Talk:Classical liberalism/Archive 4

I do not think a disambiguation page is appropriate, the usages are too close together.

The lede should say that while some authors use "classical liberalism" to mean all liberalism before the 20th century, most academic authors reserve the phrase for 19th century liberalism which combines earlier forms of liberalism with classical economics. In addition, some libertarians use the phrase to describe their belief in small government and laizzes fair economics.

Rick Norwood (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, the word “libertarian” invites its own struggles over meaning. I don't know of any notable source that both uses “libertarian” to refer to something like absolute adherence to the “non-coercion principle” and treats “classical liberal” as an equivalent term. Rather, there are some present-day thinkers who use both terms as equivalent in reference to a less strictly defined ideology. Both would agree that “libertarianism” refers to a subset of what they call “classical liberalism”, but the former would see it as a proper subset. —SlamDiego_←T 22:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

You can't say "most" unless there is proof that "most" have that definition. Can I touch it? (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Since there are only two versions of how this article should be presented then a disambiguation link would be more appropriate than a disambiguation page. I suggest that the version that uses a broader definition be the main article. Although there may be some overlap, it is acceptable to have articles that focus on specific aspects of topics. After all, however it is defined, there will always be overlap between an article about liberalism and one about classical liberalism. Suggest making a copy of this article then adjusting the leads to explain the topic and editing them to reflect the subject matter. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

What is your justification for which use of the term "classical liberalism" is going to the "main article"? Can I touch it? (talk) 22:42, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

19th century laissez-faire liberalism is a subset of any other possible definition of classical liberalism. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

But sources use laissez-faire liberalism as a synonym for classical liberalism. Locke is considered a laissez-faire liberal. [1] [2] No one would argue that Locke wasn't for laissez-faire, for government leaving person and property alone except to protect it. So why prefer 19th century laissez-faire liberalism over an article that includes 17th century laissez-faire liberalism? Can I touch it? (talk) 22:58, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Friedrich Hayek and Robert Nozick are also described as classical liberals in your sources. That does not mean that we should not have separate articles for neoliberalism and libertarianism. The Four Deuces (talk) 23:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's analagous. Neoliberalism is a unique term. So it libertarian. You're not, as far I can tell, not talking about creating different articles to talk about different terms but just one term "classical liberalism." Can I touch it? (talk) 23:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

No is no difference between having separate articles for separate concepts that have different names and concepts that have the same name. Please read WP:Disambiguation. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:29, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes there is. A disambiguation is for when a term has more than one common meaning. Having different articles with different names is when the names of the articles don't have the the same meanings. Can I touch it? (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC).

The term "classical liberalism" has more than one common meaning. We have been discussing which of these meanings should be used for this article for some time. The Four Deuces (talk) 01:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

(out) Here is an interesting exert from the Cato Institute:

During the nineteenth century the principles of individual liberty, constitutionally limited government, peace, and reliance on the institutions of civil society and the free market for social order and economic prosperity were fused together into a powerful synthesis, known as liberalism. Although the term "liberalism" retains its original meaning in most of the world, it has unfortunately come to have a very different meaning in late twentieth-century America. Hence terms such as "market liberalism," "classical liberalism," or "libertarianism" are often used in its place in America.[3]

The Four Deuces (talk) 01:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, this is a source that liberalism didn't exist until the 19th century? So this would make Locke not a liberal? Can I touch it? (talk) 02:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Again there is no agreement on terminology. The only concensus is that a new ideology emerged in the 19th century and its followers called themselves liberals. I can find no sources that deny this - even libertarians accept that view. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:21, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Since Slam and CITI have no interest in dividing the article, I suggest leaving it as an article about 19th century liberalism with the qualification that the term can be used in different ways. If anyone wants to create an article about Lockean liberalism they can but it is already covered in the main Liberalism article. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:46, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

As I raised the suggestion of hatnotes a while back, and as you began with the notion that this article should focus on some sort of 19th Century liberalism, I'm not sure in what way the proposal is new. As to my having “no interest in dividing the article”, I've repeatedly said that I don't have a problem with having multiple articles, but that they must have clearly defined subjects. —SlamDiego_←T 20:06, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

But Locke's philosophy will have to be covered as well, because his ideas are part of "19th century liberalism." You can't discuss "19th century liberalism" with only discussing free market economic theories. The political liberalism of Locke is part of it. "19th century liberalism" includes the philosophy of Locke, such as natural rights, private property, and so on. "19th century liberalism" is not something that just spontaneously appeared. It's the combination of ideas over centuries that comprise the liberalism of 19th century. Are you understanding what I'm saying? Can I touch it? (talk) 20:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

To explain it another way, if Locke's philosophy is not classical liberalism that's fine. But that doesn't mean that his philosophy is not a PORTION of classical liberalism. See? Classical liberalism is the totality of political and economic liberalism, in the view that classical liberalism didn't coagulate until the 19th century. Can I touch it? (talk) 20:59, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

His ideas are also part of all subsequent liberal theory and also socialism, communism and anarchism. The Four Deuces (talk) 00:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, so? His advocacy of private property certainly isn't part of communism. Is your position that if some of his ideas are included in some other philosophy than classical liberalism that some of his ideas can't be part of classical liberalism? Can I touch it? (talk) 01:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

You just admitted that his ideas are part of classical liberalism. Ok, so it's settled then right? Locke's contribution to classical liberalism ought to be presented. Can I touch it? (talk) 02:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It would be helpful for the article if you could find sources showing how his ideas influenced 19th century liberalism. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Under the chapter title of "Nineteenth Century Ideologies": "Classical liberalism was built on these ideas that had been circulating for more than a century, dating back to at least Rene Descartes and certainly included many of those propounded by John Locke...Our first selection in this chapter provides extracts from Locke's Second Treatise of Government, and early and highly influential formulation of many ideas that became absorbed within classical liberalism." [4]

"We need to address the theories of the 'New Right' and to understand how classical nineteenth-century liberal thinking came to be resurrected in the very different political context of the 1970's. The classical liberal tradition of political economy (deriving from writers like Adam Smith) and political philosophy (based on a tradition of work from John Locke to John Stuart Mill) respresents a stark contrast with socialist thinking." [5]" Can I touch it? (talk) 18:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

""Classical liberalism" is indentified with the free market. Locke did not have a fully developed theory of the market, but he helped lay the foundations for one by stressing that a major purpose of goverment is the protection of private property. The principles of the market were brought to light in the eighteenth centuyry by numerous writers, of whom the most famous was Adam Smith...Smith articulated in this passage a central belief of classical liberalis: that the common good can be served in the economic sphere by individual initiative without state direction." [6] Can I touch it? (talk) 17:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

"The theoretical roots of liberalism can be found in the seventeenth-century writings of John Lock and the eighteenth century works of Adam Smith." [7] Can I touch it? (talk) 17:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

""Although there were other contributors to classical liberalism, Locke, Smith, and Mill were the founders of the movement. As can be noted, the theory did not develop at once. In fact, even though Locke initiated the theory and put most of its pieces in place, the term 'liberal' was not used until the early nineteenth century." [8]" Can I touch it? (talk) 18:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

""Liberalism emerged in the seventeenth century in England, and flourished throughout Europe in the aftermath of the French Revolution. Its principal theorists were John Locke, the Baron Charles Secondat de Montesquieu, Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, James Maidson...Indeed, they constituted the principal aspirations of liberalism, from the time of Locke in the seventeenth century to the time of Mill in the nineteenth. That this liberalism is usually called "classical liberalism" underscores both its foundational and its anachronistic character." [9]" Can I touch it? (talk) 18:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

"These four principles mark the entire liberal tradition from Locke to the present day...Classical liberalism was the dominant ideology in the nineteenth century in North America, Britain, and much of Western Europe. It accepted the four principles in a straightforward and literal way." [10] Can I touch it? (talk) 18:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I support The Four Deuces's proposal that the article remain about 19th century liberalism (with the qualification that the term can be used in different ways). To use an analogy, the page on Mormonism concentrates on the history of Mormon church under Brigham Young and founder Joseph Smith, Jr. starting in the 1840s. Even though, according to them, they are the true church of Jesus Christ and their history extends back thousands of years. Similarly, the term 'classical liberal' is usually used to refer to the ideas and philosophy that coalesced in the 19th century, and so the page should concentrate on this period regardless of claims of similarity to and descent from earlier thinkers. If I start a new popular philosophy called ominism that claims descent from Gandhi and Einstein, the article on ominism should not state that Gandhi and Einstein were ominists, and should not include extended discussions of their biographies. LK (talk) 06:32, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not that there's a "similarity and descent from earlier thinkers." It IS those ideas of earlier thinkers. Classical liberalism INCLUDES the thought of earlier thinkers. Can I touch it? (talk) 17:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Using LK's example, Mormonism includes the thought of Moses and Jesus, but the history of the church begins in the 1840s. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Well I just gave a bunch of sources above saying that Locke's ideas are part of classical liberalism, even if classical liberalism is defined as not coalescing until the 19th century. In fact, just the idea that classical liberalism is the coalescing of ideas means that it is the putting together ideas formed over the years. There is no way that a complete article on classical liberalism, when defined as something that coalesced in the 19th century, can leave out discussing the ideas of Locke. 19th century liberalism didn't just spontaneously generate. It's a combination of ideas collected over time. Can I touch it? (talk) 18:59, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and I can give a bunch of sources saying that Moses' and Jesus' ideas are part of Mormonism, even if Mormonism is defined as not coalescing until the 19th century. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

If you think you can, then I advise you to do so and go put that information in the appropriate articles. Can I touch it? (talk) 19:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I would not do that because it would then present the article from a non-neutral point of view. The Four Deuces (talk) 19:49, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

To the contrary. To not include significant sourceable information is POV. Wikipedia:NPOV says "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias, ALL SIGNIFICANT VIEWS THAT HAVE BEEN PUBLISHED BY RELIABLE SOURCES." If something is a significant view represented by sources then it's not "POV" to represent it in an article, but is POV to exclude it. Can I touch it? (talk) 03:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

No one is arguing "to not include significant sourceable information". The Four Deuces (talk) 03:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Then it's settled? You're not going to fight inclusion of information about John Locke's ideas in an article about classical liberalism, even if an article is devoted to classical liberalism is defined as the merger of political and economic liberalism in the 19th century? Can I touch it? (talk) 03:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

A question for each of the two of you:

• Touch, what do you think is the least amount of discussion of John Locke appropriate to the article that you have in mind?
• Deuces, what do you think is the greatest amount of discussion of Locke appropriate to the article that you have in mind?

I'm not seeking anything much like a word count, but more in terms of what points would be covered. —SlamDiego_←T 04:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I supposed maybe a small paragraph. His ideas of a natural rights, especially a natural right of private property need to be pointed out. But then not just Locke, but other pre-19th century liberals as well whose ideas are sourced to be part of what came to be known as classical liberalism. Can I touch it? (talk) 04:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The important thing is relevance, the way in which Locke and others influenced liberlism in the 19th century. If the connection is not made then the article could get bogged down in competing interpretations of these writers and, especially with Locke, Hume and Kant, the need to explain their complete philosophies. The Four Deuces (talk) 07:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course. That goes without saying. Can I touch it? (talk) 01:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

You reverted my edit about John Locke. Apparently, from your edit summary, you problem was not with the content but with what you saw as "bad writing." [11] It would seem to me that a good faith editor will simply change the grammar a bit, maybe add or subtract a comma here or there, and so on, instead of just reverting multiple sentences. Why don't you just do this instead of reverting and leaving others no clue what exactly about it you think is bad writing? Please explain, so we can make you happy with the writing style. Without an explanation, there's no reason to not put the information back in. Can I touch it? (talk) 22:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

We have been discussing this. Now coulc you please change the section heading to remove any reference to other editors. The Four Deuces (talk) 22:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Please note that Locke is discussed extensively in the article Liberalism, and that I have never objected to Locke being mentioned in this article, provided it is made clear that in the view of many "Classical Liberalism" means something different from what Locke meant by liberalism. As for the assertion above that it is the duty of other editors to rewrite bad writing, that is not reasonable. You are asking other people to do your work for you. This is not a question of style, but of grammar and usage. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Then explain what you think is wrong with the grammar and usage. If you want to be a constructive participant on Wikipedia, you need to collaborate. And is it your position that my entry was the only bad "grammar and usage" in the whole article? If not, then why single my entry out? You need to work with us here. Can I touch it? (talk) 01:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The passage is internally self-contradictory. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Explain how so. And what suggestions do you have to make it not so? You guys need to learn about collaboration. Don't just make vague claims and revert. Can I touch it? (talk) 02:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

If you want to make an progress on there you need to tone down the language a bit. Why don't you provide the exact text from the citation you are using then we might get some idea of what you are trying to achieve here. However you should not insert the text again until you have agreement here, its called a slow edit war against consensus and will get you a block --Snowded ^TALK 06:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you have anything substantial to add here? Do you have a problem with the entry? If so, what is it? You know what the exact text is. You reverted it twice, and without explaining why. If someone has a problem with the text, they should be able to explain specifically what problem they have with it. You are not editing Wikipedia property. You're supposed to collaborate with people. You're supposed to be helpful. You're not doing that. Can I touch it? (talk) 07:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Do try and read what people say. I asked you to provide the exact text from the citation. Note the from the citation. Also STOP making statements about other editors behaviour and start focusing on content issues. --Snowded ^TALK 07:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

You're telling ME to stop making statements about other editors behavior?? It was you that said "You need to down down the language a bit." All I said is that you who are deleting the information need to explain exactly why you're deleting it. We can't collaborate unless you explain why you are reverting things. That's something you still haven't done. A quote from the book says: "'Classical liberalism' is indentified with the free market. Locke did not have a fully developed theory of the market, but he helped lay the foundations for one by stressing that a major purpose of goverment is the protection of private property. The principles of the market were brought to light in the eighteenth centuyry by numerous writers, of whom the most famous was Adam Smith...Smith articulated in this passage a central belief of classical liberalis: that the common good can be served in the economic sphere by individual initiative without state direction." [12] Please let me know when you figure out why you reverted the text. Can I touch it? (talk) 07:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the text, I'm pleased you understood the request the second time round.. I think it supports the current reference to Locke in the history section of the article (possibly with a slight expansion). Even as a direct quote I don't think it would have a place in the overview. Locke is one of the sources from which classical liberalism evolved but (i) your edit gives that too much prominence and (ii) the words you used implied more than the citation supports and were badly worded --Snowded ^TALK 08:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Why? Why do you think it shouldn't be in the overview section? An overview is an overview of the article. If Locke is discussed in the history section, then he needs to be mentioned in the overview, because he's at the basis of classical liberalism. And, what exactly in my text is not supported by the source? And where exactly is the alleged bad wording? Can I touch it? (talk) 08:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

My reasons are stated above and there is a limit to how much help I am prepared to give to an editor who shows little sign of appreciating it. --Snowded ^TALK 08:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

If I put the text in the History section instead of the Overview section, are you going to revert it? You need to explain exactly what problems you have with the text. You may not like being helpful for some type of person reasons, but you really ought to be. If you want someone to appreciate you being helpful, then you need to be helpful in the first place. Can I touch it? (talk) 08:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

(Sigh) That text would be reverted, try working on something brief and literate and posting it here first for opinions --Snowded ^TALK 08:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

You're implying that my text was not "literate"? Here is the text that was last removed: "Classical liberalism begins with the ideas of seventeenth century liberals such as John Locke, whose ideas were combined with later writers. Locke did not have a fully elaborated market theory, but by stressing that private property should be protected laid the foundations for later writers such as Adam Smith who argued against state direction of the economy." Tell me, where is the "bad wording" you allege? And what is not brief about it? Do you have a suggestion on how to say the same thing but more efficiently? Can I touch it? (talk) 08:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

For the last time; I don't think the material adds anything of value to the article. There may be a case for some minor change to the History section (a short sentence at most). The onus is on you to make a case for changes when other editors oppose them, or use the various options within WIkipedia to get other editors involved if you are unhappy with the consensus position. If you ask a new and valid question, or if you make a different or modified proposal then I will respond. Otherwise this exchange is at an end. For the avoidance of doubt you do not have my agreement to insert your text anywhere in the article in its current form, or in any other form without getting clear agreement here first. If you continue to edit the article directly without that consensus then I will report you for edit warring --Snowded ^TALK 08:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

You don't think it adds anything of value to the article? Are you aware that things in Wikipedia are supposed to be sourced? The talk of Locke in the History section is not sourced. So you think that's better than putting something there that's sourced?? And about edit warring, it takes more than one to edit warring. I'll report you for edit warring if you keep reverting things without explanations. I've got you to speak here now, but before you were reverting with no explanation, just plain being disruptive. So, what kind of justification do you have for preferring the unsourced to the sourced? Can I touch it? (talk) 08:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I gather that, when you finally read carefully what you had written, you caught your own errors. Good for you. But think how many hours you wasted complaining that other people did not do your rewrite for you, when you could have done it yourself all along! Rick Norwood (talk) 12:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't do a "rewrite." I removed two stray words ("those who") that were accidently there through editing. Just think if you were a more helpful member of the Wikipedia community, you could have just pointed out the typo when I didn't see it. Instead, you make revert the text with no assistance whatsoever, putting the inflammatory insulting and vague claim in your edit summary: "bad writing Anyone writing for the English language Wikipedia must be able to write well in English." And then continuing to not offer help when you were asked what was wrong. Get with the program. Learn to do collaborate editing. Can I touch it? (talk) 20:06, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

IM, did you ever edit this article under other accounts, e.g., Introman? The Four Deuces (talk) 20:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

No. Can I touch it? (talk) 20:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

People who make personal attacks do not encourage collaboration. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you claiming I made a personal attack? Where is it? Can I touch it? (talk) 19:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

One example is just a few lines up: "Just think if you were a more helpful member of the Wikipedia community..." Rick Norwood (talk) 12:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

User Snowded removed Locke from the statement "Notable individuals who have contributed to classical liberalism include John Locke, Adam Smith..." Yet the article, in the History section, says that's true about Locke. Above, Snowded appeared to be fine with that statement in the History section. Why are you deleting it Snowded? Need a source? [13]. Can I touch it? (talk) 20:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Most 101 philosophy courses have a Locke, Barclay, Descartes and Hume section. There is development between the ideas but that does not mean they are the same. Locke does not (as your own citation shows) have a developed idea of a market economy and he did not contribute directly to classical liberalism. A reference to the development from his (and others) in the history section is fine. Your edit made it too prominent. --Snowded ^TALK 20:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Where are you getting idea that the statement is claiming that "they are the same"? That's not what the statement says. Most discussions in books and articles about classical liberalism give Locke very prominent attention. Can I touch it? (talk) 20:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Is your problem because it says "Notable individuals who have contributed.." Would you leave it in if it says "Notable individuals whose philosophies have contributed..." ? Can I touch it? (talk) 20:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Lets see what other editors think. Its not the biggest of issues, but I think you are placing far too much emphasis on Locke. --Snowded ^TALK 20:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Simply putting his name there is putting far too much emphasis? How much less emphasis can one give? Can I touch it? (talk) 20:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

My point was a general one relating to a series of edits from you. On this one I will leave it to other editors to determine. I think Locke is misappropriated by a whole bunch of people including some Libertarians. But others may disagree, if so I will go with the majority --Snowded ^TALK 20:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

A series of edits by me? My edit certainly did not give more importance to Locke than the discussion about him in History section of this article. All it did was say in different words what was in the history section, because it was sourced. Again, I ask you, why would you delete my sourced statement and be fine with the unsourced statement about him? And it doesn't matter if you or anyone else here think Locke is misapopriated. What matters is what the sources say. Can I touch it? (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Please read previous responses here and on your talk page. You are consuming far too much of my time at the moment; I am not interesting in the level of repetition that you seem to enjoy. --Snowded ^TALK 21:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

You're consuming too much of my time as well. This article was going along much better before you got here and started reverting things without explanation and not having read the previous discussions. You never answered my question about why you prefer the unsourced statement to my sourced one. Can I touch it? (talk) 21:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you live under a bridge? How many other editors have reverted your material? Maybe there is a lesson for you there--Snowded ^TALK 21:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The reason my statement was deleted (after it was reinserted after extensive discussion) was because of a TYPO. You came along not paying any attention to what was going on and started edit warring by reverting without explanation. That TYPO was fixed, and the person who deleted it because of the typo now seems satisfied. The discussions about Locke had already taken place and it appeared to me everyone agreed that Locked deserves some discussion. You came to this article without having been involved in discussions and started reverting. You didn't approach this article properly, by not examining the discussions, the agreements that had been come to, or WHY anyone was reverting. You have only caused discord when everyone was coming to an understanding. There's your lesson. Explain your edits. See WHY someone reverted. Examine the discussions. Can I touch it? (talk) 21:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

"Perhaps the most central thinker in classical liberal thought, John Locke, appropriated key premises of Hobbesian individualism..." [14] Can I touch it? (talk) 20:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

"The theoretical roots of liberalism can be found in the seventeenth-century writings of John Lock and the eighteenth century works of Adam Smith. These early liberals are known as classical liberals. In the nineteenth century, liberalism was modified by theorists such as T. H. Greene and Jane Addams. This later for of liberalism is termed modern liberalism." [15] Can I touch it? (talk) 20:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

"Liberalism has taken three distinct forms...the classical liberal era ran from the late seventeenth century until some time around the end of the nineteenth century in the United States. The furst true defense of classical liberalism was John Locke's Second Treatist of Government, published anonymously in 1690. Classical liberal ideas germinated throought the eighteenth century and become the dominant approach to U.S. politics by the early to mid-nineteenth century." [16] Can I touch it? (talk) 20:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

"Classical liberalism is a term used to describe a political philosophy commonly held in nineteenth century England and France. Classical liberal thought has its beginnings in John Locke" [17] Can I touch it? (talk) 20:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

"Locke was one of the first social theorists to offer a theory of value in which human labour was central, and also gave the classical liberal defence of private property of land and environment, which was one of the main tenets of the emerging market society." [18] Can I touch it? (talk) 20:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

See WP:FLOG. The Four Deuces (talk) 12:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Very briefly, because it has been said before. When "Classical Liberalism" is used to mean Jacksonian Liberalism or small government liberalism, Locke is not a contributor. Whem "Classical Liberalism" is used to mean any early form liberalism, Locke was an important contributor, but then it doesn't mean small government liberalism. Confusing the two is inappropriate. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Whether Locke supported small government was not even mentioned. Locke gave a justification for private property rights, which was integrated into classical liberalism. Can I touch it? (talk) 18:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Locke's ideas contributed to all liberalism. Are you seriously arguing that Locke was not for small government? Looks like I'm going to have to start bringing out the sources to refute your claim. Can I touch it? (talk) 17:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

"Locke's ideas contributed to all liberalism". Yes, that is why he gets a lot of mention in the Liberalism article. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and? Can I touch it? (talk) 17:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

This is unbelievable. Having an entry on classical liberalism without mentioning Locke is like having an entry on the Constitution without mentioning Madison or Hamilton. Even the wikipedia entry on "liberalism" mentions him prominantly. Is this some sort of wierd revisionist purging? Both Mises and Hayek, who ARE mentioned prominantly, discuss Locke in their own works on Liberalism (both books are simply called "Liberalism" -- great books btw. Since the entry on liberalism acknowledges the obvious, I can only assume the belief here is that 1. the other entry is wrong, or 2. Locke is a Modern and not classical liberal. Which is it?74.203.191.24 (talk)

"Thus, in the late seventeenth-century world of John Locke and the eighteenth century-world of Thomas Jeffeson, liberalism, as part of the political vocabulary of the free individual, was articulated in terms of small government..." [19] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Can I touch it? (talk • contribs) 17:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

You just did a search on books for "locke" +"small government" and found a sentence that combines the two. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. That's the kind of information I'm looking for. What's your point? Can I touch it? (talk) 17:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

"These ideas are most clearly articulated by the philosopher John Locke. 1. Individualism...2. Property rights...3. Competititon...4.The limited state---a government lacking in authority to plan or interfere significantly in economic life but capable of responding to a crsis or interest group pressures." [20] Can I touch it? (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

"Locke's principle arguments on behalf of limited government, and against arbitrary government, concerned the rights of property holders to make use of their property as they deemed best." [21] Can I touch it? (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

"Later, in the eighteenth century his major work in political theory, the Second Threatise of Government, drew level with the Essay or even surpassed it in stature, especially in America where its doctrine of limited government and a right of revolution was widely referred to in the years leading up to the American revolution." [22] Can I touch it? (talk) 18:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

My point is that anyone can do a search using any two terms and find a source. When you used "locke" +"small government" it returned 100 books and it was not until the 30th hit that you were able to find a source supporting your belief. You do not know anything about the book, whether it is respected or not, or whether the author is using the term "small government" in a manner consistent with the way you are. This is disruptive editing, because it causes us to do all this work. Rather than proceed as you and Introman before you did, you should read some of the sources for the article and gain an understanding of the subject. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not that only that one supported my belief, but that one has to find the most explicit statement possible because others will claim that it's open to interpretation. So I'm just trying to find explicit statements. To claim that bring sources forth is disruptive editing is ridiculous. This is exactly what we should be doing. I've read Locke's Second Treatise of Govenrment and studied him in political philosophy classes. So, I already know genearlly what the sources are talking about. I don't have to read the whole books. Can I touch it? (talk) 18:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

This is all so silly. Did not Locke argue for "liberty"? To have the most liberty, you have to have the opposite of tyranny. That is, you have to have government that is the most restrained from interfering with your liberty. Can I touch it? (talk) 18:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

No you should not look for sources that support your view, but report what the best sources say. And our opinions of what Locke actually meant are not relevant. The Four Deuces (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Methodology of finding sources is irrelevant on Wikipedia. All that matter is whether a claim can be sourced or not. Can I touch it? (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

To favor small government in an age of government monopolies, absolute monarchs, and an established church, does not mean what modern advocates of small government mean. If you read just a few more paragraphs in the sources you quote, you will discover that. "To have the most liberty...you have to have government that is most restricted from interfering with your liberty." This is what Can I touch it says, not what the sources say. The sources say that a "government that is most restricted from interfering with your liberty" allows a tyrany of the majority and a tyrany of the wealthy and powerful. Read, for example, The Federalist Papers. Read the Bill of Rights. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

No, a government that is the most restricted from interfering with you liberty does not allow tyranny of the majority. What do you think a tyranny of the majority is? It's democratic government restricting your liberty. Can I touch it? (talk) 16:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

When the US federal government did not interfere in the Southern states, minorities had no protection from the tyranny of the majority. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Then government in the Southern states were not restricted from interfering with liberty, therefore the governments there were not acting in the proper role as a protect of liberty. The proper role for government, for classical liberals, is mainly only to stand in the way of restrictions on liberty, whether the restrictions are attempted by private individuals upon other private individuals, or governments upon private individuals. The purpose of government is to defend liberty. Can I touch it? (talk) 17:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually they were subject to the US constitution. But many of the civil rights violations were committed by non-government organizations, like the Ku Klux Klan or by individuals who enjoyed freedom from government restraint. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You think that if government is protecting private individuals from attacking other private individuals that this is not small government? Small government doesn't mean murder, stealing, etc, are legal. It means that this is largely all government is confined to doing, mainly just protecting your freedom. You may call stopping one person from killing another "intervention," but that's not what the term typically refers to. It means POSITIVE intervention. Positive intervention is that other than protecting of freedom, such as telling you how much money you have to pay a worker. That's intervention. That's government restricting your liberty. Classical liberals understood liberty to be negative liberty. If a government stops someone from stealing your money, that's not government outstepping the bounds of being an entity that is restricted from interfering with your liberty. Can I touch it? (talk) 17:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

All of these arguments about positive and negative liberty orginated long after Locke. If you want to see Locke as a crusader for small government against the Jacobite welfare state then you are entitled to. But that is really fringe. The Four Deuces (talk) 18:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I know this about positive and negative liberty came after Locke. That's my point. For the classical liberals, liberty was understood as negative liberty. That is, freedom from restraint. They didn't use the term "liberty" to mean what we call today "positive liberty." There was no debate on negative versus positive liberty, at least not in those terms. It was simple. Liberty was just freedom to do what you want without being restrained by someone else as long as you don't harm others, whether the restraint was coming from another person or a government. A government that is largely confined to protecting negative liberty, was considered the proper role of government. Government intervening to promote what was call positive liberty, was not advocated. Can I touch it? (talk) 01:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

So where did Locke talk about positive liberty? The Four Deuces (talk) 01:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Read what I just said. I said he DIDN'T. That's my point. To repeat, to the classical liberals, "liberty" was simply what we call today to be precise "negative liberty." There was no such term as "positive liberty," and no advocacy of government providing positive liberty whether using the term "positive liberty" to refer to the concept behind it or not. The argument that government should intervene to promote what we call positive liberty came from the modern liberals. Can I touch it? (talk) 02:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

{od}This has gone on long enough. There is a clear consensus against you on this one and continued exchanges on the talk page are getting no where. Sometimes you just have to realise that things come to an end. There are wikipedia appeal mechanisms if you are unhappy with the consensus position but either you use those, or you give up. --Snowded ^TALK 06:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Consensus against me on what exactly? It looks like you have come in interjecting again without knowing what's going on. What are you claiming there's a consensus against me on? Can I touch it? (talk) 08:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The consensus is that the phrase "classical liberalism" has three distinct uses and that these uses should not be confused. The consensus is that this pages should not be a forum for your personal beliefs about positive liberty and negative liberty. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not in favor of confusing any different uses of classical liberalism. And the discussion above was in response to your claims that Locke was not for a government restrained from interfering with liberty or that a government restrained from interfering with liberty allows tyranny of the majority. If you don't want to be refuted on talk pages, then don't start asserting your personal beliefs on talk pages. Can I touch it? (talk) 17:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This from someone who claims not to indulge in personal attacks! The points have been explained to you as clearly as possible. The consensus disagrees with you. I don't think anything is to be gained by continuing this discussion. Rick Norwood (talk) 21:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You claimed before that I made personal attacks. I'm still waiting for you to prove it. Where is a personal attack? And the consensus disagrees with me on what? Can I touch it? (talk) 01:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You have no support for the positions you are taking on this page (hence my comment yesterday morning). If you can't see the personal attacks then I feel sorry for you; your response to me above is one example. Its over, you do not have support, persisting with the issue in this forum is now just wasting people's time. --Snowded ^TALK 07:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

That's not true that I have no support for any of my positions on this talk page. You should be careful about blanket statements like that. And now you're claiming I made personal attacks. Where are they? Both you guys claim it but you can't provide evidence. You're claiming I made a person attack "above." Where is it? Can I touch it? (talk) 00:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I join Snowded and Rick Norwood in opposing your position. The Four Deuces (talk) 02:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

What position is that? Guys, if you oppose something, you need to specify what it is. And don't just say you oppose everything I say. What specific position of mine are you opposing? Furthermore, are you just opposing some philosophical point or are you opposing something about I want in the article? The above discussions have gone all over the place. What exactly are you opposing? Can I touch it? (talk) 03:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Please stop inserting text that disrupts editing of the article. The Four Deuces (talk) 03:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

You need to be more specific. Can I touch it? (talk) 03:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

No, we don't need to be more specific. We have been specific. You need to read more carefully. You seem to be arguing just for the sake of arguing, long after all the points have been made on both sides. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes you do need to be more specific. How can you say I'm arguing just for the sake of arguing if you're responding? For what sake are you arguing? You're the one that made the claim a government which government which is limited from interfering with liberty allows for tyranny of the majority. I refuted that. Again, if you don't want someone responding to your arguments then don't start arguments. Can I touch it? (talk) 20:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

"Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, Robert Nozick, Loren Lomasky, and Jan Narveson" seems like a long list for the lede. Any objection to mentioning the first three in the lede and the others in the body of the article? A separate but related question: is Milton Friedman a classical liberal? He favors a "negative income tax" to relieve poverty. Rick Norwood (talk) 14:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Friedman identified himself as a classical liberal.[23]--Britannicus (talk) 18:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't have the time or energy to wade through all of the preceeding discussions. However, it does seem that there has been some debate about the direction and foci of this article already, and I just want to chime in a little.

It seems to me that this article is way too focused on an economics persepective on classical liberalism (and perhaps an anachronictically modern one, at that), so much so that it overshadows or confuses the other very important facets of classical liberalism, some of which I understand to be social, scientific and (perhaps most significantly) political. I just want to see proportionate weight given to the major ideas, and remove distracting or innacuarate characterizations. Shoreranger (talk) 16:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Much of the article contains information outside the scope of the subject, e.g., neoliberalism and libertarianism. The Four Deuces (talk) 17:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Make that three people who are in agreement here. The article is, quite simply, a disorganized mess.UberCryxic ^(talk) 00:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

You all have done all you can here to eliminate the similarity of libertarianism to classical liberalism. You have removed any mention of economics from the initial description in the article. Economic philosophies are core issues of classical liberalism. You can't rewrite the school of thought based on personal principals, which is exactly what you have tried to do with these recent changes. You've bent over backwards to minimalism the free market, and laissez-faire aspects of classical liberalism. The article was much more representative of classical liberalism prior to the changes. I suggest we replace the material which was removed, in addition to removing the speculative statements of the authors. The bias in the recent changes is blatant and intellectually dishonest.  — [Unsigned comment added by Jadenizm (talk • contribs) 02:44, 25 April 2010.]

The article mentions free markets in the second sentence and repeatedly throughout. If you want to remove freedom of religion, speech, and so on from the description in order to emphasize the free market aspect, I would not object.

On another topic. Something has happened to mess up the section breaks in the article. Would someone who knows how try to fix that, please.

Rick Norwood (talk) 12:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

The article is about classical liberalism not about the comparison between classical liberalism and libertarianism. If you think the topic is described incorrectly then please provide sources for a better description. TFD (talk) 15:12, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I started a new section, Classical liberalism#Core principles. This whole article is poor because it is written from a modern, US perspective and going forward it needs to be re-written from good sources. TFD (talk) 17:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

There is currently a disconnect between the section "Core principles" and the section "Definition". Also, shouldn't "definition" come first? Rick Norwood (talk) 12:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

We should delete the definitions section because the subject is defined in the lede, and explains that other definitions exist. TFD (talk) 14:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I removed it and also re-wrote the opening of the "History" section. TFD (talk) 04:36, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

This sections seems essay-like and not relevant to the subject and I will therefore delete it. The section on free trade and world peace is weak too for several reasons although this was part of classical liberal belief. TFD (talk) 23:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The article was tagged for the following: style, misleading, unfactual and biased. Since these were placed some time ago, I recommend that they be removed. While there is obviously room for improvement, if there is no response I will remove the tags. TFD (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)