Talk:Liberalism

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 February 2019 and 3 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): DaniloHelber (article contribs). Peer reviewers: DaniloHelber.

" Ridiculous Lexicon Of Liberalism As Conservatism "

The principles of libertarianism stipulate non aggression principles and negative wrights to establish negative liberties with respect to government ( freedom from interference by government ) , however negative wrights do not establish non aggression principles or negative liberties with respect to other individuals ( freedom from interference by other citizens ) , which are ensured through authoritarian actions of government by positive wrights .

EDITORIAL NOTE : The contemporary lexicon applies the term " liberalism " with a false equivalence that positive wrights to establish non aggression principles and negative liberties be extrapolated to include positive liberties , as positive liberties are entirely a conservative precept ( conservation of government ) that is logically disjunct from non aggression principles and negative liberties .

GeMiJa (talk) 00:47, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

None of those are WP:RS. Besides, US conservatism means classical liberalism. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:25, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

"Classic" American conservatism is a mildly left-of-center form of "Classical Liberalism". The Republican Party, which used to be the party of classic American conservatives, is no longer a "classical liberal" party, it is largely the party of right-wing populism and other extremeist forms. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:00, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

My issue is that US liberalism and conservatism represent significant deviations from a consistent application of the terminology , and I therefore agree only in part with a technical assertion that us conservatism means classical liberalism ( see contradiction and doublespeak ). I understand the wikipedia establishes documentation and would not elaborate on such pet peeves without a reference compliant with its policies . My issue is that the inconsistencies represent a political science travesty which allows individuals and parties to feign one creed while acting completely contrary with it .

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism : "Before 1920, the main ideological opponent of classical liberalism was conservatism, but liberalism then faced major ideological challenges from new opponents: fascism and communism." " " Consequently, in the United States the ideas of individualism and laissez-faire economics previously associated with classical liberalism became the basis for the emerging school of libertarian thought[25] and are key components of American conservatism." GeMiJa (talk) 12:32, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Ah yes-- Clinton Rossiter called it the "Great Train Robbery." Wikipedia's job is to tell what happened --Please use Facebook to complain about how history happened. Rjensen (talk) 12:39, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

What changes do you think the article should make? TFD (talk) 22:58, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for asking TFD . In general , negative liberties are founded from principles of non aggression , whether those negative liberties arise from laws phrased as negative wrights or as positive wrights . The wiki article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights is emphatically false in its depiction of negative and positive wrights , which obtain meaning from the method of phraseology applied in a law , where the former phrase of law stipulates actions a government shall not take and the latter phrase of law stipulates actions a government shall take . Consequently , negative and positive liberties arise from applying laws phrased as negative or positive wrights . As such , negative wrights always establish negative liberties with respect to government but negative wrights do not necessarily establish negative liberties between individuals ( non government ) . Alternatively , positive wrights may establish negative liberties between individuals ; in addition , positive wrights may also establish positive liberties for individuals within a social system . Whether a negative liberty or a positive liberty arises from a law phrased as a positive wright , an authoritarian or positive action of government is remanded through the policy as law .

The reason the distinction between wrights and liberties is being stressed is because " equal wrights " has become an absurd premise , because negative liberties establish protections , while positive liberties establish endowments . Such is another reason why limiting the term " liberal " to negative liberties and founded upon non aggression principles is relevant , as while extolling that equal wrights denotes equal protections is valid , extolling that equal wrights denotes equal endowments is an obvious absurdity .

Reference from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights : Rights considered negative rights may include civil and political rights such as freedom of speech, life, private property, freedom from violent crime, freedom of religion, habeas corpus, a fair trial, and freedom from slavery. Rights considered positive rights, as initially proposed in 1979 by the Czech jurist Karel Vasak, may include other civil and political rights such as police protection of person and property and the right to counsel, as well as economic, social and cultural rights such as food, housing, public education, employment, national security, military, health care, social security, internet access, and a minimum standard of living. In the "three generations" account of human rights, negative rights are often associated with the first generation of rights, while positive rights are associated with the second and third generations. GeMiJa (talk) 12:08, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Obviously, classical liberalism plays a role in modern conservatism in the US. But it is not a large roll. For example, conservative presidents tend to go deeply in debt, and classical liberals put up with it, presumably because conservatives lower taxes for the world's richest corporations. (I've seen estimates that about 17% of modern conservatives are classical liberals, but I do not consider that figure reliable enough to put in the article.) Much more important to modern conservatives everywhere is fear of foreigners and support for laws making certain religious beliefs compulsory, especially laws forbidding abortion. Rick Norwood (talk) 11:59, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

The classical liberals who drafted the US Constitution believed in slavery and that women cannot vote. Things have changed a lot. It used to be a radical, revolutionary, left-wing stance, now classical liberalism is considered right-wing, since many political currents appeared to the left of classical liberalism. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:06, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

GeMiJa, your point was elegantly made in Herbert Spencer's The New Toryism, who argued that the Liberal Party was acting like Conservatives. However, that view has little acceptance outside libertarianism. The section social liberal theory explains how modern liberalism is based on traditional liberal concepts, rather than conservatism. We might add however the criticisms of neo-classical liberals that modern liberalism was not true liberalism.

I would point out too that the view that rights derive from government (the positive law theory) was actually not supported by all traditional liberals. John Locke and some of the U.S. founding fathers for example argued for natural law.

TFD (talk) 20:20, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan and Bush 41 are the role models for conservatives. Other than that, what passes as conservatism on 4chan and such are radicals leaning towards theocracy. Conservatives/classical liberals hate radicals. Radicals believe that a powerful, activist, interventionist state is the solution, conservatives/classical liberals believe that too much state is the problem. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:05, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

"Liberal" means left wing in US, it means right wing in Australia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

"Liberal" in the U.S. is applied to a mildly left-of-center position. It is "left wing" only if that term is used for everything left of center. American liberalism is thus equivalent to "center-left" in Europe.

Do you have a citation for "liberal" meaning "right-wing" in Australia? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:36, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

There are several supporting Liberal Party of Australia#Ideology and factions. Take your pick. HiLo48 (talk) 03:47, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, the name of a party won't do it. Political things often get named for what impression they wish to make, as opposed to what they really are. For instance, the "Democratic Republic of Germany" (East Germany) was neither democratic nor a republic. In short, politicians lie. I have no doubt that the Liberal Party of Australia is conservative, but it doesn't support the notion that in Australia, "liberal" = "conservative". Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:56, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

But the name of the party DOES do it. Look a little bit more at that article. The Liberal Party is one of the two major parties in Australia. Has been for all of my longish life. It's in government right now. The first and almost exclusive use of the word "liberal" that an Australian ever hears is in reference to that party and its policies. It's very difficult to use the word in conversation in Australia and have it understood to mean anything else but right wing politics. One has to go to considerable trouble to establish the context for a different meaning. As an analogy, in Australia, republicans are people who want the country to abolish the royal family and become a republic. That's the classical definition. But that's not what it means is the USA, is it? Asking me to provide a citation is liking asking for a citation that the sky is blue. HiLo48 (talk) 05:06, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it follows that because Australian liberals belong to the more right-wing of the two parties that therefore liberal means right-wing. Would they for example refer to Pauline Hanson's party as liberal? Incidentally, liberals formed the right-wing party at various times in the Canadian provinces of British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Quebec. TFD (talk) 22:52, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

The United States is the only country where both major parties (in fact the only major parties) are liberal. But in the rest of the world, where there are left-wing parties, liberals are considered either centrist or right-wing. Often, such as in Australia, conservatives and liberals unite as an anti-Socialist coalition. TFD (talk) 04:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 January 2019

This edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Liberalism&oldid=865338187

under the guise of rewording did away with liberals belief in free markets. Belief in free market is an important pillar of liberal ideology.

Please restore! 2600:387:4:803:0:0:0:5A (talk) 18:23, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! — Newslinger talk 13:53, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2019

Could a link to Intergenerational equity be included in the introductory paragraph (and elsewhere as needed), either alongside gender and racial equality or beside (and as an important caveat to) liberal support for capitalism? --122.149.230.174 (talk) 14:08, 20 May 2019 (UTC)Mithrae

Semi-protected addition suggested

Hi - I would like to suggest the addition of a new paragraph into its own section - "The evolution of Social Policy Terminology and Liberalism". I have added text into the criticisms section initially until this talk-page can discuss, edit, etc..

Candidly, we and Wikipedia, really have to stop teaching students these rapidly deprecating, clearly-meaningless terms. Scientists layer fact-on-fact carefully - so as to ensure that the "onion's" many layers retain their value progressively. This is true in maths, physics, chemistry, and every science. In Economics Faculties, however, the antiquated method of layering unsupportable theory-on-theory creates fiction reliably. Worse, we then proceed to promote these now-"credentialled" masters - of fiction, on to run our monetary systems, democratic systems, universities, and boardrooms - to our obvious global detriment today. Mature Capitalisms are expensive, dangerous, avoidable events - and yet all but twenty or so countries internationally, are not experiencing economic stalls and imbalance today. Dystopia is a very real danger of valuing consensus over science in our societies.

Also, just a polite FYI to explain why we should expect challenges whenever defending fiction over proven science (consensus fiction is fiction - angels, afterlife, ... - expect challenge) - even if the proven-science alternative is "new". The adoption of any new science can be a twenty-year process; Einstein's 1905 Relativity Theory sat until 1925 when scientists in the west acknowledged it. Plainly put, professors and senior officials need years to publish books and articles that make new proven science appear compatible with the rubbish they've been on about in their past researches and conclusions - and this can take a lot of time depending on how damaging the change could be to reputations both organizational and individual. Wikipedia's policy insists on "consensus (even if in fiction)", and "no new research" - its a flawed policy where it comes to Social and Economics discussions at present.

Here is the text that I would like to suggest ...

"As new scientific approaches emerge in Economics, traditional social theories are evolving - and terms change in new ways as well. Social, Economic and Business Policies which were previously categorized as Liberal or Conservative for example, are now preferring sustainable or unsustainable designations in Econometrics studies. Socialism - is disambiguated to its eight or ten mixed-meanings, and each meaning is proven or disproven individually. Transition Economics (TE) deprecates terms Liberal, Conservative, Socialism, and any term which cannot be proven to build a strong economy. Per Scientific Method's best-practice, TE's Proofs first, statistically prove that policies that improve economies, and then second, confirm that the statistically proven policy is also observed to support successful economies as well. A case study example is FDR's New Deals and Second Bill of Rights policies - which went on to build the American Dream and the greatest economy in history; these events were observed. The Marshall Plan rolled these Rights into the Constitutions of Japan, Italy, and Germany after World War II - and those nations remain the only G7s with advancing economies (positive trade balances) today. These nations have full healthcare, daycare, six weeks paid vacations, free university tuition (for many), and much lower taxes than America's tax + private insurance models. These countries lost the war, but FDR's Constitutional changes implemented by Truman won the peace - and this is also observable. FDR's nine policies were half-Liberal and half-Conservative, but they are ALL observed and proven to be Sustainable Policies. Using this approach, proven sustainable policies can be cataloged and can be used as building blocks which construct successful nations and economies reliably." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edtilley4 (talk • contribs) 07:37, 30 June 2019 (UTC) Edtilley4 (talk) 07:42, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

And what specifically is the source for your paragraph? Dimadick (talk) 12:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I think your source is using the term liberal in a very narrow U.S. sense. What it calls conservative and transitional economics is all within the liberal framework. TFD (talk) 20:21, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Here's an article about it from the Smithsonian. TFD (talk) 19:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Colours

@Nashhinton: and @The Four Deuces: Re: [1] Could we please have some supporting citations that aren't about graphic design and marketing? Something related to geopolitics and world ideologies would be good. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:33, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll look more later, but according to "The Liberal Democrats and the Green Cause: From Yellow to Green," yellow is "commonly associated with the political ideology of liberalism in Europe," which is why it was adopted by the UK Liberals and the Alliance (p. 106). TFD (talk) 01:57, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. That looks to be an appropriate source, but if it appears that yellow is a color indicating liberalism only in Europe, the article should probably say that. As far as I am aware (being a pretty politically-educated guy) there's no such association in the US. I don't know about other places outside Europe & America. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

The classical liberal party, Libertarian Party, uses the color yellow. Nashhinton (talk) 02:15, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

So does the Liberal International. Beyond the Ken, I don't know of many liberal parties outside Europe. Perhaps we could add in Europe. TFD (talk) 20:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

If you could add "in Europe" (the Libertarian Party's use of yellow on their website is pretty minimal, so I don;t take them as a proven example for the US), and replace the graphics design and marketing sources with the one you found (and any other pertinent ones), that would be great - unless you prefer that I do it? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:22, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I would be appreciative if you would add it. Agree that the Libertarian Party is too insignificant to include. I would leave out the U.S. since the parties don't have official colors. TFD (talk) 22:28, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

OK, I'm off to do that now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:47, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I made the change, but I do want to point out that the publishers of the book you cited "Cambridge Scholars Publishing" is not associated with Cambridge University, and apparently does not have a very good reputation [2]. One source called them "predatory". Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, I'll be damned if I can find a better source, but I've seen enough from sources that for one reason or another aren't usable or aren't quite on point to believe that it's true, so I'm just going to let it sit. Our article Political colour uses the same two sources (i.e. graphics and Indian marketing) that were originally used here, and, besides, it doesn't seem like a very well-referenced article in the first place. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

--- Heartily agree, I've never ever heard of Liberalism having "colours" let alone "yellow". This passage seems wholly contrived and badly sourced, no authority deeper than that some publisher decided on a colour scheme. The idea that "yellow is the colour most associated", or that any colour is so associated, is highly subjective speculation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.34.139.239 (talk) 15:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Cambridge Publishers is not a predatory publisher. It does not charge fees to authors and it pays royalties to them. The author is a lecturer at Jean Moulin University Lyon 3, and has written/presented papers on the LibDems.[3] The editors include an issue editor of the French journal of British studies[4] and a Maître de conférences at the University of Toulon[5] So even if the publisher does not provide adequate peer review, the book would still pass WP:SELFPUB. I would like to see a source though that explains how many liberal parties use yellow and why this is. I suspect that with the Left using red and conservatives using white and blue, they didn't have many colors available. Maybe the lack of coverage of the topic means it should be excluded. TFD (talk) 01:52, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

My personal experience means next to nothing, and is very U.S.-centric, but the only color/political associations that resonates to me are red for Communism and Socialism (although Hitler did a good job of subverting that), and green for the Greens. I've also wondered about the (totally unnecessary) colored flags on various political sidebars here. Were it up to me, I would remove them.

Short but pertinent story: As an inveterate watcher of televised election results, I noted that for many years the Democrats were shown in red, and the Republican in blue, then, one year, it all changed and the colors wee reversed on every network. I don't know if they all decided that marking the Democrats as "Reds" was deceptive (because despite what some on the far-right would like to think, the US Democratic Party is barely liberal, and is not Communist or even Socialist), and that the Republicans were so obviously not "Reds" that they couldn't object to being red. I think, though if you look at Dave Leip's Election of U.S. Presidential Elections, he's still gtot it old style, with the Dems in red and the Republicans in blue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:33, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

In the U.S., the networks reversed the two colors red and blue every four years until 2000 when the Dems were blue and the Reps red. Coincidentally, this coincided with a situation where only three states (OH, FL, PA) were in contention. Whoever won at least two would win the election. Then the terms red state and blue state entered the language and the two colors are now set. TFD (talk) 20:08, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that! I really appreciate learning stuff like that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:54, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Neoliberalism is a current trend in political economy

This sentence and the section it's in reflects straightforward Americentrism:

This trend, called "neoliberalism" by its opponents, lasted through the 1980s and the 1990s.

The term "neoliberalism" and the phenomena it refers to is in wide circulation in literature and also in the wider society, with the exception of USA. Reinis^talk 12:15, 19 January 2020 (UTC)