Talk:Liberalism/old text classical liberalism/talk

The inclusion of "democracy" as one of the principles of (classical) liberalism should be removed. Classical liberals _detested_ democracy.

This is absolutely wrong. Classical liberals did not detest democracy, despite what the propogandists of the modern right-wing libertarian captialist movement (Anarcho-capitalists) want us to believe. Quite the contrary, they were the CHAMPIONS of democracy. I think you are confusing a "tyranny of the majority" with democracy. A democracy must neccisarily be structured so as to protect minority and individual rights. To do otherwise is very undemocratic. I would challenge any of the Anarcho-capitalists to find ONE (just one) quote from a classical liberal which explicitly condemns democracy. Of course, it would be easy to find a quote from one of the classical conservatives like Edmund Burke or Alexander Hamilton which does, but they are not classical liberals.

Classical liberals were also very distrustful of the rich, and of corporations, seeing them as being aristocrats with desires to tyranize the people. If the classical liberals had lived through the industrial revolution of the late 19th century, there is no doubt they would have adopted socialistic tendancies to adjust to the changes in the political economy.

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a money aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. This issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of the moneyed corporations which already dare to challenge our Government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country" -Thomas Jefferson (Some Anarcho-capitalist Jefferson was...said sarcastically)

“Those seeking profits, were they given total freedom, would not be the ones to trust to keep government pure and our rights secure. Indeed, it has always been those seeking wealth who were the source of corruption in government. No other depositories of power have ever yet been found, which did not end in converting to their own profit the earnings of those committed to their charge…I am not among those who fear the people. They, and not the rich, are our dependence for continued freedom.” -Thomas Jefferson (I guess Jefferson was of the "eat the rich" mentality too...)

“Another means of silently lessening the inequality of property is to exempt all from taxation below a certain point, and to tax the higher portions of property in geometrical progression as they rise.” -Jefferson

Yes, that’s right. Jefferson is talking about PROGRESSIVE TAXATION there.

As for Adam Smith, he never once used the word “capitalism” in any of his works. In Smith’s view, there were two types of “political economies”- the agrarian and the mercantilist. Smith was a staunch defender of the agrarian type, and very distrustful of merchants and businessmen. In other words, he disliked what today is known as corporate capitalism.

“To widen the market and to narrow the competition, is always the interest of the dealers. To widen the market may frequently be agreeable enough to the interest of the public; but to narrow the competition must always be against it, and can serve only to enable the dealers, by raising their profits above what they naturally would be, to levy, for their own benefit, an absurd tax upon the rest of their fellow-citizens.” -The Wealth of Nations

“[Businessmen are] an order of men, whose interest is never exactly the same with that of the public, who have generally an interest to deceive and even to oppress the public, and who accordingly have, upon many occasions, both deceived and oppressed it.” -The Wealth of Nations

“The masters, being fewer in number, can combine much more easily; and the law, besides, authorizes, or at least does not prohibit their combinations, while it prohibits those of the workmen. We have no acts of parliament against combining to lower the price of work; but many against combining to raise it. … Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labour above their actual rate. … Such combinations, however, are frequently resisted by a contrary defensive combination of the workmen; who sometimes too, without any provocation of this kind, combine of their own accord to raise the price of their labour.” -The Wealth of Nations

“Wherever there is great property, there is great inequality. For one very rich man, there must be at least five hundred of the poor, and the affluence of the few supposes the indigence of the many.” -The Wealth of Nations

"The pretense that corporations are necessary to the better government of the trade is without foundation." -Adam Smith

What the Anarcho-capitalists do not understand is that there have been significant changes in the political economy since the liberal enlightenment of the 18th century. We no longer live in an agrarian economy where each individual can own their own means of production- their farm. Rather, we live in a modern industrial society where most of the means of productions we depend upon are owned by others- by capitalists.

The liberals of today are indeed the true bearers of the ideals of the classical liberals. In fact, if anything they have gotten LESS radical than the liberals of the classical period.

I leave you with this quote, which heartily sums up the attitudes of classical liberals towards the rich.

-CertainKindOfFool

"The rich will strive to establish their dominion and enslave the rest. They always did...they always will. They will have the same effect here as elsewhere, if we do not, by the power of government, keep them in their proper spheres." -Gouvernor Morris, head of the committee that wrote the final draft of the U.S. Constitution

Classical liberalism and US "liberalism"

The word "Liberalism" came to mean something much akin to socialism, in the US, whereas socialism is the very anti-thesis of classical liberalism - this has very much to do with the history of political parties, and little to do with the classical liberal tradition of thinkers: In the 1930s, collectivist ideologies were so strong that there remained very few classical liberals who didn't adulterate their views with some kind of welfare state, and those who remained true to the tradition mostly wouldn't get to express their opinions in public - so the so-called "neo-liberals" of the day were actually welfare-statists. Later, when it became impossible to publicly call oneself socialist or communist in the US, socialist-minded people would call themselves "Liberals" after this kind of liberalism, but without ever sharing anything in common with the classical liberal tradition. Real classical liberals would then come to call themselves libertarians to distinguish themselves from such "left-liberals".

Outside the US, the word "liberal", when applied to ideologies, usually continues to stand for classical liberalism. However, it is sometimes adulterated by the existence of political parties (usually conservative) that stand by the name "liberal", so people also specify "classical liberal" so as to identify their tradition of thought.

I wouldn't say that socialism and liberalism are opposites. If you believe that lack of government intervention will give people the best opportunity to work to support the worst off in their communities, then you're a liberal and a socialist. If you believe people should follow the instructions of their superiors and the weak will fail, you're neither socialist nor liberal. I see socialism as the antonym of individualism and liberalism as the antonym of authoritarianism. For completeness I'd say the other main dimension is conservatism vs radicalism. Ben Arnold 01:24, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The entry needs a concrete discussion of what classical liberalism is, rather than vague and bald assertions of The One Truth. Right now there's minimal specificity. It also desperately needs an etymology. Who coined this term, and when? It's heavily propagandic. --TheCunctator

The specificity of [1] has helped me for the first time understand what distinguishes classical liberalism from new liberalism, without using loaded language. --TheCunctator

Nice to see Fare's back at work. Fare, we should use the term new liberalism for where you want to slander liberals. It seems the axis is classical liberalism vs. new liberalism. You really need to try to be less disparaging of people you despise. If you can't, you should write about them. --TheCunctator

I removed Nozick, and replaced him by de Jasay. Nozick is definitely not a prominent libertarian, though he's one of the few who's acknowledged by statists, since (1) he accepts many statist claims, so they can claim consensus on these, and (2) his arguments are weak (for the same reason), so they can more easily diss libertarian ideas without having to argue. I think people should be considered as prominent among a movement when they are recognized as such by people within the movement, and not by people outside it. Faré

A Commentary on Al Frankin

"I removed Nozick, and replaced him by de Jasay. Nozick is definitely not a prominent libertarian..."

Please don't do that again. This is an entry about *classical liberalism*, not anarcho-capitalism. Classical liberalism included the notion of night-watchman state, which is the same as Nozick's minimal state. Jasay, like any anarcho-capitalist, doesn't support any kind of state. Jasay would certainly be a better match to a page about anarcho-capitalism than Nozick, but anarcho-capitalism, which Jasay represents, is a much more new phenomenom than classical liberalism.

Besides, whose prominent? Somebody who is well-known and whose thoughts has some real influence, or somebody, who is orthodox, but whose thought will have attention = influence only in small circles? De Jasay is recognized only by anarcho-capitalists, who constitute a minority among the libertarian movement, so even that argument fails.

I have not been active in this page, but I notice that a new user, User:Slizor, has made major edits, which have included deletions, including most mentions of libertarianism. Given that "classical liberalism" is a libertarian coinage, that seems perverse. Also, at a quick glance, the article has become more polemical. I noticed this because the same person also made what I consider detrimental edits to Political spectrum.

I'm not going to try to tend to this article beyond raising a flag and suggesting that someone who has been active in this page should carefully work through and evaluate these changes. -- Jmabel 06:23, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC) --- You think the article is polemical? Dude, this is what I study. The last article was just trying to say that Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism are the same thing, when they are not. Libertarianism, or neo-Liberalism is recognised by Political Philosophers (ones that aren't actually Libertarians)as two seperate things. What I have written actually talks about Classical Liberalism.

And my "detrimental edits" was taking things out which are incorrect (that the right supports closer links between church and state) and a bias towards the Nolan spectrum.

The usual approach to removing content from an article is not to just edit in a manner that makes it very difficult to see what has been removed. Because you added, removed, and moved around a lot of content in one editing session, and made no remarks here to explain, it is very hard to even know what you have changed. And, by the way, I object to being addressed as "dude"; if you use that again, I guess I'll just have to start addressing you as "whippersnapper."

If you reread my remarks above, you will see that I did not call your edits in this article "detrimental". That was my characterization of your edit in Political spectrum. What I said of your edits here is that they were "major...[and]...have included deletions, including most mentions of libertarianism... Also, at a quick glance, the article has become more polemical," and suggested that they be reviewed by someone more familiar with the article.

Again, I stand by my belief (though admittedly not well researched) that the term "classical liberalism" to refer to the beliefs of Adam Smith et. al. is a libertarian coinage, though I'd gladly stand corrected on that point with a good citation from a competent authority.

And, yes, beyond a doubt classical liberalism and neo-liberalism are two quite different concepts. Among other things:

the former puts roughly equal emphasis on personal freedoms and free markets, the latter focuses primarily on free markets and holds an ideological belief that those will facilitate personal freedom.
the former arose as a revolutionary philosophy, opposing the last vestiges of feudalism and absolute monarchy, while the latter is a 20th century invention, and grew up as a reaction against what its proponents saw as creeping socialism.

-- Jmabel 17:31, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Sorry about that but I'm new at this. I mostly move around on Politics Forums. My "edit" wasn't really an edit at all, I just wrote an new article for it, started again from scratch. The entry that was there before was just arguing that Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism are the same thing. It doesn't really matter if "Classical Liberalism" was coined by a Libertarian or not (although I doubt it was.) What matters is that the entry is actually about Classical Liberalism, not Libertarianism.

I also don't feel my edits to the Political Spectrum were detrimental. I highly think that entry needs a re-editing as to decrease its bias, I only did that quickly but that was changed back.

One question: how do you know if I'm younger than you? ("whippersnapper") Another Question: Are Libertarian and Neo-Liberal the same thing in your opinion?

-- Slizor

You could be older than me, but it would surprise me. Since you haven't made a home page, I'm only guessing, but if you are older than me and used "dude" in the sense you did, it was pretty pretentious (unless, I suppose, you are from California and barely older than me). I was born in 1954.

No, a libertarian (and I assume we are both using the US sense of this word) and a neo-liberal are two different things, although they'd probably have some economic views in common. I suppose both generally imagine themselves to be in the classical liberal tradition, but they've taken it different directions. As I noted above, to me neo-liberals seem to focus primarily on free markets and hold an ideological belief that those will facilitate personal freedom. Libertarians are very often focused rather directly on civil liberties issues. For many self-declared libertarians, the economic issues are almost an afterthought. (My leftist, class-analyzing heritage would say that neo-liberalism is at root an elite, haute bourgeois ideology, and libertarianism, while also bourgeios, seems to appeal mostly to technocrats.)

Again, I have no idea whether your edits in this article are improvements or not: I was just trying to raise the flag on your having removed substantive material, because you didn't raise it yourself, which is against wikipedian custom. When removing content that is not blatant nonsense, but that you think is wrong, it is customary to do at least some of the following (state your case explicitly, move the deleted material to the talk page and identify it as such, if it can easily be characterized describe your edit in the summary, make your deletions in a separate edit from your additions so that comparing versions makes it easy to see what was deleted, etc.). You did none of these, as far as I can tell, so I gave a shout.

As for Political spectrum, if you want to discuss it (which is fine), let's do it over there so that people monitoring that article know what is going on. OK? -- Jmabel 01:21, 28 Jan 2004 (UTC)

1954? Jeebus.....I will accept whippersnapper then. Okay, now I recognise a problem in communication. I use Neo-Liberal and Libertarian interchangably, I view Neo-Liberalism as a Right Libertarian ideology (Libertarian being a descriptive word meaning someone who is for Liberty, which means Left-Libertarian are Anarcho-Communists.) Would you say that Libertarianism and Classical Liberalism are the same?

Sorry about not following wikipedian custom, but I was just doing some work and then saw the page, so I joined up and edited it......it was just too biased. It's like the first thing I did when I joined, in fact it was my reason for joining.

Slizor

glad to have you aboard. It's (almost) always a little rocky at first: you're joining an enormous community and it has its customs. I don't like every single one of them, but when in Rome...

I would say that most libertarians believe that libertarianism and classical liberalism are the same. I am not sure I agree with them - partly because holding certain opinions in the 21st century is not the same as holding them in the 19th. For example:

Not all classical liberals opposed slavery; certainly no libertarian today upholds slavery.
19th-century classical liberals generally opposed women's suffrage; again, I cannot imagine a libertarian today holding that opinion.

Conversely, the advocacy of free markets when the alternative was French mercantilism is a very different thing that when the alternative might be the existence of the Environmental Protection Agency. That is, the current politically viable alternatives to this general viewpoint are very different. Making the same choice from a different set of alternatives can, in practice be a very different thing. By way of a (very) loose analogy, you'd see a person differently for choosing broccoli over filet mignon and choosing broccoli over dog food.

Also, "Libertarian" in American usage doesn't usually include anarcho-communists. (By the way "libertaria" in Spanish usage, same etymology, refers to those anarchists who reject participating in government even when they are welcomed, as for example by the Spanish Republic during the Spanish Civil War. The "anarchistas" chose to serve in a government they saw as a bulwark against fascism, the "libertarias" said not even in those circumstances.) Yes, etymologically it comes from "liber", as does "liberal", and of course people who subscribe to either ideology like that etymology and like saying they "stand for freedom", but one person's "freedom" is often another's "oppression". Again, this is getting off topic to this article, though, and I don't want to eat up its talk page. -- Jmabel 07:20, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Libertarian and Classical Liberal are the same thing, though of course modern libertarians have had a couple of hundred years to further develop their beliefs. -anon

recent anon addition "From 1990th Techno-liberals are focussed on Building a Free Information Infrastructure. Also the Free Software movement is part of this techno-liberal culture" seems true (if poorly spelled), but irrelevant. Does it really belong in the article? -- Jmabel 03:18, 22 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I agree, unless anyone has an argument for it staying it should be given 24 hours then got rid of. It's just not relevant. Slizor 23:20, 2004 Feb 22 (UTC)

Done. -- Jmabel 22:59, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)~

Another recent addition by an anon: "Another important thinker of classical liberalism is Frédéric Bastiat (See www.bastiatfoundation.org)." I have never heard of Bastiat. A quick web search confirms he is associated with libertarianism. Would someone with a clue either wikify and expand, or delete, as appropriate? -- Jmabel 22:59, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I had a quick look too, seems like he has a whole host of neo-liberal cheerleaders in the US (It also said that he was largely ignored in France.) I wouldn't include him, there's other more famous thinkers who could be included. Slizor 14:59, 2004 Mar 15 (UTC)

I just want to point out that Bastiat is without question one of the greatest economic thinkers of all time! -- anon

Hi folks, I felt that there was a lot of spin towards liberatarianism => classical liberalism => outdated. I've tried to focus on neutralising the tone, rather than adding content in my edit. The problem with the evolution of political ideas is that they come under strain from issues of modern lifestyles and modern ideas, that their original advocates might have not had to think about.

The main thing to remember about ideologies is that they say what is important, but they don't always make the judgements or boundary calls you need to hold a firm political position. Classical liberalism is fundamentally about freedom. How you balance various forms of freedom is an open question. The article should reflect that ambiguity and follow on to closer discussion of how more modern ideologies have elected to interpret freedom in a contemporary society.

Ben Arnold 00:20, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)