacking mosques and Islamic schools.

I think this sort of reality is a necessary addition to the article, which originally gave the impression of a mild-mannered debate on various forms of liberty.Ruzmanci 11:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? How is any of this relevant? Lucidish 19:06, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Liberals behaving badly
If I want to attack, say Mongolians, naturally I am going to list all of the Mongols in history who have behaved really badly. But this will not say anything about how the majority of Mongols behave or about the nature of Mongolia.

This is the pattern of your argument, Ruzmanci. You want to attack liberals, and so you list all of the liberals in history who have behaved really badly. But this does not say anything about how the majority of liberals behave or about the nature of liberalism.

The structure of Wikipedia is to present the mainstream information in the introduction, and other trends, disagreements, or splinter movements further down, with references.

To make another analogy, you are in the position of a Fundamentalist Christian who wants the article on Darwin to begin with a statement about Intelligent Design.

Yours is a minority viewpoint. I think you have some good points to make, and I agree with you about some of the extremes to which some liberals have gone. I tend to oppose extremists of any stripe. But the views you ascribe to liberals are extreme views, not mainstream views, and belong in a later section of the article. Rick Norwood 13:16, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

No argument was given for the last revert of the introduction. Since others deleted the two-version template, and are apparently not prepared to accept its use in this case, another revert is unfortunately appropriate.

The problem with the intro is that it attempts to give a positive image of liberalism. Attributing all the negative aspects to an 'extremist minority' is a familiar political tactic, should be treated with scepticism and as such is not applicable here. The list of 'principle tenets' is unacceptable, so long as it is so biased. The more neutral and philosophical formulation that liberalism supports 'competitive proces as an ordering principle' was an improvement, so please don't delete it again.

It ought to be evident, that if liberals went around the planet bestowing rights, liberty and equality out of unselfish devotion to humanity, that they would be saints. Common sense says you can't truthfully describe a political ideology like this, as an unquestioned list of pure benefits.Ruzmanci 18:31, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * 1. "Common sense" is only a rhetorical tool that people like to weasel into their arguments when feeling pressure.
 * 2. Arguments against your POV ranting have been put forward repeatedly; we're at the point where it would be appropriate to simply revert your edits because you're not engaging in discussion on the real issue.
 * 3. The real issue is the nature of the ideology, which is precisely that wacky academic philosophical thing you have so much contempt for. You can lay blame against the actions of parties, but you don't attribute that to their ideology unless it is consistent with their system of ideas (read: ideology). In order to do that, you have to first take steps towards understanding what you're talking about. You have not.
 * 4. Social liberalism, in principle and practice, supports none of those things you mention. Lucidish 18:43, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Totalitarianism
I restored these corrections on the concept, whose validity is disputed, see the totalitarianism article itself...

 * In the mid-20th century, liberalism began to define itself in opposition to totalitarianism. Rather than a new philosophy, this was a descriptive term for the common characteristics of fascist and Stalinist regimes. Totalitarian regimes allegedly sought and implemented absolute centralized control over all aspects of society, in order to achieve prosperity, stability, and survival itself. The concept has often been disputed by historians, who consider that the reality of the regimes (power struggles, factions, and incompetence), did not match the dystopia. Nevertheless, the idea of a 'totalitarian movement', seeking to discredit and destroy liberalism, acquired great importance in liberal thinking. Liberalism spent most of the 20th century defining itself as an opposition to various strains of totalitarianism.

It is, in other words, a case of the Thomas theorem.Ruzmanci 18:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * And I'm sure Mr. Thomas would have agreed that sociology, being in the business of ideal types, does not ever pretend to speak of perfect manifestations of systems. This is regular, and banal.
 * Analogy. When you think your child has the flu, and you're looking up the symptoms in the Merck Manual, you don't abandon the diagnosis just because one particular contingent symptom is missing in your child. And when you're assessing whether or not something is Totalitarian, you don't demand they live up completely to the ideal type of the concept. They simply must live up to a certain standard, and up to the necessary conditions. Lucidish 19:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Is fascism collectivist.
The only problem I have with the current introduction is the description of fascism as collectivist. Can any offer support or evidence for this? If not, then I think the best solution is just to delete the word "collectivist". Rick Norwood 18:31, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The answer to this question has already been posted, in direct reply to you. See above. Lucidish 21:57, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry I missed it. Rick Norwood 23:36, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * No prob. Lucidish

confusing passage
I have just read through the entire article and I think it is now in excellent shape. However there is one passage in the section Liberalism vs. social democracy that I do not understand. Maybe it should be rewritten in order to make its point clearer. Rick Norwood 13:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

"Social democracy also places more importance on the positive conception of rights and liberties. Liberalism would more commonly frame rights and liberties as more strictly (though by no means completely) negative."

 * Yeah. Social liberals advocate both negative and positive rights, and they do it in the name of freedom, so that's a crazy formulation of the difference. If there's a difference, to my mind, it lies in the difference between free trade and fair trade. Social democrats will advocate fair trade as a rule, whatever that entails, while social liberals will demand that borders be kept open as a rule except in dire circumstances. Lucidish 16:01, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Fuller list of sources
This is an expanded version of the sources for modern mainstream liberal attitudes in Europe, which I intend to quote in the article, to show what liberals advocate in real-world politics, as opposed to academic dicussion about 'liberty'. Much of it is not very pleasant, which is why I am stating the sources beforehand.

 * the forum of the German FDP, which is relatively unmoderated and illustrates grassroots liberal concerns.

 * the Belgian website / think tank Liberales.be which has longer essays on new liberal policies

 * the positions of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats for Europe fraction in the European Parliament, and self-identified liberal parties in other EP fractions, such as the Liberal Democratic Party (Lithuania) in the Union for Europe of the Nations.

 * The views and policies of the Open Society Institute, since they explicitly claim to derive from the principles of a major liberal philosopher, Karl Popper. This is one of the few cases where someone - George Soros - is called a 'liberal' in both the continental-European and U.S. usage.

 * The Lisbon Strategy of the European Union, since it is strongly supported by the Liberal Parties, and sets out a vision of a future Europe.

 * the policies of Liberal Parties in government, including those in coalition arrangements, since they show what liberals are prepared to accept.

Ruzmanci 11:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Practice != ideology.
 * There are overt and covert ideologies. Liberalism is an overt one: where the intentions and goals are laid out quite bare (Oxford Manifesto 1947). A covert ideology would be one that hidden from general eyes, so we give those ideologies separate names: "Neoliberalism" was such a doctrine till recently. You make such distinctions if you care about attributing blame to the right sources. This is what you're not doing. Other examples of fouling up this usage:
 * Marxism advocates five year plans, because Stalin did.
 * Islam is a terrorist's ideology, because Osama Bin Laden wants to kill us.
 * I hope you can see how the above are bullshit. Lucidish 18:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

A section is now added under the heading real-world liberal politics, not ideology. I am preparing a separate list of the ethical and philosophical concepts in the ideology, such as process, competition, anti-perfectionism, and so on. The claim that the Oxford Manifesto is the definitive statement of present-day liberalism is no more than a claim. By now, it is very dated anyway.Ruzmanci 12:19, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It is a claim that has three benefits. One, it is a "mere claim" that contains the sourcing and referencing that you've been clamoring for. That you would show contempt for evidence of argument is astoundingly hypocritical.
 * Two, it refers to an ideal type. It identifies the difference between an ideology (the focus of the article) versus the actions of those who ostensibly claim to hold the ideology, analogously like the distinction between competence and performance in linguistics. Without that sort of distinction, political science never leaves the realm of a slapstick comedy, because everyone is so obsessed with strawman arguments that they fail to lay accountability where it ought to be laid. Lately you seem to be more sympathetic to this distinction, which makes me glad.
 * Three, that particular manifesto refers to a point in history where there is an unequivocal and widely acknowledged change in liberal thought (though rumblings of change began far earlier than that). If this is a "mere claim", then it is a mere claim that is widely accepted. Taken as an idiom, "modern liberalism" is taken to mean "post-war liberalism", with a specific thrust towards Keynesian economics and mixed economies -- i.e., see the essay "Liberalism" by Alan Ryan. Taken literally, it means a whole lot of crazy and contradictory things, which shows how thick the term is but says nothing about its actual intended meaning. Lucidish 19:30, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

long article
Well, everyone is getting their say, which I guess is a good thing, but the article is now twice as long as the recommended 32K. I don't know enough about Liberal party politics in Europe to comment on the recent lengthy additions, and so I will just ask the authors -- can any of these be given more briefly in the main article with a link to a new article, such as "European liberalism"? Just asking. Rick Norwood 22:44, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * No idea why that section is there. There's already a blurb on Euro politics. So I agree. There's an American Liberalism page that's independent of this one, so it would make good sense to make a European liberalism one. Lucidish 23:59, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I read your comments and I shortened that section, since it was not NPOV, but a rather personal selection of sources and information from these sources. I do not believe it belongs in this article. Furthermore I do not think one can make a page on European liberalism, since it is very pluriform. WOuld one describe the liberalism of Det Radikale Venstre or of the Estonian Reform Party, would one describe the immigaration policy of Venstre or of Det Radikale Venstre. I can agree with a deletion of the whole section. That the article exceeds the 32K, is not really a problem, it might be very difficult to break up the page. It would lead to a head article, with summaries of the sub-articles, and those summaries would lead to the same discussions we had here. - Electionworld 09:12, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I would find an article on European liberalism interesting to read. If there are too many versions of European liberalism to fit in one article, then there are certainly too many to fit in one section of this article. I read the survey here with interest, but if it needs to be expanded, then it should refer to a separate article. Rick Norwood 13:34, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * An article doesn't have to be entirely homogeneous. If you have a European article, then you can split it according to locale. Lucidish 15:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Politicians deleting damaging material on Wikipedia
Judge Derksen deleted a list of policies which are in fact advocated by mainstream liberal parties in Europe, including his own party in the Netherlands, and the ELDR of which he is an official. They include, for instance, xenophobic and racist policies. That deletion was politically motivated, and it seems clear that when politicians turn up as Wikipedia users, and delete material in this way, despite a clear conflict of interest, then it is a substantial abuse.

It is however rare, because most politicians simply would not have the time to edit Wikipedia articles. The issue deserves consideration beyond this talk page. See Village_pump_%28policy%29/Archive L

If political parties advocate policies, then they must not try to hide them. Derksen is no doubt concerned at the image conveyed by the list, for English-speaking international readers of Wikipedia. However it is a fact that the liberal parties in Europe are generally xenophobic, and of course they do all favour deregulation and privatisation, differing only as to its extent.Ruzmanci 13:45, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

 * 1) Derksen didn't do it. I did.
 * 2) The sources you cite may well call themselves liberal, but the mainstream of liberal thought is almost the exact oposite of the picture you want to give.
 * 3) You have no support for your point of view.
 * 4) I am not a politician, I am a math professor. My motive is not political, it is a love of truth.  In any case, one of the rules of Wikipedia, one of the things that makes Wikipedia work, is that we assume good faith on the part of others.  I assume you are acting in good faith.  But I also think you are wrong, as clearly wrong as if you were arguing that 2 + 2 = 5. Rick Norwood 13:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

The first deletion was by Derksen. He is a politician. See Village_pump_%28policy%29/Archive L for any further discussion of that issue, including the question of whether good faith should be assumed for politicians.Ruzmanci 14:20, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I'm going to copy a reference from above so you will be sure to see it, Ruzmanci. If you follow it, you should see that you are listening to people who are lying to you.  You have been asked repeatedly where you get your ideas.  Of course, I don't know.  I wish you would say. Rick Norwood 15:06, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

 * Dropping in briefly, since I was looking at the talk page - "German law forces women to work as prostitutes or lose benefits" as discussed in the Telegraph article is an urban legend; it's a sensationalised reporting of a rather innocuous German article, which explicitly noted that no woman could be forced into prostitution. Snopes has a quick summary; throwing the taz article into a machine translator, for those who nicht sprechen deutsche, may be informative (though garbled). Shimgray | talk | 14:41, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Shorter words, shorter sentences.
Here is the first sentence of the current introduction.

"Liberalism is an ideology, or current of political thought, defines itself as striving after maximisation of individual liberty through a democratic system of rights under law, in a system where the form of society is determined by the outcome of open competitive process, generally including economic competition, free exchange of ideas, and political expression within a defined framework."

It's too long.

Also, if you parse it, it says, "Liberalism is defines itself..."

I would like to do a rewrite, without changing the meaning of any sentence, but using shorter words and shorter sentences. Rick Norwood 13:58, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

As I started the task I describe above, I discovered that, once again, someone has taken the "rights" passage out of the introduction. This baffles me. I thought we were all agreed on that passage. I plan to put it back, but not now. Rewrite for style first, content later. Rick Norwood 14:04, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Sure, edit away. Lucidish 16:01, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

IMF / WTO and liberalism
It seems to me that those institutions operate from a very liberal principle, that of free trade, except that their structural adjustment programs end up creating a relationship of dominion. To say they're not liberal isn't quite right, but to say they are is not quite right either. Lucidish 16:17, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I think an encyclopedia article should focus on the mainstream of any subject, rather than on extreme views -- there are just too many extreme views, and they really are not of interest. There is, for example, in the United States, a popular radio program hosted by Rush Limbaugh, who constantly says things such as: All liberals want to force everyone to become a homosexual.  All liberals want to ban Christianity.  All liberals love criminals.  And so on.  These viewpoints are simply not worth reporting. Rick Norwood 16:25, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Okay, but we're not talking about extreme views by idiots, we're talking about established institutions and the extent to which liberalism as an ideology can be said to support them. I would be a liar if I said I felt that liberalism was anti-IMF, anti-World Bank, even if only because they have a smattering of internationalism in their intent, if not their practices; and profess to be development-centered, even though they are arguably dependency- and globalization-centered. Lucidish 19:33, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Clearly, this is something you know a lot more about than I do. I defer to your greater expertise. Rick Norwood 20:29, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I would say that the fit in the neoliberal trend of the last decennia and that many liberals support these institutions, but that doesn't mean that they are liberal institutions. We wouldn't say that the European Union is a liberal organization. Electionworld 20:40, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It deserves a section, with all the necessary caveats. Foreign policy is very hard to fit liberalism into. Lucidish 01:52, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Vacuous statement
In the opening paragraph: "Social liberalism defends individual rights." Seems pretty vacuous to me, especially as a contrast to "property rights" in the previous sentence. Are property rights not "individual"? What rights are specifically "individual"? I frankly think both sentences could be deleted with little loss to the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:43, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Today, property rights are often corporate rather than individual. And, as I said I would, I am now going to put back the enumeration of those individual rights that social liberalism tries to secure, especially the right to vote, the right to life (under the ancien régime a nobel could kill a commoner and only pay a small fine), and the right to liberty (free speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion). Rick Norwood 13:35, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I've added the credo that liberals have subscribed to for the last two hundred years. I don't know who keeps taking it out, or why. If a party calls itself liberal but does not believe in government by the consent of the governed, or individual liberty, or equal rights, then it is not really liberal. (As, for example, the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia is not really liberal.)

By the way, Jmabel, if you had worked for civil rights for Blacks in the American South during the sixties, you would not find the statement that "social liberalism defends individual rights" vacuous. Rick Norwood 13:53, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I think what Jmabel might have meant is that ostensible classical liberals support property, voting, etc., too. So it might not be a differentiating characteristic. (Though in practice, many of those "classic liberals" were illiberal by their own creeds, Thomas Jefferson being the paradigm example.) Lucidish 21:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

It's a rare man who can live up to his own creed. Rick Norwood 22:24, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

 * I guess, but it's a shame that Americans will have to live with until the end of time. Well, one shame, anyway. Lucidish 23:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

 * FWIW, I worked for civil rights for Blacks in the American North in the 1960s, and had bruises to show for it. I was born in '54, so I was pretty young at the relevant time, but my family were very politically active, and I was in political demonstrations and the like from the age of 6 and was a student organizer on various matters (both racial issues and ant-war issues) by the age of 14. But by the time I had a coherent set of views, I was a bit left of a "liberal" (although I did work on two campaigns of Allard Lowenstein, who I feel represented pretty much the epitome of what was best in American liberalism). Liberals were certainly more of a help than a harm in that struggle, but one would do well to remember that the liberal Kennedy administration was as liable to tell civil rights workers to "go slow" as it was to back them.

 * The sense in which I say the claim is vacuous is that "individual rights" can mean anything. A king can consider his divine right to rule to be "individual". Segregationist whites often defended their practices on the grounds of individual rights to free association. And while you are reasonable to say that property rights can be either collective or individual, the same could be said, with exactly the same degree of truth, of freedom of speech. The only context in which the expression "individual rights" has clear content is if either (1) the rights are enumerated or (2) it is in specific contrast to "collective rights". -- Jmabel | Talk 23:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

title: Talk:Liberalism/Archive 2