This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vision Thing (talk | contribs) at 21:58, 22 April 2012 (→Irish Potato Famine). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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. Conservatism Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism 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.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism Top This article has been rated as Top-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 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. Template:WikiProject Political culture Template:WikiProject Libertarianism

Archives

Archive 1 (July 2004–Sept 2006) Archive 2 (July 2006–Sept 2009) Archive 3 (Sept 2009–Jan 2010) Archive 4 (Jan 2010–Jul 2010)

False

This is typical so-called-austrian trash

"There was a revival of interest in classical liberalism in the twentieth century led by Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, and other economists."

It is a total lie that interest in liberalism was led von Mises (an almost unknown, third rate economist) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.193.201.215 (talk) 01:52, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Friedrich Hayek won the Nobel prize, so he can hardly be called third-rate. He was heavily influenced by Mises. If one were to include Hayek, I see no problem with Mises. If this section were edited to list "Friedman, Hayek, and other economists" I think it would be acceptable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.56.48.191 (talk) 22:28, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

its not just hayek and friedman, think of the chicago school and everyone associated with them. although it is not true to say that these people would have described themselves as classical liberal it is true that they would have said that they agreed with most of the principles of classical liberalism.

Hayek was VERY important. Thatcher largely, and to a lesser extent Reagan, based their political ideals on Hayek's ideas and writtings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greg.loutsenko (talk • contribs) 15:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Please note that the article does not say that Hayek and company were correct in their views, only that their views were influential. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Awkward paragraph.

"In Europe, especially, except in the British Isles, liberalism had been fairly weak and unpopular relative to its opposition, like socialism, and therefore no change in meaning occurred. By the 1970s, however, lagging economic growth and increased levels of taxation and debt spurred new ideas, sometimes identified with conservatism and sometimes with classical liberalism. Friedrich von Hayek and Milton Friedman argued against government intervention in fiscal policy and their ideas were embraced by conservative political parties in the US and the United Kingdom beginning in the 1980s. In fact, Ronald Reagan credited Bastiat, Ludwig von Mises, and Hayek as influences. t the heart of classical liberalism", wrote Nancy L. Rosenblum and Robert C. Post,"

The paragraph quoted above is awkward, with commas in odd places. It does not make it clear whether the first use of "liberalism" refers to social liberalism or to classical liberalism. There is a phrase near the end with an end quotation mark but no beginning quotation mark, and no clue as to whether it is quoting Reagan or Rosenblum and Post. And the paragraph ends with a comma followed by a stray endquote. It should be improved or deleted. Rick Norwood (talk) 19:04, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd be in favour of deletion --Snowded 19:13, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Come back for a (brief) look at this article. As you say Rick, it's awkward and frankly a bit of a mess. I would suggest that it's trying to be a modern history - what probably needs to happen is an extension of the history section and the overview section breaking into themes. Needs some serious work - like quite a lot of political philosophy articles in english Misplaced Pages. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 20:14, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

I took it out. TFD (talk) 01:15, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

So why does William M. Connolley take out Ludwig von Mises? I am not a troll. Mises has contributed greatly to liberalism and helped usher Hayek into the arena. He wrote a book on "liberalism" among other great contributions--Trueliberal (talk) 20:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Date of development

I changed the intro lead-in sentence to 18th and 19th centuries - the source says 19th century, but it is referring to Liberalism in it's completed form (eg, after developments in the US, Europe, etc) and not to the early developments from Smith, Malthus, etc, which are clearly 18th century leading into the 19th. We can add more sources if needed but given the dates of the protagonist's main works are mostly 18th Century and this is just an introductory sentence.... Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 08:23, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

This issue has been discussed extensively. Academics are inconsistent on using the term classical liberalism, some using it to refer to liberalism before 1900, others to the liberalism that emerged c. 1830 and others to refer to moderns who adhere to earlier liberal principals. The article that emerged is about 19th century liberalism, which begins with the Great Reform Act, the 1830 French revolution, Jeffersonian demcracy and the adoption ot the word "liberal". The main liberal article carries extensvie coverage of 17th and 18th century liberalism. While editors disagreed over which termimology was correct, there was agreement that there should be an article about this period of liberal history, with the lead stating that other definitions exist. The reference you changed actually says that classical liberalism took shape by the middle of the nineteenth century, so in any case it is incorrect to change referenced text so that it does not accurately reflect the source. TFD (talk) 18:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

As I explained above and in my edit summary, this is one narrow source and it relates only loosely to the intro. The article does include Malthus, Ricardo, Smith, etc, and extensively describes Smith's views in particular - therefore your argument appears not to match what's in the article. I also did discuss it on the talk page, so please don't make terse edit summaries implying that I was not discussing. Unless you want to edit war perhaps? If not, it should have been discussed here first by you. Now the theory that Classical Liberalism started in the 19th century is patent nonsense, but if this article is meant to be specifically about 19th C Liberalism, it shouldn't have all the earlier material in it, it shouldn't be called Classical Liberalism and it should be better structured. Shall we start by deciding which article this is? We probably need another article by the sound of it. Where is the extensive discussion you allude to above? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:47, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Read through the archived discussion pages. Of course Smith was an influence, so were Hobbes and Locke. But that does not mean that this is a separate subject. If you want to revist this topic, we can always set up another RfC. TFD (talk) 18:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, under WP:BOLD it shouldn't be 100% neccessary to go through acres of previous discussions to fix something that is broken. I've skimmed the discussions though and it looks as if there is a tangle about different factions including libertarians and anti-libertarians, in the midst of which, historical accuracy has become somewhat occluded. Where for example is John Stuart Mill? I find this article a mess, frankly. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Now found History of liberalism which is better, albeit long-winded - I will have a closer look at some sources and see if we can agree on some rectifications for this article - in particular to the history part and to what Classical Liberalism is and what it ain't. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:12, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you agree that there should be a separate article for 19th century liberalism? If so then the issue is the naming of articles. TFD (talk) 19:29, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I would tend to agree with that last point TFD. For one thing, at the moment this article says it was mainly developed in the 19th C in W. Europe and the US - then cites three European authors whose signal works are all 18th C! Just the most glaring of a number of confusions. I suppose it does go back to what you call "classical liberalism" and I will think about it more, but it didn't really develop in the US initially. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 12:12, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

While Say, Malthus, and Ricardo were born in the 18th Century, their work straddled the turn of the century, and influenced the growth of Classical Liberalism (in one sense of the word) in the 19th Century. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:19, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

It was not until the 19th century that all the elements of classical liberalism were put together and became a political movement whose followers called themselves liberals. In the U. S. it was represented by Jacksonian Democracy. TFD (talk) 17:11, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps the problem in the intro then is that it skips straight from Malthus, Say and Ricardo to the 20th C, without mention of the middle part. If you take the narrow view that liberalism was not around in the earlier stages like Locke, Hobbes and later Smith and Hume because they didn't call it "Liberalism", then you need a different article intro I think - maybe one that emphasises formal liberalism and briefly explains it's development from the earlier stuff in the 17th & 18th C and then a little more on progress in the 19th? Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 17:23, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I will find a source to provide a better lead, and of course the article needs expansion. It is not that they did not call it liberalism, but the political movement arose in the early 19th century and became a force with the 1830 French revolution and the Great Reform Bill 1832. TFD (talk) 18:04, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

But lots of sources say it started much earlier than that. I suspect we are dealing with different definitions of what liberalism is. Do you reject for example TFD that Locke, Hobbes and Smith have anything to do with it? History of liberalism has sources saying they did, by the way. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 18:34, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

No sources say that. The confusion comes from using different terminology. Some writers call the period from Locke to Obama "classical liberalism" while others use the term more narrowly. But all agree that the liberalism that emerged in the 19th century is a separate topic. See for example this article from the Cato Institute which calls it simply "liberalism". TFD (talk) 23:15, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I expanded the lead and you may find the source here. TFD (talk) 05:06, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Definition

An editor continues to remove the following line, "It is sometimes difficult to tell which meaning is intended in a given source." Experience editing this article has shown that this is an issue. If someone would like to suggest re-phrasing, that would be helpful, but please do not remove text without discussion. TFD (talk) 02:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It is condescending to the reader to tell him it is difficult for him to understand. If you're going to say it is difficult or unclear you should have a source that says this. Otherwise you are inserting your subjective opinion in and assuming everyone else is going to find it as difficult as you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seven days seven nights (talk • contribs) 04:58, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

The difficulty does not lie with the reader. The difficulty lies with the sources. Writers use the phrase in different senses within the same document. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

There is ambiguity of terminology in all topics related to liberalism. Do you know of any sources that discuss this? TFD (talk) 21:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Then why not just say that instead of saying it's difficult to understand or unclear? But first do you have a source for them using the phrase in a difference sense in the same document?Seven days seven nights (talk) 00:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

When different sources use the same phrase with widely different meanings, then confusion is bound to result. Why do you object to the sentence? Rick Norwood (talk) 12:09, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Because you're inserting your POV that it's unclear. I think it's very clear. I don't see reason at all to be confused. Seven days seven nights (talk) 23:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty silly for you to edit war over this sentence. I reverted "it is sometimes clear and sometimes unclear" back to "it is sometimes unclear" because your version is unnecessarily wordy. If something is "sometimes unclear" people can safely assume that the implication is that -- some of the time -- it likely will be "clear". You're clearly beyond 3RR now, though. BigK HeX (talk) 04:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Core principles

An editor continues to change this section. However, the section is sourced and we cannot change it to something not found in the source. If the editor questions the description of core principles in this section, could they please find another source. Note that people living in the 19th century saw the world differently than we do today and many beliefs and policies acceptable then would seem foreign today. TFD (talk) 15:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I have just seen this comment. I put my reasons for editing on TFD's user talk for discussion and reproduce them here.

1. The entire section is exclusively dependent on Hunt. It is doubtful scholarship to rely so heavily on a single source in an encyclopaedia article; notwithstanding that, the dependence should be acknowledged explicitly. At the very least, it is scholarly courtesy.

2. Hunt's terminology is contentious. The terms he uses, which are his own and not direct quotations, clearly connote moral disapproval ('egoistic', 'coldly calculating' and 'essentially inert' leading to 'just plain lazy' in particular). For example, Chambers define calculating thus:

calculating adj, derog deliberately shrewd and selfish, especially in terms of how one can use other people and situations to benefit oneself.

Use of a derogatory adjective is not adhering to WP:NPOV. We should either quote Hunt directly with ascription, or alter his terms to ones which are less moralised. Indeed, he uses some less moralised terms at points himself: for instance, what is wrong with using 'rational' in place of 'calculating'?

3. In the 'Malthus' section of the book (pp. 49--51), Hunt quotes no-one other than Malthus. No other source at all, primary or secondary. His assertion that classical liberals depended on Malthus is completely unevidenced. Given that, Misplaced Pages cannot quote Hunt's view as a fact but should quote it as his view, or some similar term.

Wooster (talk) 17:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

The source used was published by M. E. Sharpe, Inc., which is an academic publisher and therefore a reliable source. It is a textbook in its 7th edition. The writer was honored by the International Confederation of Associations for Pluralism in Economics, ICAPE argues that "that each tradition of thought (Austrian, feminist, old and new institutionalist, Marxian, neoclassical, Post Keynesian, social economics, Sraffian, etc.) adds something unique and valuable to economic scholarship". ICAPE is supported by numerous academic institutions and economists. Therefore there should be no neutrality issues.

If you believe that Hunt is wrong, or that his writing is an opinion then you need to find a reliable source that provides a different opinion. You also need to follow the sources for text in the article. If Hunt said classical liberals saw "society as atomistic" we cannot change that to "humans as individuals".

TFD (talk) 18:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I note for the record that you did not respond directly to any of the points I raised. In regard of your first point, I am not questioning Hunt's general reliability, merely a handful of his claims which I think need better treatment. Moreover, you will well know that being given an award, even if it is for pluralism in study, does not guarantee an author's neutrality. You are presuming Hunt's neutrality rather than assessing it. This is not the way that we handle sources.

In regard of your second point, I already took on board the issue you raise after the first edit and made the second edit an enhancement of the section's use of Hunt (plus the minor spelling edit which I have subsequently put through separately). Nothing I wrote diminished the section's use of Hunt; everything I wrote enhanced, amplified and exposed it. You reverted that, too. If your concern is to preserve the integrity of the section's dependence on Hunt, you're expressing it in a funny way.

Let me repeat my points in the form of questions: I politely request a direct response. I'm very happy to seek a second opinion if you will not discuss these important issues of the operation of policy.

1. Do you think it is best practice to depend exclusively on a single secondary source? Do you think it is good scholarly practice to do so without telling the reader explicitly in the text of this dependence? Do you think it is better scholarly practice to have, without a direct reference, a near lift from a source rather than a referenced quote?

2. Do you accept Chambers' description of calculating as a derogatory adjective? Do you agree that a source which attributes, unsourced, derogatory statements or sentiments to its subjects is not providing a fully unbiased view of its subjects? Do you agree, as a matter of policy, that WP:NPOV cannot be obviated by quoting sources whose biases are affecting their presentation, be those sources ever so distinguished and respected?

3. If a secondary source, even a book from an academic publishing house, fails to give any references to back up its claims, do you think we can still report the claims as though they were established facts? Do you agree that WP:IRS, in stating that 'sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article', requires us to assess the source's evidencing of its claims in deciding whether to report them? Do you agree, on re-reading the relevant section of Hunt, that he provides no direct evidence or further source for his claim of classical liberal dependence on Malthus?

Wooster (talk) 08:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

1. It is better to use more than one source and nothing is preventing you from adding more. The reliance on one source for this section is disclosed in the footnotes. Saying in the text, "according to E. K. Hunt" would imply that the information presented was an opinion. Cf, "according to CBS News, Neil Armstrong was the first man to walk on the Moon".
2. If subjects use derogatory language, their language may be used. WP:BLP does not apply because no 19th century writers are still living. But I do not think this misrepresents the classical liberals. Their welfare policy presupposed that people were selfish, that you are actually harming people through providing generous welfare.
3. Encyclopedias and some textbooks never provide footnotes, yet are reliable sources. Hunt says that the section summarizes chapter 3 of his book and he provides a list of sources used at the end of each chapter.

The conclusions reached by Hunt seem uncontroversial, and if you think they are wrong you should provide alternative sources. Until you do that it would seem premature to seek a third opinion. I have not objected to anything you wish to include, just object to incorrectly representing the only source used for the section.

TFD (talk) 14:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It is better scholarly practice to alert readers in the text when you depend heavily on a single source. It may be within the "letter of the law", so to speak, to use footnotes alone, but it is better practice to make it explicit. Not every reader is going to follow the whole rabbit trail, after all.

1. No, this is more than asserting a widely-known fact, like Neil Armstrong walking on the Moon. Try, "According to CBS News, Armstrong's walk on the Moon was a defining point in US history." For Hunt is doing more than reporting classical liberals' views, he is characterising them; in the absence of direct quotations, we have to suppose that it is in his own terms. (I'll concede 'idle', given the Bentham and Townsend quotes; although it is not as such directly contained in them.) Consequently, we cannot merely report his characterisation without recognising it as such.
2. See point (1) above: in some instances at least, Hunt does not demonstrate that he is using classical liberals' own terms. I agree that if we can source classical liberals using those terms then we have free rein to quote them accordingly; but if we cannot, then we ought to retain a scrupulous neutrality. That means not ascribing negative terms to the subjects where they cannot be found to be using those terms.
3. Hunt does not say that the section on Malthus and population summarises chapter 3; that is the egoistic theory of human nature, in the section on 'The Psychological Creed'. Anyway, let's park this one. I have found that this is a claim which Misplaced Pages has elsewhere, so it may be in a better-referenced source.

May I make a test case suggestion? I propose to change the first sentence ('...human nature...') so that it is a direct quotation of Hunt, referenced by footnote alone. (Tomorrow; I have no further time today.) Would you object to making that change, and if so, on what basis?

Wooster (talk) 16:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

1. You claim that the characterization of classical liberal core principles are opinion rather than fact, although they are stated as fact in a textbook.
2. We should use the terms that Hunt uses, because that is what the source used.

Again you must find reliable secondary sources that support the way you think the core principles should be presented and should refer to policy for changes you wish to make. Yes I would object to the change because it would be characterizing a fact as an opinion.

TFD (talk) 18:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

1. You appear to be misunderstanding me. I have not anywhere described the passage in question as Hunt's opinion, that is your word: I have always maintained that it is a slanted characterisation of the facts. You accept that it is a characterisation, and that it is slanted. Further, you have not contested that it is in Hunt's own terms rather than in terms quoted from a subject. I conclude that you are agreeing that some of the words used do not have a neutral tone, and that the slant is coming from Hunt rather than his subjects. We cannot import the partial tone of even a reliable source to trump WP:NPOV.
2. I don't think WP:V does require us to use Hunt's terms, actually. I'm willing to be corrected, but it seems to me that it only requires us to be able to support article material from the source: much less restrictive. Nevertheless, if you want to insist on that narrow interpretation (and I can see the benefits when a dispute arises), then let me point out that we're not using Hunt's terms currently. The sentence in question is a near lift of one of Hunt's: in it, he doesn't say "selfish" but "egoistic", not "idle" but "essentially inert", and he qualifies his third item with "coldly calculating" (my emph.). You cannot say that we should use Hunt's terms and then defend not using Hunt's terms! Moreover, Hunt later in the same section uses less slanted terms (such as "rational" instead of "calculating", p. 45). It would be an improvement to use Hunt's less slanted language rather than his more slanted language.

Wooster (talk) 12:19, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

We can change terms used in sources to terms that are more commonly used provided we do not change the meaning. Not every writer uses the term "classical liberalism" to refer to this topic, for example. I have inserted mention of Hunt into the section and put his four assumptions in quotes. But if you do not like his views then you must find other sources. TFD (talk) 15:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. It is not a matter of liking or disliking his views, of course, but a matter of Misplaced Pages not importing, and especially not building on, his slant. I'd be as frustrated if this were, say, a paragraph importing Hayek rather than Hunt. I'll insert a footnote against the quote, because it makes sense to direct readers to the exact source of the quote, as well as the section which sources the wider paragraph. 94.195.213.22 (talk) 16:06, 8 September 2010 (UTC) (This was, of course, Wooster (talk) . Forgot to sign in.)

If Hayek wrote about the history of liberalism in academic writing then there would be no reason to question his description. But Hayek's fame rests on his work in economics and his polemical writing, not as an historian. TFD (talk) 17:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm less concerned about the sourcing issue than I am with the simple accuracy of Hunt's 4 core principles. Take Adam Smith, who we often think of as the quintessential classical liberal. He did not think that humans were egoistic or rational calculating for only economic self-interest. First sentence of the Theory of Moral Sentiments should dissuade one of that view, or all the references to one's desire to be praiseworthy in Wealth of Nations. In fact, throughout Wealth of Nations the term he most often uses is self-love, not self-interest. I won't bore you with the problems of the view Hunt ascribes to Malthus, but Smith did not not accept the Malthusian principle, in part because he came before Malthus. Smith does argue that there is a relation between population and food supply, but his general conception of the economy is not one based on scarcity. And Smith, like his good friend David Hume, was not Hobbesian. Both Smith and Hume saw cooperation across the history of human exchange, and discarded "state of nature" theories in favor of an evolutionary account of human cooperation for mutual benefit. Put bluntly, the tragedy of the commons is not a problem for them. In Hobbes' view, humans can't even talk about overcoming their problems -- they just fight until a strong man appears. Smith has a nuanced theory of language and exchange that allows both to help us overcome collective action problems. The last of Hunt's assumptions is right to an extent, except that "government" for Smith is dependent upon the stage of history. That is, in modern civilization, with the institutions of his society, these are things government can do. But that conception of government is not universal to all stages of human history. And the reason we don't need more government is because humans are not egoistic, cooperate with each other, talk about their common problems, innovate as markets expand, and come to think of the interests of others as their own livelihoods depend upon their doing so. I don't know what sources you should use for a general overview, but Hunt's 4 assumptions don't work for at least 1 major classical liberal, and should be questioned regarding its place in what has become "the" standard to which we turn for quick summaries of key ideas. RossEmmett (talk) 05:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)RossEmmett

The article is about liberalism in the early 19th century, which had Smith as an influence. The term classical liberal, as explained in the article, is not used consistently in the literature. TFD (talk) 06:03, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Formerly called simply liberalism

Why was this deleted? There is a source. This should not be controversial at all. Bullet Dropper (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC).

The source says: "The Industrial Revolution that began in Britain saw the development of economic liberalism. That is, first of all, the belief that the free market was the optimal form of economic life, providing the greatest prosperity for all, and necessitating maximum economic freedom for everyone. This went hand in hand with a wider view of liberty which saw the maximisation of social freedom as the best way to run society in general. It was this version of liberalism that was the first to actually be called 'liberalism', which was in the nineteenth century. It is better known by the name 'laissez-faire liberalism', although it is sometimes called 'classical liberalism'." Page 13: http://books.google.com/books?id=_7t714alm68C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Ideology+and+politics+in+Britain+today.&hl=en&ei=75OdTKTIA4GClAes2MyBCg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false Bullet Dropper (talk) 06:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't say I care one way or another. However, I would say that caring about this strongly is unlikely to be productive. What would be productive would be sunstantive non-controversial contributions to the body of the article or related, rather than touching up the lede William M. Connolley (talk) 14:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you can find a source that explains the history of the usage of the term. The insertion was originally removed when it was unsourced. The source you provided is an introductory textbook, which is a tertiary source and should be avoided. TFD (talk) 14:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing in WP:Tertiary that says this source cannot be used for this. Bullet Dropper (talk) 03:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

But if you need something to buttress it: "Ralph Raico, a classical liberal and professional historian who has an excellent chapter on President Truman in this volume, has correctly state that, "Classical liberalism - or simply liberalism as it was called until around the turn of the century - is the signature philosophy of Western Civilization." Page ix http://books.google.com/books?id=hJGpAT7IWhwC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Reassessing+the+presidency:+the+rise+of+the+executive+state+and+the+decline&hl=en&ei=pLueTO2IC8SAlAfg9NC6Cg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false Bullet Dropper (talk) 03:19, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The source you presented is a book from the Mises Institute, not a reliable source. If a fact is true and notable then you should have no problem in providing a reliable secondary source that presents it. Incidentally, later versions of Adams' book have deleted his original claim. TFD (talk) 03:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Why do you say it's not a reliable source? Can you cite a policy that says so? Bullet Dropper (talk) 03:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you denying that what is called "classical" liberalism today used to be called liberalism?? Bullet Dropper (talk) 04:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not know anything except what is written in reliable sources. However, I do not remember Robert Peel describing his policies as liberal or contemporary writers such as Dickens or Thackeray using the term "liberal". And the onus is not on me to show that your source is reliable but vice versa. Anyway, if your facts are correct and notable, then you should have no trouble finding a source. TFD (talk) 04:21, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I just gave you two reliable sources. Bullet Dropper (talk) 04:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Find a source from a peer-reviewed article in an academic journal or a book (not an introductory textbook) published by a university or academic press. Your two sources are an introductory textbook (and the claim was omitted from later versions) and a book published by a think tank. If your claim is accurate it should prove no problem finding such a source. My approach has always been to exclude information that cannot be reliably sourced. TFD (talk) 04:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Those are reliable sources by Misplaced Pages policy. And you're coming across as just trying to be difficult for no apparent reason. Why would it be called classical liberalism if it wasn't called liberalism before it was decided to be called "classical" liberalism? Bullet Dropper (talk) 05:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not know. Why don't you find a reliable source that explains this. TFD (talk) 05:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

It wouldn't. Bullet Dropper (talk) 05:15, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

If I want the Misplaced Pages article Earth to report that the Earth is flat, I'm sure I can cite a book published by The Flat Earth Society to support this claim. But Misplaced Pages uses mainstream sources. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I have trimmed the list to include only Say, Malthus and Ricardo, who were the writers most closely connected with classical liberal thinking. The list should not be long, but should give a representative sample. Also, I moved the footnote about the etymology of the term "classical liberal" to the body of the article. I also removed Conway's book, which was published outside the academic mainstream, as a source. TFD (talk) 13:41, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I gave you mainstream sources. Here is another: "It would be difficult to adequately characterize Jefferson's philosophy. It come closest to what was called "liberalism" in the nineteenth century, and classical liberalism after that term was appropriated by the progressive movement..." Page 846 http://books.google.com/books?id=YoI14vYA8r0C&pg=PR3&dq=%22Encyclopedia+of+American+civil+liberties,+Volume+1%22&hl=en&ei=J4mfTP6lCcP6lwfiytjGCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22Encyclopedia%20of%20American%20civil%20liberties%2C%20Volume%201%22&f=false Bullet Dropper (talk) 17:56, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Why would you use an article about 18th century America in a teritary source about American civil liberties for the article? Try finding a reliable relevant secondary source, e.g., a book about liberalism (other than an elementary textbook) that explains the terminology. The correct approach is to read the relevant literature and ensure that the main points are included. You should not data mine for sources supporting your views and then inject tangential or poor sources into the article. TFD (talk) 18:30, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

That's just an additional source. I gave you other sources above. And textbooks and tertiary sources are reliable sources. I don't know why you keep saying they're not. You even gave a tertiary source for your latest edit. So I don't know where you're coming from with this. Why will you accept your own tertiary sources but not mine? Bullet Dropper (talk) 18:36, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I have not provided any tertiary sources. They should be avoided because they may make generalizations and do not provide sources. They should also be relevant. TFD (talk) 18:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes you did: You added: "The term classical liberalism was applied in retrospect to distinguish earlier nineteenth-century liberalism from the newer social liberalism. Richardson, p. 52" The Richardson book is a tertiary source. And I ask again, where are you getting the idea that tertiary sources are not reliable source? Bullet Dropper (talk) 18:54, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

No, it is a secondary source of the highest quality. Contending liberalisms in world politics: ideology and power (2001) by Professor emeritus James L. Richardson was published by Lynne Rienner Publishers, an independent scholarly and textbook publishing firm that publishes in the fields of international studies and comparative politics in relation to the world. The chapter used as a source previously appeared in an earlier book by Richardson and was published in the peer-reviewed European Journal of International Relations (1997). A Google Scholar search returns 164 hits and the article has been used as part of university political science courses. It is the type of source you should be using. TFD (talk) 19:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

That's no more a secondary sources than the source I gave, Ideology and politics in Britain today By Ian Adams, published by Manchester University Press. Ian Adams is Honorary Fellow at the University of Durham, where he was a lecturer in political theory until his retirement in 2001. And it's also cited in Google Scholar and cited in peer-reviewed publications there as well . And again, whether your or my sources are tertiary or secondary is not relevant, as Misplaced Pages policy says tertiary sources are reliable sources. Bullet Dropper (talk) 19:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

(out) See WP:TERTIARY: "Many introductory undergraduate-level textbooks are regarded as tertiary sources because they sum up multiple secondary sources. Policy: Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources. Some tertiary sources may be more reliable than others, and within any given tertiary source, some articles may be more reliable than others. Misplaced Pages articles may not be used as tertiary sources in other Misplaced Pages articles, but are sometimes used as primary sources in articles about Misplaced Pages itself.

Yes it is tertiary, and no you are not using it correctly.

TFD (talk) 20:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

If mine is tertiary, then yours is tertiary as they're the same type of book. And I'm using it no differently than you are using yourse. Bullet Dropper (talk) 20:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The Adams book you are citing is an undergraduate textbook, as one can see from the back cover. I can't see any indication that the Richardson book is a textbook; indeed, the fact that part of it was published as a paper in a peer-reviewed journal suggests that it isn't a textbook. Rather than arguing about whether or not this is a good source, it might be better to look for another source which would be acceptable to TFD; that is, something that is clearly a secondary source, preferably something from a peer-reviewed journal. If the textbook is accurately summarizing the state of scholarship, then it will be possible to find such a source.VoluntarySlave (talk) 23:13, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

TFD's source is a from a textbook publishing company, so it as well. Textbooks are good sources. And the source I gave is cited in peer-reviewed articles as well, as I indicated. You say we should look for a source acceptable to TFD. Are you saying TFD makes the policy? The Adams is a reliable source according to the policy. Besides, I gave two other sources above for it as well. Bullet Dropper (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:16, 26 September 2010 (UTC).

The book you used is an introductory textbook and the text you used has been removed from later editions. The correct approach to articles is to read what mainstream sources say and use that. Datamining to find sources that express your prejudices, especially when they are not high quality reliable secondary sources is typical of tendentious editors and is disruptive. if your opinion has any credibility whatsoever then it should be found in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 01:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

It IS a mainstream source. And what's your evidence that it is removed from later editions? Which edition are you saying it was left out of? I'll check. I'm ready to order to book online right now if you tell me the edition it's left out of. And I gave two others sources besides that one. Bullet Dropper (talk) 01:22, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

If something is well-accepted then there is no problem in finding good sources. For example, I believe that Abraham Lincoln was a president of the United States. If I provide a comic book, like Classics Illustrated or Humpty Dumpty as a source then I can find a source if challenged. You should do the same. TFD (talk) 01:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I had no problem finding good sources. I gave three sources. That's enough. There's no reason for me to keep looking. They meet Misplaced Pages standard's for reliability. Bullet Dropper (talk) 02:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Please find quality secondary reliable sources. So far you have provided none whatsoever. TFD (talk) 02:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Just because you say they're not good sources, doesn't make it so. Those are great sources I've provided. They meet Misplaced Pages standards. Bullet Dropper (talk) 03:51, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

You should attempt to work toward consensus on this. A passing reference in a tertiary source that was omitted from later editions is not a good source. TFD (talk) 04:09, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

You have no evidence of your claim that it was omitted from a later edition. I asked you before. What edition are you claiming it was left out of? Let's hear some specifics. I will order the book today. Others need to be able to verify your claim. We're not going to just take your word for it. Also, I've given you two other sources here. Bullet Dropper (talk) 04:16, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Bullet Dropper has raised the issue at RSN. Editors may comment here. My concern is that we use high quality reliable secondary sources. TFD (talk) 04:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I gave both tertiary and secondary sources. And WP:TERTIARY specifically says tertiary sources are reliable: "Many introductory undergraduate-level textbooks are regarded as tertiary sources because they sum up multiple secondary source. Policy: Reliably published tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources." And you yourself are using a tertiary source: Why is it OK for you but not anyone else? Bullet Dropper (talk) 05:12, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Note that it says, "providing broad summaries of topics" - that does not include specific claims of etymology that cannot be verified. Also, I did not use a tertiary source, but a secondary source. TFD (talk) 05:34, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

John Stuart Mill

I have removed the reference to Mill in the lead which was sourced to an article about ""modern" classical liberalism". TFD (talk) 05:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

While early in his career Mill accepted Classical Liberal ideas, he did not formulate those ideas, and later came to reject those ideas. Adding his name with a personal blog as a reference is not encyclopedic. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:10, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The editor has again re-inserted Mill into the lead with the notation, "Mill is one of the leaders of classical liberalism (On Liberty)". There are several problems with this including that the claim is not backed up by a reliable source and J. S. Mill's On Liberty is not mentioned in the article. Please discuss the issue here and obtain consensus before re-inserting. TFD (talk) 20:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

The Cambridge University Press edition of Mill's "On Liberty" mentions that "On Liberty" is "...now widely regarded as the most important theoretical foundation for Liberalism as a political creed." If the University of Cambridge isn't a reliable source, then the definition of "reliable source" needs to be addressed. Mill needs to go into the article since he is a contributor to classical liberalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.70.99.211 (talk) 05:36, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Here is a link to your source. The book is indeed now widely regarded, but it was not published until 1859, long after classical liberalism had developed, and its influence is on modern liberalism, including libertarianism as implied by your first source. TFD (talk) 05:56, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Ludwig von Mises

An editor has added Mises as a leader of the revival of interest in classical liberalism, along with Friedman and Hayek, who were already mentioned. However the book used as a source for the claim (p. 43 of Contending liberalisms) does not mention Mises at all, and the only mention of Mises in the book is in a footnote. By the way the inclusion of Mises came up earlier on this page with most editors being opposed. TFD (talk) 20:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I have a better source from Edwin van de haar, PHD, who specializes in international political theory, especially the international aspects of the liberal tradition in political thought. His book Classical liberalism and international relations theory: Hume, Smith, Mises, and Hayek (2009), p, 4 states that Mises was of "crucial importance in the revival of the classical liberal tradition in the 20th century". Afer all, it is fairly known that Mises converted Hayek from his socialist leanings. I am going to add Mises with the source on the main page.--Trueliberal (talk) 15:18, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

We could probably find sources for dozens of economists saying that they were of crucial importance. What we want to do is provide the most important, otherwise we are going to have a list of twenty people, The fact that Contending liberalisms does not even mention Mises means that his significance is not as great as some of his supporters believe. Do you have any sources that say who the most important people were in leading the revival of classical liberalism that mentions Mises? Incidentally, Mises died in 1973, before the revival of interest in classical liberalism which began after the inflation that was unleashed in 1973. Mises had attempted to bring classical liberal solutions to Europe after the Second World War but he and Hayek had been largely marginalized at the time. Also, unlike Hayek and Friedman, Mises did not write books for a mass audience. The fact that he was Hayek's teacher is irrelevant. By that reasoning, we should add Carl Menger, who influenced Mises. TFD (talk) 15:46, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I added the source in my previous comment on the most important people leading the revival of classical liberal thought in the 20th century. The author explains it to be Mises and Hayek (he also mentions Friedman briefly). I understand your point that we cannot add everyone but it’s not just my opinion. Two additional sources say the same thing “Classical liberalism was rescued from oblivion and revived in the 20th century by such notable figures as Ludwig von Mises and Frederich Hayek.” Classical Liberalism: The Unvanquished Ideal (1998), p. 8 By David Conway. The other says “Mises and Hayek were the genesis of the revival of classical liberalism in America” Upstream (2008), p. 30 By Alfred S. Regnery —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trueliberal (talk • contribs) 16:50, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I will have to look at this further. Clearly Hayek and Friedman were the major influences on monetarism and neoliberalism, which became the new paradigm for modern government, while the writers you mention are referring to libertarianism. Hayek's influence on them was his popular books, rather than his economics. The economic theories of Mises and Hayek did lead to a revival of interest in 19th century economists, but this influence was fairly limited to libertarianism (their economic views were influential on Murray Rothbard and Ron Paul). I don't mind mentioning both, but the lead should be mainly about classical liberalism, rather than modern attempts to revive it. TFD (talk) 19:22, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted that Hayek was an Austrian in regards to monetary policy (as was Mises) and would better fit with the term classical liberalism while Friedman was a monetarist which may better fit the so called "neoliberal" term. Certainly there is overlap in general views, however, in monetary theory they are NOT both monetarists. Classical liberalism also overlaps with a (minarchist, not anarchist) libertarian to a large extent and they are often used synonymously today. Ron Paul would better fit the classical liberal Misesian position than a Rothbardian anarcho capitalist libertarian even though they have much in common. Mises also identified himself as a liberal and explains what exactly it is in his book Liberalism: In the classical tradition(1929). He did not identify as libertarian even if libertarians agreed or appreciated his work.--Trueliberal (talk) 21:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

How does that matter? Neoliberals looked to nineteenth century liberalism for inspiration, and encouraged governments to cut taxes and services. That is what books such as Contending liberalisms mean by the "revival of interest in classical liberalism". The fact that a small group of economists have also kept the flag flying, while interesting, is not really important enough for the lead, although it might be mentioned in the article. TFD (talk) 22:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Neoclassical liberalism

We need an article on Neo-classical liberalism (currently a re-direct page), which developed out of classical liberalism in the second half of the 19th century out of classical liberalism and continues today as neoliberalism and libertarianism. Neo-classical liberals "argue that government should be as small as possible to provide full scope for the exercise of individual freedom. The more extreme neo-classical liberals advocated social Darwinism.... A later variant of neo-classical liberalism is libertarianism." (From politics past to politics future, p. 124) TFD (talk) 21:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring

I see a few people doing reverts of sourced items, with no real explanation for the reverts. I suggest you guys explain your edits here. Here is the information being deleted: Bullet Dropper (talk) 03:01, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

As clearly state in the lead, the article is about 19th century liberalism. "The phrase classical liberalism is also sometimes used to refer to all forms of liberalism before the twentieth century, and some conservatives and libertarians use the term classical liberalism". Your source says. "classical or laissez-faire liberalism (Locke, Adam Smith, Friedrich Hayek, Rober Nozick)...." Clearly none of them were part of 19th century liberalism, although the first two were influences upon and the second to were influenced by it. TFD (talk) 03:32, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Another term for 19th century liberalism is laissez-faire liberalism. Classical liberalism is philosophy of laissez-faire. What don't you understand? And why did you delete the fuller quote from the expert on liberalism, Schlesinger? You're not supposed to delete something just because you disagree with it or you think the writer is wrong. That isn't how Misplaced Pages works. Bullet Dropper (talk) 03:38, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I did not delete any passage from Schlesinger. But if you wish the article to state that in the 19th century liberalism was called "laissez-faire liberalism" then you need a source that says that. TFD (talk) 03:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes you did delete the addition to the words of Schlesinger: . On "laissez-faire liberalism" that's not what the other user put into the article. It doesnt say that it USED to be called laissez-faire liberalism in the 19th century. It says it IS called laissez-faire liberalism. Just as classical liberalism, didnt USED to be classical liberalism. The source indicates that classical and laissez-faire liberalism are two terms for the same thing. Bullet Dropper (talk) 04:02, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Read WP:BRD and make the case for any changes you want to make here. Arguing about what was or was not deleted is not especially helpful; just layout the case so other editors can look at it. While that is going on stop edit warring on the article itself. --Snowded 04:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The case is that these things are sourced. Bullet Dropper (talk) 04:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Virtually anything can be sourced in some way on an article of this nature. Layout your case for the inclusion of the material or give it up --Snowded 04:59, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

What's your case for deleting the material? It's reliably sourced and "laissez-faire liberalism" is a notable synonym (I can find give more sources if necessary), and the quote by Schledsinger, a noted expert on liberalism, points out that indeed liberalism was laissez-faire before new American liberalism arose. Bullet Dropper (talk) 05:04, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you not think that a magazine article from the 50s or 60s - even by an historian - explaining U. S. political terminology to the French is a poor source for the article? TFD (talk) 05:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

It's an excellent source. The source for that quote http://en.wikipedia.org/Arthur_Schlesinger_Jr. an expert on liberalism, and the magazine article is simply an excerpt from a book of his, The Politics of Hope (Boston: Riverside Press, 1962) Bullet Dropper (talk) 05:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Not to mention, the opening sentence of this article is sourced to say that classical liberalism is for free markets. Maybe you're not familiar with these concepts, but free markets is laissez-faire. Free markets means markets that government does not control, aka laissez-faire. Bullet Dropper (talk) 05:36, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

This seems a familiar issue which occurs on many articles, namely an attempt to overlay modern political references (with strong ideological elements) onto a range of subjects. laissez-faire has a different meaning now in a modern context from the 19th C. I think you need far stronger sources to make a case for the change to the lede. Laissez-faire is better explained in the main body of the article where more context can be provided. --Snowded 05:50, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The quote was not in the lede but in the body. In the lede was just noting the synonym for classical liberalism, "laissez-faire liberalism." Bullet Dropper (talk) 03:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Here's another source: "Classical liberalism, sometimes called laissez-faire liberalism, is in its historical philosophic sense broadly descended from the Enlightenment project of Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Adam Smith, Voltaire, Jean Jacques Rousseau, Immanuel Kant, and John Stuart Mill." from Human dignity and contemporary liberalism, By Brad Stetson, page 5 Greenwood Publishing Group, 1998 Bullet Dropper (talk) 03:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

One of the difficulties in articles about ideology is that the use of terminology is not consistent. The description of classical liberalism used in this article is taken from Hudelson and refers to the liberalism that developed in the 19th century. and developed into neoclassical liberalism by the end of the century. The article mentions that the term is used differently by different writers. Another writer may call it something else and if you have a better name for the article you may recommend one. But your sources do not say that "laissez-faire liberalism" and the "classical liberalism" described in the article are synonyms. In fact they use the expression to describe liberalism both before and after the period discussed in the article. TFD (talk) 07:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The source says that classical liberalism is sometimes called laissez-faire liberalism. The proper thing to do is to note that, as it's notable. The philosophy does not have only one name. If you look at sources you will also find it's called "traditional liberalism." Bullet Dropper (talk) 03:31, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I do not follow you. Are you saying that the philosophy of Hayek is not laissez-faire? TFD (talk) 03:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about Hayek. I said that classical liberalism sometimes goes by the name laissez-faire liberalism. Bullet Dropper (talk) 03:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Only if by classical liberalism one includes Whiggery and neo-classical liberalism. Create an article that combines the three and call it "laissez-faire liberalism". TFD (talk) 03:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

No. Bullet Dropper (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:58, 3 December 2010 (UTC).

Title should be bolded

{{edit protected}} Per the MOS on the lead, the title of the article should be in bold. Please bold the term 'Classical liberalism' in the lead sentence. Thanks, LK (talk) 07:18, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:09, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

cquote -> quote_quote-2010-12-10T14:25:00.000Z">

{{editprotected}} Per WP:MOSQUOTE guidelines, please switch {{cquote}} to {{quote}} in the "Overview" and "Free trade and world peace" sections :) --Errant 14:25, 10 December 2010 (UTC)_quote"> _quote">

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:22, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Overview section

"The ideas of classical liberalism remained essentially unchallenged until a series of depressions, thought to be impossible according to the tenets of classical economics, led to economic hardship from which the voters demanded relief."

this is hardly a neutral sentence: 1) request reference(s) to the "series of depressions". 2) "thought to be impossible"...by who? (even a perfect economic system can fall into depression under drought, disease, war, etc) 3) "led to economic hardship from which the voters demanded relief" - again, provide reference(s). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.251.77.249 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 14 December 2010

See for exammple, A critical history of economics, p. 71. TFD (talk) 20:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Factual historical references (newspapers, etc.) from around that period to "a series of depressions" would be far more meaningful than a passive reference to "supply and demand fluctuations" in a economics book written in 2002. If better references cannot be found, can someone please remove the statement. Or rewrite it to be in keeping with the reference used...in this case, something like: "The ideas of classical liberalism remained essentially unchallenged until supply and demand fluctuations arose, leading some to call for a change." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.251.76.199 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 15 December 2010

Sorry, but we do not conduct orignal research and instead use reliable sources. TFD (talk) 00:10, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

The request was not for original research...the request is that either the statement be backed up by a reliable historical reference, or that it be deleted. The cited reference is not a historical one, it is the POV / opinion of an (apparently largely unknown) author...and if this is used, the sentence in the article should be rewritten to reflect the fact that it is an author's POV / opinion.

What is the purpose of citing a reference if the text is not based on the reference cited? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.251.75.69 (talk • contribs) 01:55, 15 December 2010

Disambiguation needed for "Manchester School"

Please disambiguate the link to "Manchester School" so that it points to Manchester capitalism. You may or may not also wish to change the link in the "See also" section from "Manchesterism" to Manchester capitalism. Thank you! --Ken Gallager (talk) 18:11, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree with first part. No need to change the see also, because Manchesterism already re-directs to "Manchester capitalism". TFD (talk) 18:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I would say that "Manchester School" is more commonly used by far, so the redirect should be the other way around. --FormerIP (talk) 18:39, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The article is called for some reason "Manchester capitalism". I think that "Manchester liberalism" is a more common term too. TFD (talk) 18:42, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Request to Stop the editing of this page.

Like it or not, it has become clear that a few editors are seeking to scuttle any information they can from this article, arguing basically against everything in it while refusing to adress the points against their responses in a substantial way. As a result, until this behavior can be sure to have ceased and we can continue giving benefit of the doubt to these editors, this article should be locked from editing.

It is undeniably clear that those common editors are seeking not to present facts as reported, but instead are attempting to challenge the ideas on a political level. This is not the forum for that sort of behavior. 74.128.56.194 (talk) 00:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

That's my observation too. Looks one or two people think they own article, and have friends who aren't involved in the article they call upon to come in only to do reverts who have no idea why they're doing them and without any explanation. Leaving the article locked forever in symbolic protest is fine with me. Bullet Dropper (talk) 02:13, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

This is my first comment on this article. I have no affiliated with any previous contributors. That said, there are serious concerns with this article. I don't suggest malicious intent, but there are problems. Locking the article effectively bars rational discourse. Aallpow (talk) 19:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Adam Smith

"He developed a labour theory of value to explain the prices of goods and services. To him the value of any good or service was determined by the labour required to produce it. He assumed that workers could be paid as low as was necessary for their survival, which was later transformed by Ricardo and Malthus into the "Iron Law of Wages"."

This is ascribing a different context than Adam Smith was using, and in fact Smith's point was the opposite of the one inferred here. Smith was using it to demonstrate the high value of labor in driving economic success. It is true that Adam Smith came up with a labor theory of value, saying that labor was “the real measure of the exchangeable value of all commodities (36),” and “the only accurate measure of value (43).” But he did not use it to justify paying laborers as little as possible as is alleged, but the theory the writer described used Smith's principle of labor to say something different than Smith did.

For Smith, the “liberal reward of labour (86)” is crucial to the success of society: "But what improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconveniency to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, cloath and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, cloathed and lodged." (83)

Smith actually defended high wages:

"Our merchants and master manufacturers complain much of the bad effects of high wages in raising the price… They say nothing concerning the bad effects of high profits. They are silent with regard to the pernicious effects of their own gains. They complain only of those of other people." (104).

Furthermore, Smith actually points out that investors, unlike wage earners and landlords, have interests contrary to the general society:

"But the rate of profit does not, like rent and wages, rise with prosperity, and fall with the declension of the society. On the contrary, it is naturally low in rich, and high in poor countries, and it is always highest in the countries which are going fastest to ruin. The interest of this third order, therefore, has not the same connexion with the general interest of the society as that of the other two" (219).

Why does Smith say that is, you say? Smith answers:

"But the wages of labor being lowered, the owners of what stock remains in the society can bring their goods at less expense to market than before, and less stock being employed in supplying the market than before, they can sell them dearer. Their goods cost them less, and they get more for them… The great fortunes so suddenly and so easily acquired in Bengal and the other British settlements in the East Indies, may satisfy us that, as the wages of labor are very low, so the profits of stock are very high in those ruined countries" (99). (All citations to the "Wealth of Nations" are page numbers from the edition published by Prometheus Books; Amherst, New York; 1991). www.medaille.com/the%20forgotten%20agrarian.pdf Template:Edit: Protected

This is good research. Please edit the article to include it, in so far as the article discusses Smith. Of course, Smith came long before the ideas now called "classical liberalism", and the classical liberals seem to praise Smith more often than they read what he actually wrote. Rick Norwood (talk) 18:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Rick. There is a distinction between Smith and how his theories were interpreted later writers. In fact the same oculd be said for all the economists in the article. We should properly explain their theories and also ensure that we explain their influence on 19th century liberalism. TFD (talk) 19:00, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Neo-Classical Liberalism

There is a segment of this article that states neo-classical liberalism as a wholly different concept to classical liberalism that came about during the "late 19th century". This is false. Statesmen and philosophers in the United States were talking of limited government as required to uphold individual liberty and property rights in the late 18nth century and before that: "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yeild, and government to gain ground." - Thomas Jefferson to Edward Carrington, Paris, 27 May 1788* - a wise & frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry or improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labour the bread it has earned. this is the sum of good government, and this is necessary to close the circle of our felicities." - Thomas Jefferson's First Inaugural Address * Tacitus famously stated "And now bills were passed, not only for national objects but for individual cases, and laws were most numerous when the commonwealth was most corrupt."*. The 10nth amendment in the US constitution makes it unlawful for government to make any laws outside of those specifically named "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."* The idea that more government always leads to less individual liberty, prosperity, etc far predates the late 19nth century - This should be fixed. 71.72.239.68 (talk) 01:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources. TFD (talk) 07:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Sources added - i sometimes forget these things are, unfortunately, not common knowledge. 71.72.239.68 (talk) 07:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

It already says in the article, "classical liberalism built on ideas that had already developed by the end of the eighteenth century". Also, it does not say that neo-classical liberalism was a wholly different concept. TFD (talk) 10:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

"In its most extreme form, it advocated Social Darwinism. Libertarianism is a modern form of neo-classical liberalism." This is analogous to saying something to the effect of "Jesus' teachings later were adapted into the mass genocide of the crusades" I don't think there is enough room nor is this the right place for me to explain why social darwinism is not compatible with free-market capitalism. Here is my primary concern: "In the late 19th century, classical liberalism developed into neo-classical liberalism, which argued for government to be as small as possible in order to allow the exercise of individual freedom." the italicized segment implies that a belief in small government was an invention of neo-classical liberalism. This is the primary flaw with the section because it introduces the small government belief as a new and defining characteristic of neo-classical liberalism. The only way it would be even remotely logical to include this information after already stating that neo-classical liberalism was based on classical liberalism would be to say that the classical liberal belief that expanded government power leads to less individual liberty continued in neo-classical liberalism. Otherwise the explanation is redundant and unnecessary.71.72.239.68 (talk) 21:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The article already says that classical liberals supported minimal government. TFD (talk) 02:24, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Which is why the section i just mentioned is out of place in the article and contradicts it. 71.72.239.68 (talk) 01:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Why? How? TFD (talk) 02:19, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Neo classic lib is a radical form of classic lib where the state is limited to a more extreme. We call this libertarian in the US. The moderate form of classic lib where state intervention is more flexible with certain issues is known as conservatism in the US. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnbrian9 (talk • contribs) 07:40, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide sources that explain this? TFD (talk) 11:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from CWenger, 6 March 2011

{{edit protected}} Disambiguation: Manchester School → Manchester School, Joshua Cohen → Joshua Cohen. Thanks. –CWenger (talk) 23:54, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

• Agree The links are now to disambiguation pages and should re-direct to these pages. TFD (talk) 04:32, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done. JohnCD (talk) 11:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Section free trade and world peace - mention empirical evidence

I would like the editors to add the following sentence at the bottom of this section:

Contemporary empirical research, however, casts some doubt on the validity of the causal connection between trade and peace propagated by these authors. As Hyung Min Kim and David L. Rousseau report in an article in the Journal of Peace Research:

"Using a dataset of international disputes from 1960 to 1988, the authors find that there is no statistical evidence of the pacifying effect of economic interdependence. Findings in the existing literature appear to be due to the improper use of the classic logit (or probit) method despite the existence of the simultaneity problem' between the use of force and interdependence (i.e. reciprocal causation). In this study, the authors employ a two-stage probit least squares method to control this problem. Although Kant's prediction with respect to regime type is supported by the analysis, the claim that economic interdependence will decrease conflict is not. The two-stage results reveal that international conflict reduces economic interdependence (rather than interdependence reducing conflict)."

Min

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.82.1.40 (talk • contribs) 14:33, 13 March 2011

The section needs to be re-written in order to include analysis, just as the "Intellectual sources" section does. Since neutrality however requires us to give greatest weight to mainstream views, recent (2010) research may not have the necessary weight for inclusion. The abstract says, "Classical liberals such as Kant argued that expanding political participation and increasing economic interdependence would promote peace among states. Recent empirical support for both propositions has led to a growing consensus on the power of the ‘liberal peace’." TFD (talk) 15:13, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Agree this is appears to be a current debate and some care is needed. "Opposing camps have clearly formed, and debates between and within those camps" . I think it would be good to give coverage to this debate (due respect to Kant, but he has been dead quite a while now). We would need, though, to cover it as a debate and include arguments on both sides. --FormerIP (talk) 15:25, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

True, there are arguments on both sides. Here is one recent study finding support for a causal connection: Dorussen, Han/Ward, Hugh 2010: Trade networks and the Kantian peace, in: Journal of Peace Research 47: 1, 29-42. Page 30 mentions a couple of other studies that are part of this debate. The article cited in preceding post (Keshk et al. 2011) would be "against". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.82.1.40 (talk) 15:46, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

Reagan book

Two editors have taken exception to the sentence, "In the United States in the second half of the 20th Century, many classical liberals allied with social conservatives and attacked the very concept of liberalism, calling their beliefs conservatism". They have modified it to read "New Deal" or "modern" liberalism. But the meaning of the sentence is that U.S. classical liberals rejected "the very concept of liberalism", not modern liberalism per se. Since those editors do not like the passage, I will remove it. TFD (talk) 03:07, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

It seemed biased to me the way it was originally written. Saying they rejected "the very concept of liberalism" seems to be hinting that they are hypocritical or something along those lines, even though I don't think modern liberalism has any more claim to the concept/term than classical liberalism. In any case, it was not a very important sentence, and I agree with its removal. –CWenger (talk) 03:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Please help

Currently creating Classical liberalism (political parties). Please help with translations and additions.--  Novus  Orator  02:32, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if there are any sources that classify modern parties as "classical liberal" or even if there is agreement on what that would mean. The conservative liberalism article lists parties and there is a list of Libertarian parties. TFD (talk) 02:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

There are legitimate Classical liberal parties (the biggest being the Swiss FDP.The Liberals). Conservative liberalism is a contradiction that should be merged or deleted. The libertarian list is to broad because it includes anarchists and minarchists.--  Novus  Orator  04:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

What specifically makes the party classical liberal? TFD (talk) 05:08, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Is liberalism conservatism?

Some editors believe that this article should be included in the conservatism project because "modern conservative economic policy is largely based on classical liberalism". However all the major ideological groups - communism, socialism, greens, liberals, Christian democrats, conservatives and extreme right have embraced liberal principles to some degree. In fact conservatives have not embraced classical liberalism, but neoclassical liberalism, but then so have the other major ideological groups. This topic is better included under liberalism. The projects are not supposed to be lobbying groups but are there to support topics related to the subject. TFD (talk) 05:04, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

A list of classic liberal parties should be listed

I believe they are all right wing parties including the US Republican and Libertarian parties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnbrian9 (talk • contribs) 14:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

You would need reliable sources. And right-wing and classical liberal are not the same thing necessarily, certainly not historically. TFD (talk) 17:27, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Historically classic liberalism was the predominate ideology encompassing both moderate (right) and radical (left) but with new ideologies emerging such as marxism/socialism which encompasses the far left, classic liberalism is now mainly in the center right, both moderate (conservative) and radical (libertarian). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnbrian9 (talk • contribs) 07:46, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Neo-classical liberalism

An editor has added to a sentence in the lead, which read, "In the late 19th century, classical liberalism developed into neo-classical liberalism...". It now reads, "In the late 19th century, all liberals supported laissez-faire liberalism and capitalism which then developed into neo-classical liberalism".... Although the added words do appear in the source,(Mayne, p. 124) (in a different sentence) the purpose of the sentence in the article is to explain that classical liberalism developed into neoclassical liberalism, rather than to explain what classical liberalism was (which is already done in the first paragraph). The addition is also ungrammatical, implying that capitalism developed into neoclassical liberalism. TFD (talk) 00:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree, the addition is ungrammatical and seems to be trying to score points rather than explain things in an objective manner. Rick Norwood (talk) 15:25, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Score points in what way? Bullet Dropper (talk) 00:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

When good articles are written, it is impossible to determine the ideology of the editors. But this phrasing would impress a reader that the editor was a free market advocate who believed, contrary to what Ian Adams wrote, that modern liberals did not support laissez-faire and capitalism. TFD (talk) 01:27, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't get what you're saying. Bullet Dropper (talk) 02:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Would it be a fair assessment to say that you are a proponent of what you would describe as "'laissez-faire' liberalism" and "capitalism" and that you consider modern liberalism to be misguided? TFD (talk) 02:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

No it wouldn't be a fair assessment of me. Why? Bullet Dropper (talk) 20:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Laissez-faire liberalism

"It may be called "laissez-faire liberalism." While this statement may be true, I have problems with the sources used.

• Since Adams' definition includes the modern Democratic Party of the United States as a classical liberal party, it is too wide for the subject of the article.
• Mayne includes both classical and neo-classical liberalism as "'laissez-faire' liberalism".
• Stetson, like Adams, also defines classical liberism widely, although not as widely. But it is clear that he is referring to neoclassical liberalism as well.

It might be better to say "Both classical and neoclassical liberalism are referred to as "'laissez-faire' liberalism"", and add it after the mention of neoclassical liberalism. Also, we should avoid multiple references for text. One good source is sufficient.

TFD (talk) 01:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

You're making it overly complicated for frivolous reasons. Bullet Dropper (talk) 02:08, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I do not consider the accurate use of sources to be frivolous. TFD (talk) 02:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if "laissez-faire liberalism" has been used mainly to refer to groups or ideas from the 20th century to the present rather than to groups in the 19th century and before? If that is the case, it may be better to redirect to libertarianism or such page, rather than this page, which describes mainly the ideas, activies and groups from the 19th century and earlier.

I guess what I"m asking is, is the term "laissez-faire liberalism" commonly used to refer to liberalism of the 19th century. i.e. is David Ricardo ever refered as a "laissez-faire liberal"? Or is "laissez-faire liberalism" more commonly used to refer to Milton Friedman, who may be best described as a libertarian? LK (talk) 02:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

A problem with all the terms used to describe different types of liberalism is that they are used differently and there are no exact synonyms for various terms. I have not been able to find many sources explaining the use of terminology, and prefer to leave out information that is not well covered in the literature. This article (which I cannot access) is used as a source for history in the article Laissez-faire. Many sources object to the term laissez-faire. TFD (talk) 03:58, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

If it is used by some, but objected to by others, perhaps something like, "... has also been called 'laissez-faire liberalism' by some, but others object to this description" should appear in the article (although not neccesarily in the lead). LK (talk) 04:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The term "laissez-faire" was not used by most of the writers mentioned in the article as it did not move into common usage until 1824. Many later writers (including Hayek) see it as an inaccurate description of their beliefs. There is a piped link to Laissez-faire for readers interested in the term. However, I think we need a source explaining the use of terminology in order to discuss the use of the term "'laissez-faire' liberalism" in the article. (Mayne actually uses the scare quotes.) In the meantime, I will remove it. TFD (talk) 12:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Look. It's simple. There are two broad kinds of liberalism. The laissez-faire version and the version that supports the government intervening to promote social welfare. Classical liberalism falls under "laissez-faire liberalism." Bullet Dropper (talk) 20:33, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Classical liberals also supported the government intervening to promote social welfare, for example, labor and safety laws, education, and poorhouses. TFD (talk) 03:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I was talking about welfare state programs, such as social security, universal healthcare, etc. Bullet Dropper (talk) 03:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

They are also for free markets, unlike the newer liberals who are for government-regulated markets. Bullet Dropper (talk) 03:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

What do your comments have to do with the topic under discussion? TFD (talk) 04:14, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

That classical liberalism is a laissez-faire liberalism. What do your comments have to do with the topic under discussion? Bullet Dropper (talk) 04:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Your edit implied that only classical liberals were called "'laissez-faire' liberals" and not for example neo-classical liberals. But as mentioned, many writers, including Hayek, object to the term as an over-simplification. TFD (talk) 04:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think it implies that. It says "It may be called 'laissez-faire liberalism'". That's the truth. Several sources refer to it as "laissez-faire liberalism." If you have a source that something else is called 'laissez-faire' liberalism, then you're free to add a note that it's not the only thing called by that term. And if there is a source that says it shouldn't be called that, again, you're free to note that. Bullet Dropper (talk) 16:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

When we have articles about topics where there is conflicting use of terminology, as is the case for all articles about liberalism, we need to ensure that the writer is using the term in the same sense. Clearly in this case he is not. TFD (talk) 18:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Same sense as what? Bullet Dropper (talk) 18:33, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Same sense as used in this article. Also, adding "Some contemporary classical liberals call themselves "libertarians"" to a paragraph following one which says, "Libertarianism is a modern form of neo-classical liberalism" is contradictory and confusing. TFD (talk) 19:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't matter if it's used in the same sense as the article. Ideas and terms don't fit into a nice tidy latticework. The article is not using it one particular sense anyway. It's just a hodge-podge. About this "neoclassical liberalism," that appears to be a kind of obscure term. Do a search in Google books, and you'll see the paucity of results. I think it's being given too much prominence and probably should be taken out of the introduction. On the other hand "laissez-faire liberalism" appears several thousand times. Bullet Dropper (talk) 19:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

It matters because we need to be clear that they are talking about the same thing. The article is about the dominant liberalism c.1830-1848, and it really makes no sense to include comments that use wider definitions of classical liberalism. And neo-classical liberalism is a widely used term. TFD (talk) 20:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

No, the article is about simply what it's about. It's about whatever is referred to as classical liberalism. What your sources are calling "neoclassical liberalism" is usually included as "classical liberalism." It's just a newer terminology, to attempt subcategorization, that hasn't caught on widespread yet. It's not anywhere nearly as common as "laizzez-faire liberalism" which for frivolous reasons you keep deleting. Bullet Dropper (talk) 20:30, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not about "whatever is referred to as classical liberalism" because this is not a dictionary. This article is about a topic, which is the main definition of classical liberalism. TFD (talk) 04:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Mentioning neo-classical liberalism in article about classical liberalism

Should the following sentence be included in Classical liberalism?

In the late 19th century, classical liberalism developed into neo-classical liberalism, which argued for government to be as small as possible in order to allow the exercise of individual freedom. In its most extreme form, it advocated Social Darwinism. Libertarianism is a modern form of neo-classical liberalism.

The sentence is sourced to Mayne, Alan James. From politics past to politics future: an integrated analysis of current and emergent paradigms. Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group, 1999 (p. 124) TFD (talk) 20:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• Include Reliable source. Important to any topic to explains its influences. TFD (talk) 20:43, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
• Include . But not in the introduction. It's not a very common term to describe the later evolution of classical liberalism, so doesn't deserve the prominence of being in the introduction. Bullet Dropper (talk) 20:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
• Include In the body of the article, with a short mention in the lead with appropriate weight, since the lead summarises the body. LK (talk) 03:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
• Include. But I've rewritten the sentence to avoid two implications that are not in the sources, first the implication that small government in fact always lead to greater liberty (it didn't, for example, in the American South dominated by the Ku Klux Klan) and secont the (I believe unintentional) implication that Social Darwinism is identical to Libertarianism. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
• Use only with great care. It seems simplistic, to be honest, and also it runs together a number of debatable points. Do most authors agree on the terminology distinguishing classical and neo-classical liberalism and the point at which this happened? Or is this a contribution to an ongoing debate? Is Social Darwinism really best seen as an extreme wing of liberalism, or does it have too many illiberal features for that? Is this source not an overview of all political thought over a long period, and wouldn't books specifically about liberalism be more useful? Itsmejudith (talk) 17:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Surprisingly there are very few histories of liberalism. The two most used are Guido De Ruggiero's The history of European liberalism (1927) and Anthony Arblaster's The rise and decline of western liberalism (1987). Another problem is that all the terms related to liberalism, including the term itself, have conflicting meanings. However, there is agreement that the liberalism of the early nineteenth century gave way to a division between the "true" liberals and the "new" liberals (as they described themselves), and most sources refer to the two strands as neo-classical and social. I have found other sources and will enlarge the section about this period. Social Darwinism may be illiberal but it was advocated by many neo-classical writers, including Herbert Spencer. TFD (talk) 23:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
• Include in the lead - This sentence ties together several very critical threads of thought (Libertarianism, Social Darwinism, Liberalism). For readers that only read the lead, it would be a shame to miss out on the insight provided by the connections between these topics. Connections like these are the lifeblood of a great encyclopedia. (PS: on a related note: I would move the sentence that contrasts "social liberalism" with classical liberalism up to the first paragraph, so readers get the distinction very early ... perhaps a disambiguation template at the very top of the article?). --Noleander (talk) 03:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
• Note I added details about neo-classical liberalism into the body of the article and put back a shortened mention in the lead. TFD (talk) 20:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
• Comment "Classical liberalism" is a very common term in academic papers. "Neo-classical liberalism" is quite rarely found, and often only with regard to specific positions. The claim that this one source is sufficient to state implicity that "classical liberalism" is not currently extant is erroneous, and likely to harm Misplaced Pages. Any comments on "neo-classical liberalism' should be in a separate section, and not conflated in this manner. Decidedly an interesting topic, but one ill-suited for such cavalier simplification in the lede. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The most common terms used are neo-liberalism, libertarianism and (especially in Europe) simply liberalism. TFD (talk) 11:54, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

See The person who posts the greatest amount of repeated verbiage to a discussion, is least likely to be correct Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:56, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not constructive to post personal attacks. TFD (talk) 15:06, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not constructive to assert that someone made a personal attack for citing what was never called a personal attack in the past. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Removal of the term neo-classical liberalism

1. In the late 19th century, classical liberalism developed into neo-classical liberalism, which argued for government to be as small as possible in order to allow the exercise of individual freedom.... The term classical liberalism was applied in retrospect to distinguish earlier 19th-century liberalism from the newer social liberalism. Some conservatives and right-libertarians use the term classical liberalism to describe their belief in the primacy of economic freedom and minimal government.

2. Some call the late 19th century development of classical liberalism "neo-classical liberalism," which argued for government to be as small as possible in order to allow the exercise of individual freedom, while some refer to all liberalism before the 20th century as classical liberalism. is an example of an article that defines "classical liberalism" as all liberalism before the 20th Century.]... The term classical liberalism was applied in retrospect to distinguish earlier 19th-century liberalism from the newer social liberalism. Some conservatives and right-libertarians use the term classical liberalism to describe their belief in the primacy of economic freedom and minimal government.

Despite the response from the RfC, an editor has again removed reference to neo-classical liberalism from the lead and has accused me on my talk page of "violating NPOV policy". TFD (talk) 03:41, 7 July 2011 (UTC) Could editors please review the two versions above. The source is Mayne's From politics past to politics future, p. 124. (While it appeared to me that the reference to neo-classical liberalism had been removed, it had in fact been changed.) TFD (talk) 14:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The user above is stating an untruth. I didn't remove it. It's still there. I just merged a sentence from below with it and changed some wording around so it could be coherent. The user above is has been making POV entries to the article by asserting point blank that the later development of classical liberalism is called neoclassical liberalism, when some other writers call it simply classical liberalism. I made it NPOV by stating that some call it neoclassical while some others call it all classical liberalism. TFD, again, I suggest you read up on NPOV policy, as you don't appear to be understand it. Bullet Dropper (talk) 03:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

It already says in the lead, "Some conservatives and right-libertarians use the term classical liberalism to describe their belief in the primacy of economic freedom and minimal government. It is not always clear which meaning is intended." That describes your position I get it. But there is no need to overstate this, and beginning a sentence, "Some call the late 19th century development of classical liberalism "neo-classical liberalism", which is your judgment, is poor writing. Your footnote, " is an example of an article that defines "classical liberalism" as all liberalism before the 20th Century is redundant. TFD (talk) 11:36, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Could someone post the two proposed alternatives side-by-side here so we can look at them and provide comments? --Noleander (talk) 13:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Now posted at top of discussion thread. TFD (talk) 14:01, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Considering the entire lead section, I think the material should be presented as follows:

1. Definition of classical liberalism, including origin (time/place) .. re-use first two paragraphs of existing lead
2. Contrast with "social liberalism" ... important to establish this early because most readers will be familiar only with the modern term "liberal" in the "social liberal" context
3. Introduce most common definition of term "neo-classical liberalism" (?government small as possible?), and mention the term "Neoliberalism" (which is what neo-classical liberalism redirects to).
4. Provide TIME and PERSONS/SCHOOLS OF THOUGHT that originated the term "neo-classical liberalism" (?modern scholars who wanted to distinguish early 19th century concept from late 19th century concepts?)
5. Explain any ambiguity or overlap about the multiple terms (? "classical liberalism" is sometimes used in a way that includes "neo-classical", and is sometimes used to the exclusion of neo-classical?)
6. Mention relationship of classical liberalism with related concepts, such as Libertarianism and Social darwinism (provided supported by sources)

I think this would be most useful to readers. I'm not suggesting a total re-write, but instead a re-ordering, then adding clarity to (4) and (5). The particular question of this section in the Talk page revolves around item (4) and (5) in this outline. --Noleander (talk) 14:27, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Note to Bullet Dropper. Please avoid personalities and discuss issues.

I agree with Noleander's proposal and would like to see him do the rewrite.

Rick Norwood (talk) 12:26, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

• Distinguishing the phases of developing social or intellectual movements is rarely a simple fact but rather a matter of opinion about which authorities will hold various opinions. The sentence cited appears an idiosyncratic view by a single writer, although a few others might possible have similar, and is referring to a different movement than one customarily meant by the term. Not that our articles are authority, but it is significant that our article "neo-classical liberalism" was changed to "neoliberalism" and gives an altogether different meaning for the term, as a form of liberalism derived from neoclassical economics, that developed in the last third of the 20-th century, not the late 19th century. The distinction given in the sentence at the top of the article would appear to be a special use, and to the extent that the sentence quoted describes anything specific, it would be indicating a development within classical liberalism. The concepts behind Social Darwinism were part of most 19th century ideologies. DGG ( talk ) 20:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

I would not read too much into the fact that neo-classical liberalism is a re-direct to neoliberalism. The source says that both libertarianism and neoliberalism are forms of neo-classical liberalism. And of course they relied on neo-classical economics. I would question whether social darwinism, the idea that that the market alone should determine social outcomes wzs part of conservative, social liberal or socialist ideology. TFD (talk) 20:45, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Europe vs Western Europe

The current text of the article contains: "Classical liberalism developed in the 19th century in Western Europe, and the Americas." I think that it is misleading: Western Europe did not exist in 19th century in the form used today (e.g., as the Misplaced Pages article on Western Europe shows): a large part of the Austrian Empire is missing from this classification. There were strong liberal movements in the early 19th century in the whole Austrian Empire, including those states that are classically not counted as Western Europe. The statement above is much more permissive with respect to America, since it gives the whole continent (not just North America) as a source of classical liberalism. I think that reducing the European part to only those countries which are considered Western Europe today is inappropriate, since Western Europe is a 20th century concept. Therefore, I am suggesting changing "Western Europe" to "Europe" (or to "Western and Central Europe"). -- Koertefa (talk) 07:15, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

I have changed it to better reflect the source. TFD (talk) 13:07, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Ok and thanks. -- Koertefa (talk) 07:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Slavery

Classical Liberalism was the ideology that replaced ancient monarchies/authoritarian regimes, established constitutional republics/civil government, and ended slavery in Europe and the Americas. The word slavery is not mentioned once, and this is a disingenuous ommission. Classical Liberalism ended slavery, as this was a core tenet which they eventually achieved.

The replacement of the monarchies and oligarchies with constitiutional republics is another major event that has been ommitted. This was a master stroke of the classical liberals, particuarly in Europe where the stakes were high but also in the decolonization of the Americas, particuarly the United States and Gran Colombia.

These must be included as core tenets as well as achievements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.177.63.113 (talk) 19:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Can you provide any sources that explain the significance of slavery to classical liberalism. TFD (talk) 20:01, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Undue weight to E. K. Hunt?

The entire "core principles" section is sourced to a certain E. K. Hunt, previously unknown to me, but who seems obviously not to like classical liberalism very much. Shouldn't we balance this with a more sympathetic source? It's not as though they're not there in reliable sources. --Trovatore (talk) 02:36, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree. But we also need to avoid bias in favor of classical liberalism, so rather than a "sympathetic" source, how about an objective, academic source. I'm sure there are many. Rick Norwood (talk) 13:12, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The source used was published by M. E. Sharpe, Inc., which is an academic publisher and therefore a reliable source. It is a textbook in its 7th edition. The writer was honored by the International Confederation of Associations for Pluralism in Economics, ICAPE argues that "that each tradition of thought (Austrian, feminist, old and new institutionalist, Marxian, neoclassical, Post Keynesian, social economics, Sraffian, etc.) adds something unique and valuable to economic scholarship". ICAPE is supported by numerous academic institutions and economists. Modern writers who draw inspiration from classical liberalism do not question the history, rather they are selective about the classical liberal writings they accept. I have read a number of histories of the period and none that provide any substantially different narrative. TFD (talk) 14:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

My objection is less to the narrative per se than to the words used to describe it, which I think are loaded. However I do question it on a substantive level as well — he seems to be saying that classical liberals really think that man is homo economicus at a fundamental level, rather than only in the economic sphere. --Trovatore (talk) 17:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

See Thomas Malthus, An Essay on the Principle of Population (1798), chapter 18, where he asks us to "consider man as he really is, inert, sluggish, and averse from labour, unless compelled by necessity". TFD (talk) 19:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure, some classical liberals said things like that. But to say that's a "core principle" of classical liberalism?

I think also that the "core principles" section treats classical liberalism excessively as a descriptive theory of economic (and more generally human) behavior, and ignores classical liberalism as a political, normative theory directed at the rights of man and the liberty of the individual. --Trovatore (talk) 19:56, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

...or to put it another way, I'd like to see less focus on Malthus, and more on, say, Locke. --Trovatore (talk) 19:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

The article is about the liberalism that "developed in the 19th century". TFD (talk) 20:39, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how an article called "classical liberalism" can neglect Locke, but leaving that point for another day, OK — then, less Malthus, more Mill. --Trovatore (talk) 21:08, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

It does not exclude Locke, there is a whole section that explains how he was interpreted. And J.S. Mill's influence came later. TFD (talk) 21:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Trovatore: It seems to me the idea that "classical liberalism" is normative rather than descriptive, that absolute economic freedom is "right" no matter its consequences, is a 21st century idea rather than a classical liberal idea. TFD: Thanks for citing some of Hunt's credentials. They're impressive, but even so it would be nice to find a second source, even if that source says the same thing in a different way. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

But classical liberalism is not just about economics! Where are things like the rights of the accused? Those are also "core principles" of classical liberalism. --Trovatore (talk) 22:20, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

A problem I find with all liberalism topics is the inconsistency of terminology. This article for example says, "Classical liberalism developed in the 19th century.... Some call the late 19th century development of classical liberalism "neo-classical liberalism...." The term classical liberalism was applied in retrospect to distinguish earlier 19th-century liberalism from the newer social liberalism. Some conservatives and right-libertarians use the term classical liberalism to describe their belief...." It might be better, per WP:DISAMBIG to rename the article "19th century" liberalism. The rights of the accused for example had long been established in England and the classical period (1830-1848) concentrated on economics. TFD (talk) 14:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps a rename is in order, but then there should be an article on classical liberalism in the broader sense, which started with the Enlightenment if not earlier. --Trovatore (talk) 19:06, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

That would be the main article on liberalism. TFD (talk) 19:16, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that that one includes reform liberalism. I'm talking about an article on liberalism pre-T. H. Green. --Trovatore (talk) 19:37, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Liberalism pre-Green is discussed both in this article and in the main liberalism article. TFD (talk) 20:21, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but there should be a dedicated article to it. Green changed liberalism so much that it's arguably not the same thing at all. To me classical liberalism has always meant the sort without his changes; I don't think I'm in any way alone in that. --Trovatore (talk) 20:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any sources that would provide a guide for the type of article that you propose? TFD (talk) 20:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't at the moment; I'll keep an eye out. --Trovatore (talk) 21:35, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Liberalism is a belief in freedom and equal rights. Conservatism is a belief in preservation of social norms. In the Eighteenth Century, social norms were at odds with freedom and equal rights, and so liberals and conservatives were clearly opposed. Today, freedom and equal rights are social norms, and so the division between liberals and conservatives is largely artificial. When everyone favors the rights of the accused, that issue is not a defining one for any particular political philosophy. It's different in a country like Saudi Arabia, where the liberals want votes for women, and the conservatives oppose votes for women.

Rick Norwood (talk) 18:27, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

For an alternative to mere propaganda...

This article as it stands is laughable American propagandizing that ignores history. For a little of that history, sample yesterday's New York Times, written by a prof:

Why Islamism Is Winning By JOHN M. OWEN IV Published: January 6, 2012

In 19th-century Europe, that ideology was liberalism. It emerged in the late 18th century from the American, Dutch, Polish and especially French revolutions. Whereas the chief political divide in society had long been between monarchs and aristocrats, the revolutions drew a new line between the “old regime” of monarchy, nobility and church, and the new commercial classes and small landholders. For the latter group, it was the old regime that produced the predatory taxes, bankrupt treasuries, corruption, perpetual wars and other pathologies that dragged down their societies. The liberal solution was to extend rights and liberties beyond the aristocracy, which had inherited them from the Middle Ages. Suppressing liberalism became the chief aim of absolutist regimes in Austria, Russia and Prussia after they helped defeat France in 1815. Prince Klemens von Metternich, Austria’s powerful chancellor, claimed that “English principles” of liberty were foreign to the Continent. But networks of liberals — Italian carbonari, Freemasons, English Radicals — continued to operate underground, communicating across societies and providing a common language for dissent. This helped lay the ideological groundwork for Spain’s liberal revolution in 1820. From there, revolts spread to Portugal, the Italian states of Naples and Piedmont, and Greece. News of the Spanish revolution even spurred the adoption of liberal constitutions in the nascent states of Gran Colombia, Argentina, Uruguay, Peru and Mexico. Despite their varied grievances, in each case liberalism served as a rallying point and political program on which the malcontents could agree. A decade later, in July 1830, a revolution toppled France’s conservative Bourbon monarchy. Insurrection spread to Belgium, Switzerland, a number of German and Italian states and Poland. Once again, a variety of complaints were distilled into the rejection of the old regime and the acceptance of liberalism. The revolutions of 1848 were more numerous and consequential but remarkably similar to the earlier ones. Rebels with little in common — factory workers in Paris, peasants in Ireland, artisans in Vienna — followed a script written in the 1790s that was rehearsed continuously in the ensuing years across the continent.

John M. Owen IV, a professor of politics at the University of Virginia, is the author of “The Clash of Ideas in World Politics: Transnational Networks, States, and Regime Change, 1510-2010.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/07/opinion/why-islamism-is-winning.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.150.175 (talk) 20:00, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

How do you think Owen's description of liberalism differs from that of this article? TFD (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Owen's description is excellent, and could be used in the article Liberalism. This article is about a movement which today is called "classical liberalism", "neo-classical liberalism", or "libertarianism". The political philosophy discussed in this article arose after the facts outlined by Owen. I agree that most of the views of Americans today who call themselves "classical liberals" are mere propaganda, and ignore history. However, this article should present their views accurately, just as the article Scientology accurately presents the views of Scientologists. Rick Norwood (talk) 22:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Bias - Joeedh (talk) 05:15, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

This article violates the neutral point of view in a number of ways, some of which I list here.

American 19th buisiness depressions

This quote makes a clear judgement:

Despite the common recurrence of depressions, classical liberalism remained the orthodox belief among American businessmen until the Great Depression.

The causes of the 19th century American business depressions are disputed by historians, but are usually blamed on a fragmented financial system and the lack of a central bank, not economic ideology.

My impression is that the lack of a central bank was due to economic ideology.Rick Norwood (talk) 11:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Your impression? So, I suppose it had nothing to do with 19th century populism and Andrew Jackson's distrust of money power? If classical liberal theory was as anti-central-banking as you claim, why didn't any of the other classical liberal powers (like Britain) abolish there central banks? Joeedh (talk) 00:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Andrew Jackson's administration, which was the first to adopt classical liberal economic theory, abolished the central bank and encouraged fragmentation. But the text does not say that classical liberalism was the cause of recesssions. Modern liberalism differed from classical liberalism in its response to recession. To varying degrees welfare programs help those hardest hit, while spending is aimed to stimulate the economy.TFD (talk) 13:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

No, modern liberalism uses central banks to smooth out the business cycle. Paul Krugman himself calls our current mess "highly unusual" and that vulgar Keynesian solutions "work now, but not in normal times." By no means does modern liberalism embrace discretionary countercyclical fiscal policy. The global neoliberal movement wasn't significantly damaged by the Great Recession, despite the high hopes of leftists for a return to traditional social democracy. Joeedh (talk) 00:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I do not understand your comments. Following classical liberal policies, Jackson abolished the central bank. Whether or not that was a good thing is not commented on in this article. TFD (talk) 00:28, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

4D's argument is supported explictly by Susan Hoffmann (2001). Politics and Banking: Ideas, Public Policy, and the Creation of Financial Institutions. JHU Press. p. 16. Rjensen (talk) 00:37, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Irish Potato Famine

A rigid belief in laissez-faire also guided government response in 1846–1849 to the Great Famine in Ireland, during which an estimated 1.5 million people died

Ethnic prejudice, not laissez-faire, blocked government assistance during the Irish Potato Famine. A prime minister early into the crisis did start public works projects, but was ousted from power and replaced by a prime minister who hated Irishmen. The political rhetoric were couched in terms of laissez-faire, but ethnic prejudice was the larger factor.

From Misplaced Pages's own article:

Sir Charles Trevelyan, who was in charge of the administration of Government relief to the victims of the Irish Famine, limited the Government's actual relief because he thought "the judgement of God sent the calamity to teach the Irish a lesson".

(By the way, you can see the source cited for this sentence here).

Motives are very hard to sort out, and in most cases we have to go with statements because that is all we have. Some people who praise laissez-faire invoke God to explain poverty and wealth, but their reason for wanting laissez-faire economics is, like all human motives, complicated. I do note that the section on the Irish has been rewritten recently. Is it improved? Rick Norwood (talk) 12:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

The famine article also says that "Sir James Graham, who had served as Home Secretary in Sir Robert Peel's late government, wrote to Peel that, in his opinion, "the real extent and magnitude of the Irish difficulty are underestimated by the Government, and cannot be met by measures within the strict rule of economical science."" Bigotry and prejudice probably played a role too, but then that could be said about any policy on welfare. And Trevelyan was not in charge of setting the policy but, as a civil servant, responsible for carrying it out. TFD (talk) 14:32, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

You're rationalizing. How can you possibly deny that ethnic prejudice was the dominant faction, after this: "the judgement of God sent the calamity to teach the Irish a lesson." Political will matters a great deal, and if the people in charge of administering aid oppose it, and are simply going through the motions, that aid will be ineffective. That's as true today as it was then, by the way. Joeedh (talk) 00:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The same thing is said about neoliberals today. They cut welfare payments because they do not wish to encourage dependency. Welfare is a hand-up not a hand-out. Are they trying to help the poor or to hurt them? Are they racist because most poor people are minorities? TFD (talk) 00:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

That's offensive. Most of my relatives are white trash who've abused welfare programs at one point or another (my parents are "chain-breakers" who escaped that culture). There are plenty of places in America (and the world) where welfare recipients are the same race as the local majority. I don't understand this attitude that bad parts of town or poor people are always black. Joeedh (talk) 18:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

This edit appears add a view of the famine which is not supported by the sources used. The first source (On fairness, p. 344) is used to support the statement, "After Great Famine struck Ireland in 1845, the Corn Laws were finally repealed in 1846...." This implies repeal of the Corn Laws was intended to relieve the famine, while the source says Peel was concerned about the famine extending into England. The next sentence says, "repeal of the Corn Laws came too late to stop the Irish famine, partly because it was done in stages over three years." The source says, "Although repeal was achieved in the summer of 1846, it was too little and too late to have any impact on food shortages in Ireland" (A Death- Dealing famine, p. 59). While repeal of the Corn Laws may or may not have alleviated the famine, it was "too little". The source says on p. 58, "By the spring of 1846, it was becoming increasingly evident in Peel's speeches that the repeal of the Corn Laws was unlikely to benefit the economy of Ireland either in the short or long term". TFD (talk) 17:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

First sentence implies that famine in Ireland was one of the main reason why repeal of the Corn Laws was contemplated. Of course there was a concern that famine will also spread to England but that only straightens the sentence that you removed.

In your second argument, you are mixing "famine" and "economy" - two different things. Second sentence that you removed doesn't talk about economy. Also, if you are quoting from the source please quote all relevant material. Sentence that you quoted: "Although repeal was achieved in the summer of 1846, it was too little and too late to have any impact on food shortages in Ireland" is followed by: "Furthermore, the Corn Laws were dismantled in stages over a period of three years." -- Vision Thing -- 19:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

In other words, immediate repeal of the Corn Laws would have had little or no effect on the famine. (Bear in mind that as Ireland was a major exporter of grains to Great Britain during the famine, repeal of the Corn Laws would have led to lower incomes.) was If you want to add your spin to the story please find a source.

Christine Kinealy, the writer whose book you use as a source explains the connection between the famine and the Corn Laws in her article "Peel, Rotten Potatoes and Providence: The repeal of the Corn Laws and the Irish Famine". There is nothing in her article to indicate that repeal of the Corn Laws would have done anything to alleviate the famine and also note that all duties on imports of foreign grains were suspended before the famine reached its zenith.

TFD (talk) 22:24, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

How have you reached a conclusion that "immediate repeal of the Corn Laws would have had little or no effect on the famine"? No source says that.

Article "Peel, Rotten Potatoes and Providence: The repeal of the Corn Laws and the Irish Famine" starts with sentence: "The repeal of The Corn Laws in 1846 has tended to be linked inextricably with the onset of the potato famine in Ireland in 1845." While she states that relationship is "complex", according to her this is how connection is usually seen.

For example, Stephen J. Lee writes in his "Aspects of British Political History, 1815-1914" that "The timing of the repeal was dictated by the Irish crisis. Peel was convinced that starvation would occur on a massive scale if urgent action were not taken. But relief could not be provided while the Corn Laws kept the price of bread artificial high." -- Vision Thing -- 21:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Please explain, or rewrite, the following sentence: "It was expected that private enterprise and free trade, rather than government intervention, would alleviate the famine." Expected by whom? Were these expectations realistic? Rick Norwood (talk) 13:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I put in that this was the expectation of the chancellor. The implication in the source, and also in the writing of Kinnealy, who is considered to be an authority on the famine, is that the expectations were unreasonable, but there are no defenders today of the government's approach. TFD (talk) 15:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Emphasis on Anti-Charity Anti-Welfare Faction

I find the emphasis on Social Darwinism (an intellectual disease hardly limited to classical liberalism) also disturbing. The article seems to use it as a bludgeon against libertarians. I agree that modern libertarianism is problematic (to put it mildly), but that isn't relevant to this article.

This is Misplaced Pages; rewrites are always an option. If you decide to do a major rewrite of this article, I recommend doing a little at a time, and waiting for comments before going on to the next bit. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

This article is not about libertarianism. TFD (talk) 15:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

It should not be, but in my opinion it is. Joeedh (talk) 00:10, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Frederick Bastiat

I question the inclusion of Frederick Bastiat in the lead. He wrote long after classical liberalism had developed and is not mentioned elsewhere in the article. It is probably more accurate to say that he was a major influence on Austrian economics. The source, the Friedrich Naumann Foundation, says "he was the preeminent advocate of liberal thinking in France during a crucial stage of history." Yet there is nothing in the article about French liberalism. I will remove his name from the lead. If someone wants to add a section on French classical liberalism to the article, then we can mention his significance. TFD (talk) 18:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Bastiat was a minor intellectual figure and a very popular writer best known for witty short essays. Politicians read him, but few economists. As for original ideas, perhaps you could point to his use of counterfactual assumptions ("what would have happened if this subsidy had not existed is XYZ and that is better than what did happen ABC") He seems to take most of his ideas directly from Adam Smith. Béraud and Etner (1993) say he never founded a school and his ideas were rejected by the leading economists of his time. Rjensen (talk) 18:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

1. Cite error: The named reference Voegelin was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
2. Encyclopædia Britannica Online, s.v. "Liberalism" (by Harry K. Girvetz and Minogue Kenneth), p. 16 (accessed May 16, 2006).
3. Ronald Reagan, "Insider Ronald Reagan: A Reason Interview", Reason, July 1975.
4. Cite error: The named reference undefined was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
5. Kim, Hyung Min (2005). "The Classical Liberals Were Half Right (or Half Wrong): New Tests of the 'Liberal Peace', 1960-88". Journal of Peace Research. 42 (5): 523–543. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Conservatism articles
• Top-importance Conservatism articles
• WikiProject Conservatism 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
• B-Class politics articles
• High-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles