Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:07, 9 December 2009

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Philosophy: Social and political High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Social and political philosophy Template:WPLibertarianism

/Archive 1 /Archive 2

Definition of classical liberalism

Is classical liberalism (a) liberalism before 1900 or (b) laissez-faire liberalism? The Four Deuces (talk) 08:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Although the term classical liberalism is usually used to describe laissez faire liberalism as developed in the nineteenth century, it is sometimes used to describe pre-1900 liberalism. This has created confusion in this article that jumps from the 18th century to neoliberalism, and leaves out detail about 19th century liberalism, making it appear that neoliberalism is a revival of 18th rather than 19th century liberalism. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

:It's both. There is no difference. It's the liberalism that existed prior to the development of social liberalism, and that's the philosophy of laissez-faire. As this source says: "Typically, classical liberalism is assocated with eighteenth and nineteenth century classical economics It stands for freedom of the individual within a framework of law, self-reliance, and a minimum role for government." Macesich, George. Integration and Stabilization: A Monetary View. Greenwood Publishing Group, 1996. p. 68, What's causing confusion is what you and Rick Norwood are doing to the intro, which is making it look like they're two different things. The intro needs to go back to the way it was before: Introman (talk) 18:22, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Why are we using a economist as a source, rather than a political scientist? This is a political science topic. It would be like citing a chemist on a geology topic. 174.49.77.138 (talk) 05:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

This would be a much better source. 174.49.77.138 (talk) 05:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

The first sentence of the article does not appear to be well supported by the source. Just thought I would say so. --FormerIP (talk) 22:49, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll double check and get back to you -- but probably not until tomorrow. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

It's sourced to Encyclopedia Britannica and does not support the statement. The Four Deuces (talk) 16:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is a quote from Britannica online: "Classical liberalism » Liberalism and democracy The early liberals, then, worked to free individuals from two forms of social constraint—religious conformity and aristocratic privilege—that had been maintained and enforced through the powers of government." That seems to confirm that when they use the phrase Classical liberalism, they don't intend the adjective "classical" in any special sense, but just mean "early liberalism". The second references uses the phrase to mean Jacksonian Liberalism, which was more about free markets. In this sense, it seems to parallel "Classical Econmoics", meaning pre-Keynsian economics. Rick Norwood (talk) 23:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something, though, the source doesn't specifically say "liberalism before the 20th century", which is what it is used to support. --FormerIP (talk) 20:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You are correct. I'll change it to "early liberalism". Rick Norwood (talk) 18:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

RFC response: as a descriptive academic term in the humanities and discourse based social sciences, the use of the term will vary and be defined from credible source to credible source. Recommendation: Clarify all major academic uses with appropriate sections; restrict non-academic uses to "In popular culture" cited out of recent media works." Fifelfoo (talk) 14:20, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but it also looks to me like theres another hurdle in the way. Seems like there are two distinct ways of using the term "classical liberalism". One is simply to mean "an original or archetypal form of liberalism". The second is as a name that some libertarians have adopted. It seems to me that the article needs to decide whether it is about one, the other or both, and this should be made clear for the reader.

What the article should not do is follow any particular POV over the distinction. In particular, it should not present as fact the aptness of the use of the term "classical liberal" for "libertarian", either explicitly or impliedly (by favourable comparison). Quite probably, this is a view held exclusively by libertarians, and so considerations of due weight should be observed (it seems to me that the article isn't doing that at present).

The article seems to me to be seriously in error in focussing almost exclusively on liberalism as an economic doctrine, whereas it is, historically speaking, a much broader set of political doctrines, having their origins in a philosophy of religious toleration and pluralism. Liberalism in the sense of laissez-faire, whilst it certainly exists, is a relative latecomer. --FormerIP (talk) 21:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that the more accurate view of "classical liberalism" is one which takes the term "classical" seriously, i.e. considers it to be a purely historical forerunner to a number of different modern liberal movements as diverse as social democracy, libertarianism, socialism, and anarchism. That there are present-day libertarians and anarcho-capitalists on the political fringe who insist that they are the only true 21st-century standard-bearers of "classical liberalism" is no more relevant than the fact that some fringe Catholics insist that the spirit of the Second Vatican Council is inherently a corruption of "true Catholicism", or the fact that some Trotskyites and Maoists on the fringes of the Marxist movement insist that their specific variant of Marxism, to the exclusion of all others, is the only "true Marxism". If I were to call myself a "Colonial American", it would dilute the significance of that phrase to the point of meaninglessness. Andrew Levine (talk) 19:48, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Well said. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Classical liberalism as defined in Modern political philosophy

Below is a description of classical liberalism from Modern political philosophy. While the term can be used to refer to pre-1900 liberalism from Locke to Gladstone, it usually has a stricter definition. I think that this definition should be used because there is no need to have an article that describes pre-1900 Liberalism since it is contained in the Liberalism article. Secondly, there should be an article on what is normally called "classical liberalism'.

Classical Liberalism

By the middle of the nineteenth century a coherent vision of how society should be organized had taken shape in England, western Europe, and the Americas. This vision is the political ideology of classical liberalism.... Central to the classical liberalism of the nineteenth century is a commitment to the liberty of individual citizens. Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly were core commitments of classical liberalism, as was the underlying conception of the proper role of just government as the protection of the liberties of individual citizens. Also central to classical liberalism was a commitment to a system of free markets as the best way to organize economic life.

The Four Deuces (talk) 01:21, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The definition above is a good one, but I think the article needs to at least mention other and conflicting usages of the phrase. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I have added a new lead. Please read it and discuss. I have move the original lead to the next section. This needs to be edited for duplication with parts moved to other parts of the article. Also, I have archived discussion before the RfC. Most of this talk involved discussion with the disruptive editor User:Introman, who has been blocked indefinitely as a suspected sockpuppet of User:RJII. I have also archived additional threads he began and struck out his comments on the current talk page. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Your new lede is much better than the old. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was merge into DESTINATION PAGE. -- The Four Deuces (talk) 23:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Propose merging History of classical liberalism into Classical liberalism. The history article duplicates material in this article and also is largely unsourced. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support per reasons given by proposer. --Snowded 21:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support for the same reasons. --FormerIP (talk) 09:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support for the same reasons. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Disputes over whether social liberalism is derived from classical liberalism

This section provides information irrelevant to the article, is American-centric and POV. Does anyone have any reason why it should be in this article? The Four Deuces (talk) 23:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

We need to do something about this dispute. I don't think we can just sweep it under the rug. One thing I've noticed in my recent reading of the article is that "freedom for individuals" is silently conflated with "freedom for multi-national corporations". The statement is that individuals should be free, but the application is that multi-national corporations should be free to eliminate competition, fix prices and wages, pollute the air and water, form monopolies, and use their wealth and power to control the media. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The origins of social liberalism, progressivism and modern American liberalism should all be discussed in their respective articles. Obviously progressivism and social liberalism were influenced by both conservatism (e.g., the welfare state) and socialism (e.g., universal adult suffrage), but at least in the UK can be seen as a reaction to both. But I see no reason why this should be discussed here. The Four Deuces (talk) 15:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Both of your examples seem alien to me. I suspect I'm missing something. To me, social liberalism is clearly derived from classical liberalism. By social liberalism I mean the modern welfare state with human rights guarantees (as contrasted with the Soviet or Maoist welfare state with no human rights) and classical liberalism means 18th Century liberalism with a strong government and a strong capitalist economy. Both systems support freedom, limitations on the power of government, and capitalism. The difference is well-expressed in the Britannica Online article "Liberalism": social liberals see the greatest threat to liberty to no longer be the church and the aristocracy but rather now to be the upper class and the business interests. It does no good for the modern "classical liberals" to say I'm "free" if my only freedom is to allow myself to be cheated by all-powerful corporate intersts or to starve.

If this were clear to everyone, the article would not need to say it. But throughout most of the articles on politics one finds paragraphs that claim social liberals want to take money from the "most productive" people and give it away to "lazy, good-for-nothing" poor people. If that were true, then social liberalism would not be related to classical liberalism. Rick Norwood (talk) 17:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems they are referring to 19th century liberalism in particular. (Friedman refers to "The nineteenth century liberal" and "turning the clock back to seventeenth-century mercantilism".) In any case it seems to be the wrong article. We have modern libertarians commenting on social liberalism in an article about classical liberalism. The examples: Classical liberals saw welfare as originating with Bismarck's State Socialism and thought the social liberals were influenced by Fichte. Universal suffrage was not accepted by classical liberals (except in the US) until the late 19th century. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, you know more about this than I do. If you think it should go, let it go. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed it and also a paragraph about Hayek's comparison of classical liberalism in the UK and France. He was not referring to classical liberalism but liberty and political traditions in general. (See Hayek, Constitution of Liberty, ch. 4) The Four Deuces (talk) 15:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the removal. Hayek was discussing the "two different traditions in the theory of liberty" of the eighteenth-century which merged into a liberal movement in the nineteenth-century. He further says they are both "now commonly lumped together as the ancestors of modern liberalism": i.e they were classical liberals. All thinkers he mentioned are usually described as "liberal" and are mentioned in Misplaced Pages's "List of liberal theorists". His perceptions explain why so many varied, often contradictory, thinkers are labelled "classical liberal".--Britannicus (talk) 18:20, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

There are several definitions of classical liberalism but the article's focus should be on 19th century liberalism (per the lead) because the origins of liberalism are discussed in the Liberalism article. That 19th century liberalism drew on both traditions is important but probably best addressed when discussing the various theorists. BTW Hayek' listing of Edmund Burke and mention of Whigs and Radicals shows that he is discussing the liberal tradition in its broadest sense. Also I question why we would present the comparison of French and English political traditions as Hayek's opinions rather than present it as fact by sourcing it to reliable sources. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I also disagree with removal. Article's lead is focusing on 19th century liberalism only after you have replaced it . -- Vision Thing -- 20:34, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Most writers including Hayek draw a distinction between 19th century liberalism and its predecessors, usually calling the former "classical liberalism". There may be a tendency among some of Hayek's professed followers to group Edmund Burke and Alexander Hamilton with Herbert Spencer and Andrew Jackson, but that is a minority POV. Could you reply in the following section to my suggestions. Incidentally Hayek's book is not a reliable source. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

On what grounds do you claim that Hayek's book is not a reliable source? -- Vision Thing -- 21:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Because he was so closely involved in it himself, he had a strong incentive to present his beliefs as having a firm and elaborate background that had been 'usurped' by new challengers, while claiming the mantle of widely-admired historical figures and movements for himself; this was a narrative that cast his beliefs in a favorable light, and therefore it is hardly surprising that he would be enamored of it. But tracing the antecedents of political thought is difficult and prone to personal interpretation, especially when spanning such a long period of time throughout which such turbulent social change occurred; for that reason, in evaluating changes in political thought it is better to rely on neutral scholars of political history who themselves are not affiliated with or invested in the topics being discussed. Hayek not a reliable source for this article, except to source his own personal beliefs and statements when they are directly attributed to him; and even in that it should be kept to a minimum to avoid over-representing one person's views. --Aquillion (talk) 04:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Hayek was a public intellectual who wrote popular books outside his area of expertise, like The Constitution of Liberty. The book is not part of the academic discourse of the history of liberalism and in any case was written fifty years ago. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

This is the edit that is discussed. Hayek is an extremely notable political philosopher and his works are certainly reliable sources for his opinions. -- Vision Thing -- 14:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Rename article

Since the term classical liberalism has several meanings, it might be helpful to rename the article "19th century liberalism". The Four Deuces (talk) 19:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Classical liberalism originated in the 19th century but it is wrong to describe it as a "19th century liberalism". For example, in his book Classical Liberalism David Conway writes:

"After falling into almost complete intellectual disrepute towards the end of the nineteenth century, classical liberalism was rescued from oblivion and revived in the twentieth century by such notable thinkers as Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek. The revival has spawned a whole spate of more recent thinkers inaccurately and now somewhat anachronistically known as the 'new right'. Included here are such figures as Robert Nozick, Loren Lomasky and Jan Narveson."

For additional discussion you can also see Richard Epstein's book Skepticism and Freedom: A Modern Case for Classical Liberalism. -- Vision Thing -- 21:10, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I put in the lead: "The term classical liberalism is also used to refer to liberal ideology before the twentieth century and to laissez faire or economic liberalism." It is a problem when a term has several differing meanings. But there should be a separate article about mainstream liberalism c. 1830-1900. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

If you think that another article is needed, you can create it. However, I think that this article should be kept under current title. -- Vision Thing -- 22:00, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Again, though, the problem with your sources is that you rely, above, exclusively on writers who consider themselves to be classical liberals. Obviously they are going to make the argument that they are a genuine continuation of nineteenth century liberalism and that those who call them the 'new right' are wrong; but for the article to take sides in that dispute itself by relying uncritically on their flattering self-descriptions is improper and POV. It should either rely on neutral sources, or at least describe the opinions of modern self-described 'classical liberals' as their own opinion rather than impartial fact. --Aquillion (talk) 04:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Like Hayek, Epstein is also a public intellectual who writes popular books outside his area of expertise. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

In A companion to contemporary political philosophy Alan Ryan says that "Classical liberalism is associated with John Locke, Adam Smith, Alexis de Tocqueville and Friedrich von Hayek. It focuses on the idea of limited government, the maintenance of the rule of law, the avoidance of arbitrary and discretionary power, the sanctity of private property and freely made contracts, and the responsibility of individuals for their own fates." So to me it seems that classical liberalism has a clear definition, more the notable proponents and a long tradition. -- Vision Thing -- 15:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

(out)It would be helpful if you would read the article and the comments before commenting. I wrote the following several posts up:

I put in the lead: "The term classical liberalism is also used to refer to liberal ideology before the twentieth century and to laissez faire or economic liberalism." It is a problem when a term has several differing meanings. But there should be a separate article about mainstream liberalism c. 1830-1900. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

The Four Deuces (talk) 15:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Like I said before, if you think that there should be a separate article about 19th century liberalism (my suggestion is creation of article called "History of liberalism") you can create it. What this article needs is expansion. -- Vision Thing -- 15:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Attack of the gold bugs!

As a classical liberal, I take issue with the claim that "Classical liberals advocate a gold standard", added by User:Can I touch it?. It is one thing to say that classical liberals generally support personal freedom, free markets, and limited government. It is quite another to suggest that they all agree on specific policies. A person who supports civil liberties and neoclassical economics could easily be called a classical liberal. However, neoclassical economics does not favor a gold standard. Milton Friedman, for example, favored monetarism instead of a gold standard. Modern neoclassical economists are far more likely to favor inflation targeting over a gold standard as a way of promoting a stable monetary policy.

Although this article has existed since October 12, 2001, the gold standard claim is only a recent addition to this article, being added about a month after the collapse of Lehman Brothers. I cannot find the book referenced (i.e. "Money and Economic Change"), either on Amazon.com or Google Books.

On another note, regarding the "Classical liberalism" and libertarianism section, I'd argue that libertarianism is a subset of classical liberalism. Thus, classical liberalism is a general belief in personal freedom, free markets, and limited government, while libertarianism is much more focused on specific issues (e.g. guns, drugs, and taxes) and solutions. --JHP (talk) 03:33, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

The inclusion of the gold standard seems dubious to me as well, but since I am not a classical liberal, I hesitated to change it. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

I added external links for two of the sources. Mark Skousen's book is unacceptable because it is a popular book, not academic. The problem with the section is that there was no debate about the gold standard before the twentieth century. Seems like another attempt to show that classical liberals were libertarians. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Note: Since the claim that "Skousen's book is unacceptable" diverted the debate away from the original point of this section, I have broken the "unacceptable source" debate into a different section. Continue debating inclusion of the gold standard claims here. Again, I think the claim that "Classical liberals advocate a gold standard" should be removed. --JHP (talk) 03:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

(out) If I interpret the comments above correctly, it seems to me that we have three Wikipedians (Rick Norwood, The Four Deuces, and me) in favor of removing the gold standard claims and none against. Am I correct on that? (If not I apologize.) Is it safe for me to remove them? --JHP (talk) 03:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Unacceptable source

I added external links for two of the sources. Mark Skousen's book is unacceptable because it is a popular book, not academic. The problem with the section is that there was no debate about the gold standard before the twentieth century. Seems like another attempt to show that classical liberals were libertarians. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:49, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Popular books are not unacceptable sources. See WP:RS for Misplaced Pages's reliability guideline. If a college professor writes a book for a broad audience, it would be foolish to assume that it's automatically unacceptable. Milton Friedman and Paul Krugman are two Nobel laureates who have written excellent popular books. Alan Greenspan and Henry Kissinger are two former government officials who have written excellent popular books (The Age of Turbulence and Diplomacy, respectively). Historian John Keegan has written multiple popular books on warfare that are also used as college texts. Although I have not read Skousen's The Making of Modern Economics, I have read his The Big Three in Economics and it is very good—essentially The Worldly Philosophers from a neoclassical perspective. However, I think we need to be wary of taking any book's claim out of context. --JHP (talk) 22:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Mark Skousen in not in the same league as those other writers, and also not in the league of Mises and Hayek who would be better sources for a "neoclassical perspective". The problem with popular books is that there is no way to tell the acceptability of their views or whether errors have been made, since they do not form part of academic writing. If you want to quote Friedman or Krugman it is better to find a source in their academic writing. RS states: "Articles should rely on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." "Reliable non-academic sources may also be used in articles about scholarly issues, particularly material from high-quality mainstream publications. Deciding which sources are appropriate depends on context." (Seems to exclude M. Skousen.) The Four Deuces (talk) 22:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

You've got to be joking! The text you quoted disproves your claim that non-academic books are unacceptable sources! You are essentially making up your own Misplaced Pages policy. To quote WP:SOURCES, "The most reliable sources are usually peer-reviewed journals; books published by university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used, subject to the same criteria. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine, and science. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications." (Emphasis added.) Let me also point out that Mark Skousen has a Ph.D. in economics from George Washington University. His book is about the history of the subject his Ph.D. is in. --JHP (talk) 05:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

He actually fails all the criteria that you cited. Your quote begins "The most reliable sources are usually peer-reviewed journals" which your source fails to meet and then the rest of your quote further explains why his quotes are unacceptable. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:00, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

First, it's not my source. If you go back to the top of this section, you'll see that I'm the guy complaining about the gold standard claims. However, I got diverted by the fact that you are making up your own Misplaced Pages policies. WP:SOURCES clearly lists different types of reliable sources. It lists peer-reviewed journals as "the most reliable sources", but it by no means suggests that those are the only reliable sources. Quite the opposite, it goes on to list other types of reliable sources. The sections I highlighted in bold are the categories that apply to Mark Skousen's book. You, however, have decided to resort to a red herring fallacy by quoting the "peer-reviewed journals" section of WP:SOURCES, when you know full well that that is not the part of WP:SOURCES that is applicable in this debate. WP:SOURCES clearly states that "books published by respected publishing houses" and "material from reliable non-academic sources" are considered reliable sources in Misplaced Pages. You have done nothing to assert that Skousen's book is not published by a respected publishing house, nor have you presented any information to suggest that Skousen's book is somehow an unreliable non-academic source, rather than a reliable non-academic source. Skousen's publisher, M.E. Sharpe, Inc., is a publisher of textbooks, reference books, and academic journals. Mark Skousen is a Ph.D. economist who is writing about the history of economic thought.

If you want to claim (backed up by evidence) that Skousen's publisher is not a "respected publishing house" and that Skousen himself is not a reliable source despite his Ph.D. in the subject he's writing about, that's fine with me. However, your initial claim was that a book is unacceptable if it is "a popular book, not academic". This is flatly refuted by WP:SOURCES which states that "material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used". I don't care about Skousen's book. I actually want to see the whole gold standard section removed. What I do care about is correctly applying existing Misplaced Pages policy regarding reliable sources, rather than having some editors just making up their own policies on the fly. --JHP (talk) 01:27, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

(out) You should assume goodfaith in discussions. Non-notable books by non-notable people are non-notable. That is my understanding of the policy. If what Mark Skousen wrote can be found in mainstream sources by known economists then use them. The Four Deuces (talk) 05:25, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The Four Deuces, you are right that I should assume good faith. I apologize. Notability is not the standard for references. Reliability is. Notability is the standard for the subject of Misplaced Pages articles. Please don't confuse the two. --JHP (talk) 01:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a tendency among academics to write books for the popular press that present topics in ways that would be unacceptable in academic writing. Many of these books are helpful for laymen to gain an understanding of topics without having to read complex jargon. Others however are highly partisan or even propound fringe theories. The problem is that there is no way to know the reliablity of any of these books without examination. Let me provide an example I came across in another article.

Arthur C. Brooks is a leading expert on charitable giving and wrote an academic book called Gifts of Time and Money (2005) and a polemical book called Who really cares (2006) using essentially the same data. What is striking about these two books is that very different conclusions are reached. Notice that he provides a chart in both books comparing volunteerism in the US with other countries: His second book argues among other things that Americans are the most generous people in the world.

M Skousen is not as well renowned as Brooks and his father Cleon Skousen, who was also a professor, wrote books that are clearly non-mainstream. Lots of editors too will use these sources when they wish to present opinions that do not appear in academic literature. To me, including sources like these does not improve articles.

The Four Deuces (talk) 01:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

That's great, but it still doesn't change WP:SOURCES. Again, you don't get to make up your own Misplaced Pages policies. If you don't like existing Misplaced Pages policies, go argue your point on the talk page of WP:VERIFY. This is not the place to do it. On article pages, we work by existing Misplaced Pages policies and guidelines whether we agree with them or not.

Misplaced Pages's standards are lower than those for academic work. Since the vast majority of Misplaced Pages editors are not academics and don't read academic publications, if Misplaced Pages did have higher standards it would also be a much smaller encyclopedia. It's what you call a trade-off. --JHP (talk) 02:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Academic work, of course, also allows original research, as would contribution to an ordinary encyclopædia. —SlamDiego_←T 04:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The essential point has already be made: “reliability” is the standard for references. A party who insist that others must operate by a different standard should either work in a forthright manner to change existing policy, or move to some different project. BTW, while I have not read any of Skousen's books, the one (on history o' thought) at which I glanced in a library had been praised by Friedman, a well-known, mainstream, academic economist. —SlamDiego_←T 04:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I think Mark Skousen is an idiot. From what I know, he writes from an Austrian-school perspective, not from a neoclassical one. He has, however, published in peer-reviewed journals, for example, the Journal of Economic Literature, if I recall correctly. And M. E. Sharpe publishes much good work in economics - their journal Challenge, for example. Skousen's recent book would then seem to be a "Reliable Source". The proper way to challenge the comment about the gold standard would seem to be to find another Reliable Source that says the opposite. -- RLV 209.217.195.179 (talk) 14:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I haven't read all the comments above, dropping a quick comment after reading this request for input. Based on his WP biography, it seems like Skousen is educated in economics and notable as a libertarian economist (FEE for example, is notable in my opinion). A popular book commenting on economics can be an appropriate source, certainly a reliable source for reporting opinion. I'd make the same argument about Naomi Klein's books, although her (formal, at least) education in economics is much less. That said, I'm not willing to say yes or no yet to whether referencing Skousen is appropriate, but as a matter of WP:RS, but as a matter of WP:WEIGHT. It might give undue weight to those views. Sorry I don't have input on whether I think it does or not at this time. CRETOG8(t/c) 01:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Changing Definition section

Yeah...the section reads like someone grudgingly admitting that there has been a change and then immediately trying to attack their opponent (the sarcasm is extremely ill-advised). I suggest a complete overhaul. Soxwon (talk) 20:06, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Is this addressed to me? If so, and if I was sarcastic, please point out where, and I will apologize. I detest sarcasm.

If the libertarian point of view about what liberals believe is to be given a place in this article, then the liberal point of view about what liberals believe should also have a place in the article.

I think you are sincere in your beliefs about liberals. But what this article says liberals believe is not what liberals really believe. And what it says classical liberals believed is not what classical liberals believe.

I'll try once again to explain what liberals believe. Libertarians would not accept it if someone physically stronger than you came up and used their physical strength to take away your freedom. But they accept it if someone financially stronger than you takes away your freedom. Liberalism arose at a time when we were much less free than we are today, and when the main enemy of freedom was the state. But today, we are free to do almost anything we please. And the enemy of freedom is no longer the state, but the multinational corporation. The only force that stands a chance of keeping our freedoms alive is the government, which can at least be voted out of office if they behave too badly. Without any government control, the multinational corporation can do anything it pleases. And what it pleases to do it to pollute the environment, make short term profits with no view for the long term, reward those who strip their own corporation of its assets for their personal gain, fire workers who are too old, or the wrong color, of talk with an accent, and allocate the benefits of the corporation in a ratio of 99.9 to .1 in favor of the chairman and the board. (Ben and Jerry's, in an effort at egalitarianism, tried to limit the pay of an executive to one thousand times the pay of a worker. They couldn't do it.) If the corporate interests, the Rupert Murdoch media, succeed in convincing the American people that "small government", by which they mean government that allows multinational corporations to do anything that makes a profit, is "freedom", all I can say is that they won't like what they get. The Bush Great Depression II will look like a cakewalk. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:39, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

This article has far too much information about libertarianism and the U.S. I suggest removing all the text sections except for the lead and history sections, and part of the "world peace" section, and trying to build from there. The Four Deuces (talk) 21:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I tend to be conservative in my approach to changing articles. Why not remove one section, see if that is accepted, and then remove another, instead of removing many sections at the same time? Rick Norwood (talk) 22:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Rick Norwood, remember, Misplaced Pages guidelines suggest that you should BE BOLD when making changes.

I agree with The Four Deuces that this article is too focused on the U.S. and libertarianism. This may be because the term "classical liberalism" is an American term for what much of the world simply calls "liberalism". Also, libertarianism is a modern American incarnation of classical liberalism.

I recommend defining classical liberalism entirely by ideology, and not by time period. That ideology has a history, which should be mentioned, but it should not be an integral part of the definition. In this sense, classical liberalism is analogous to Marxism. Marxism has a history that begins in the 19th century, but Marxism is defined entirely by ideology. Marxism largely fell out of favor around 1990, but few people would define it as only a 19th and 20th century phenomenon. I would define classical liberalism as "a belief in personal, political, and economic freedom" or "a belief in civil liberties, free markets, and limited government". I would argue that classical liberalism is a more general ideology than libertarianism, just as liberalism is more general than classical liberalism.

While this article claims that classical liberalism was developed in the 19th century, I would argue that it reaches back to the late 18th century, as that is when Smith published The Wealth of Nations.

A final comment: In the article, "libertarian" is being capitalized when it should be lowercase. It should only be capitalized when referring to the Libertarian Party or members of the party. A libertarian is a person who holds libertarian beliefs. A Libertarian is a member of the Libertarian Party. A democrat is someone who believes in democracy. A Democrat is a member of the Democratic Party. (An exception is Marxist, because Marx is originally a name.) --JHP (talk) 02:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

"Be with caution bold." We all agree that the article is too focused on the US and on Libertarianism. But you make a number of assertions that are controversial: first the claim that "classical liberalism" is an American term and that in most of the world "liberalism" is taken to mean "classical liberalism", second that libertarianism is a modern American incarnation of classical liberalism. These assertions may be true, but I'd like to see sources.

Of your two suggested definitions, I think the second is closer to the mark than the first. Classical liberals often claim that their ultimate goal is freedom, but freedom for the strong often means slavery for the weak. If the white southerner is free to own slaves, then the slave is not free. If a banker is free to cozen me out of the house I've lived in all my life, then I'm no longer free to live in that house. Freedom is an important part of the rhetoric of classical liberalism, but the end result is often that greater freedom for the rich leads to less freedom for the majority. In short, a claim in the lede that classical liberals believe in freedom would require an explanation too complicated to neatly fit in the lede.

As for whether classical liberalism began with Adam Smith or followed Adam Smith, I've read sources for both statements and I think this article can go either way.

Your point about capitalization is well taken. Rick Norwood (talk) 16:16, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

While Adam Smith and other 18th century liberals had an influence on classical liberalism, the theory did not really emerge until the 19th century. Classical liberals advocated universal education, democracy and free markets in order to enhance individual freedom and wealth (and world peace too!), leading them to oppose established conservative and liberal elites. Throughout the century their theories evolved as they were forced to deal with problems caused by industrialization. Eventually this lead to regulation and the creation of the welfare state. Modern libertarianism and neoliberalism (or neoclassical liberalism) are not classical liberalism but an attempt to return to classical liberal principles, particularly those of the earliest classical liberals. They are clearly discussed in their own articles and there is no need to repeat their views here. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:43, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class politics articles
• High-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• B-Class Philosophy articles
• High-importance Philosophy articles
• B-Class social and political philosophy articles
• High-importance social and political philosophy articles
• Social and political philosophy task force articles