Talk:Liberalism/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

RfC about liberalism and equality

Should the lead say that liberalism is based on, among other things: A "equality" or B "political equality and equality before the law?" TFD (talk) 15:12, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Survey

• A Reliable sources routinely mention equality as a defining element of liberalism. Liberals believe that each person is equal, but differ on how policy should reflect that, such as political equality and equality before the law. These latter policies developed out of the belief that humans have equal moral value and are not defining beliefs. TFD (talk) 15:13, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
• B Historically, liberals have supported political and legal equality, but have often been ambivalent about or even opposed social or economic equality. And even their support of political equality has often come with caveats. So for instance, the people behind the American Revolution were all liberals, and many of them were surprisingly comfortable with slavery. The people behind the French Revolution were all liberals, and they at least at first instituted a two-tier system where poor people couldn't vote. Loki (talk) 22:16, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
• B "Equality" is a rather broad and slippery concept -- see Equality (disambiguation) for the many different kinds of equality -- so it is best to specify those types of equality that liberals actually espouse. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:46, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
• A with the caveat that we should clarify some of the different threads of liberalism and how they weigh different types of equality further down the lead (though we already do this to an extent.) The fact is that "liberalism" is a term that is used in many different ways by many different individuals, parties, and even political scientists. There are absolutely people who use it to endorse support for social or economic equality (eg. it is plainly a part of American liberalism, even if we can argue about how consistently they have advanced it - we have an entire paragraph for "social liberalism" in the lead, which is plainly not just about political equality or equality before the law!) Our description needs to reflect all high-quality sources, and all major definitions, not just a subset; and the best way to do that is to go for a broader definition in the first part of the lead, then clarify the divisions within liberalism further down. --Aquillion (talk) 21:08, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
• B but... I doubt that "political equality" is a defining element of liberalism - actually I think it's a mistake. I've provided my reasons here below. I would leave only a reference to equality before the law. I'd call this option C. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 23:27, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Following the long and interesting discussion on liberalism and equality ("Option C") I had here below with TFD and Trovatore, I strongly believe that if we want to mantain a reference to "equality" we should do as Richard Bellamy did: we should specify in the sense of denying that anyone is the natural subordinate of others. Otherwise, a generic reference to equality without further qualification will inevitably be understood by many readers as a reference to political equality (democracy) and/or substantive equality (social justice). While not incommpatible with liberalism, the ideals of democracy and social justice are not its defining features and have not been embraced, or have been esplicitly rejected, by many classics of liberalism. To put it simply: liberalism is not necessirly "democratic liberalism" or "egalitarian liberalism". The need to avoid this serious misunderstanding is a consequence of both UNDUE considerations (WP:NPOV) and verifiability considerations (WP:V), as none of the RSs we've seen so far present political and substantive equality as essential characteristics of liberalism. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:24, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

• B Political equality is a defining aspect of liberalism. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 05:35, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

@Thebiguglyalien: Just to note that option "B" is the one which specifically mentions "political equality". Option "A", which you selected, is non-specific. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:10, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for catching that. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 13:26, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

• C or B Not-better-specified "equality" is too vague, as is the proposer's attribution to liberalism of the idea that "each person is equal", without saying equal in what sense. Few liberals, I think, would seriously contend that everyone has equal ability, and even if there are a few, surely there is no defined liberal position on nature vs nurture. --Trovatore (talk) 05:19, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
• C (not A) – be specific about an example of equality that is universally agreed upon (i.e. equality before the law). Drop political equality since that is vague. Does liberalism really believe that money shouldn't be in politics which obviously makes the wealthy and the poor not politically equal. --Guest2625 (talk) 04:29, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
• B/C. More specific. Alaexis_¿question? 08:12, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
• A I am persuaded by the sources and by TFD that equality itself is one of the core elements that liberalism is "based on". Political equality and equality before the law may be key - or even, near constant - characteristics of liberal societies, but those characteristics are not the basis of the philosophy, rather they commonly result from it. The underlying moral notion is the inherent worth of each individual, a quasi-religious belief in the "self-evident" truth that all are "created equal" and "endowed by their maker with … inalienable rights". I understand that not being specific about the nature of such equality - (especially in a US context, where "liberal" is sometimes used as a synonym of socialist, or as a generic pejorative) - may misleadingly imply that economic equality or some other manifestation or objective are a key element of liberalism, but to paraphrase Aquillion, it is perfectly possible and desirable to more fully expand the different interpretations and manifestations of the core elements later in the lead. Pincrete (talk) 16:19, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
• C or B. Not A! That would be crazy confusing! The core of liberalism is individual freedom, which is in tension with equality. This juxtaposition of freedom and equality is often used to distinguish liberalism from socialism and other collectivist ideologies! Equality is very much a secondary value in liberalism. Surely this does not need to be sourced. Wow. Rollo (talk) 22:11, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

  Rollo, if equality is not a core liberal tenet, how could it be in tension with equality? TFD (talk) 22:48, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

A representative article about liberalism says, "At the philosophical level, liberals have affirmed a commitment to the concepts of equality, liberty, individuality and rationality. They have been egalitarians in the sense of denying that anyone is naturally the subordinate of anyone else. This view does not entail regarding everyone as the same, merely that all human beings are of equal moral worth. Rather than seeking to guarantee an equality of outcome in the manner of some socialists, liberals desire that everyone should have an equal opportunity to deploy what talents they do possess on the same basis as everyone else." (Richard Bellamy, "Liberalism", p. 24, in Contemporary Political Ideologies, 2nd edition, ed. Roger Eatwell 1999)[1]

in other words, if liberals support political equality and equality before the law, they do so because they believe humans are equal hence have equal rights. But there is no agreement on what rights derive from the belief in human equality. Political equality for example developed gradually. Equality before the law does not necessarily apply to prisoners or aliens.

TFD (talk) 15:23, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

A difficult area, because of the diverse nature of people who call themselves liberals around the world. I strongly recommend that, before making any generalisations about liberals, editors should study the Liberal Party of Australia. It is the conspicuously more conservative of the two major political parties in Australia. It has aggressively favoured heavy government funding for private schools, obviously a driver of inequality, and clearly not giving everyone an equal opportunity. It opposed same sex marriage, and many other measures of social equality. HiLo48 (talk) 00:43, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

There is a distinction between the belief that all people are equal and a government obligation to make the conditions of all people equal. Now maybe when the Australian Liberals tell us in "Our Beliefs" they support "equal opportunity for all Australians," they are lying. Nonetheless they take equality as a given and justify their policies accordingly. It could be that equality - at least in principle - has become so universally accepted, that we forget the ideology that liberalism was formed to oppose before the English and French revolutions. TFD (talk) 05:01, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Are there any major political parties in the democratic world that overtly reject the principle of equality? Some of them have definitions for it that I'd consider idiosyncratic, but I think that almost every major political party (even self-described conservative or right-wing ones) defend their positions by at least some notional definition of equality today. I suppose you could argue, as people have in the past, that this is because we've reached the end of history and liberalism has become so broadly accepted that it has no serious opposition in the democratic world, but that doesn't really reflect how the sources discuss liberalism or struggles over equality today. In particular, many of the right-wing parties that focus on purely political equality do so with an unstated (or, in rare cases, loudly and repeatedly stated) assumption that this will lead to inequality because they believe people are fundamentally inequal - but if you look at their platforms it's still going to say EQUALITY in big letters. --Aquillion (talk) 21:14, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

The Liberal Party of Australia is not what would be regarded as a liberal party by members of Liberal Parties elsewhere in the world. DuncanHill (talk) 22:28, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

I personally agree, but they claim they are. Who are we to say otherwise? HiLo48 (talk) 01:12, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Who are we to say they are? The article should lay out what liberalism is. If the Liberal Party of Australia is consistent with that then it's a liberal party; if it isn't consistent then it's not, regardless of what they call themselves or what they claim to be. (Some might conclude that the LPA, the GOP, and some other parties that occasionally pay lip service to equality or liberty have actually embraced the principles of "illiberal democracy" ... and the "democracy" part of that is highly questionable.) Jibal (talk) 07:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Ian Gilmour, who was in charge of developing ideology for the Conservative Party (UK), wrote, "The difficulty is that men are manifestly not equal....Even though men are not equal, they should generally be treated as though they were. Therefore there must, for example, be equality before the law. This is a fair and civilized principle." (Inside Right 1977, pp. 175-176)

This is in stark contrast to the liberal claim that people should be equal before the law because they are equal. Instead he bases his support on a conservative principle of being civilized. But not all conservatives supported equality before the law, for example the legitimists, who believed in rule by hereditary monarchs and aristocracy. No liberals, whether Australian or U.S. Republicans, claim that people are not equal. Their difference with socialists is whether their belief that people are equal should make government reduce or eliminate economic inequality. TFD (talk) 05:00, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I want to say here that the Bellamy passage quoted by TFD reads very well. There are aspects of it I could quibble, but something like that could really work. My concern is that an unqualified statement that "equality" is a core liberal value is likely to be read as attributing to liberalism a view that humans are equal in all respects (not just "moral worth", not just that none is naturally subordinate to another), or that it would be desirable to equalize the substantive conditions of humans.

I would note in passing that it's possible that Gilmour would actually be in agreement with the Bellamy statement. His statement that "men are manifestly not equal" might mean, for example, not equal in ability. I don't know much about Gilmour so I can't really judge. --Trovatore (talk) 18:55, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Gilmour did not explain what he meant, but the point is that he never used equality as a justification for policies. But he defended "traditional" conservative against the "neo-Liberalism" of Margaret Thatcher. That conservatism supported an hereditary aristocracy whose role was to lead, yet show compassion to the lower orders. He defended capitalism by claiming it was better than the alternatives, not by an appeal to freedom. TFD (talk) 21:12, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, fair enough. I'm no expert on British politics, and much less so on Gilmour personally. That was a side point anyway.

My main point was that I think the Bellamy passage could be the model for a decent resolution of the issue before us, if handled carefully. I think it is core to liberalism that no one is naturally subordinate to another. The phrasing "political" equality or "equality before the law" might not be quite on point for expressing that. But there are lots of strains of liberalism that accept that some people are stronger than others, smarter than others, prettier than others, even just luckier than others, and thus not surprisingly end up richer than others, and that this is not necessarily a bad thing; presenting "equality" unmodified might tend to obscure that point. --Trovatore (talk) 07:07, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

In the Historical Dictionary of Socialism, pp.1-2, the authors find three common elements in definitions of socialism. The second is, "there was a general view that the solution to [the social problems caused by capitalism] lay in some form of collective control (with the degree of control varing among the proponents of socialism) over the means of production, distribution and exchange."

Obviously, the degree of control varies widely, but it is important to note this core belief that distinguishes it from liberalism, while at the same time pointing out that the actions proposed vary greatly. Maybe we could expand the definition of liberalism to be clear what these terms mean. There is btw also a conflict over what the other major tenet of liberals, i.e., freedom, means. Most contemporary liberals for example believe that slavery is incompatible with freedom (as well as equality), but Coke, Locke, and most of the U.S. Founding Fathers disagreed. TFD (talk) 18:20, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Option C

I would remove any reference to equality from the opening sentence (save for "equality before the law"). From the viewpoint of political theory, egalitarian liberalism is a strand of liberalism, but not all liberals are egalitarian. See for example Richard Arneson, Liberalsim and Equality (2015) [2]: Everyone equally possesses the core moral rights to individual liberties. On this point there is general agreement. Does the best, most compelling and appealing version of liberal doctrine encompass requirements of equality of other sorts? If so, which equalities matter? On these questions, opinions diverge widely. For instance, libertarianism is a strand of liberalism that is not egalitarian. Hayek was not an egalitarian, and with regard to liberalism and equality he wrote that Liberalism merely demands that so far as the state determines the conditions under which the individuals act it must do so according to same rules for all ("Liberalism" (1973), in Essays on Liberalism and the Economy, Volume 18).

From the viewpoint of the history of political ideas, 19th century liberalism usually opposed not only social equality, but also political equality, and liberals often supported census suffrage and were opposed to democrats, who were in favour of universal suffrage. The only type of equality that liberals have always upheld is "equality before the law", formal equality: equal rights for everybody (women excluded), in the limited sense of opposing ancient-regime social stratification, "status-based privileges", and not in the sense of favouring anti-discrimination laws or any legislation aimed at achieving substantive equality. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:06, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Hayek wrote, "From the fact that people are very different it follows that, if we treat them equally, the result must be inequality in their actual position, and that the only way to place them in an equal position would be to treat them differently. Equality before the law and material equality are therefore not only different but are in conflict with each other; and we can achieve either one or the other, but not both at the same time.”

As we can see, Hayek's claims were based on the theory of equality. He defended treating people differently on the basis that it put them in an equal position. As I said above, one may consider him a liar, but the article is about the theory.

To say that everyone supports equality is disingenuous. If everyone does, then so do liberals. But conservative ideology opposes equality not only in practice (as liberals do) but also in theory. Margaret Thatcher actually said that not everyone is equal. Fascist ideology is also based on overt claims of inequality. If you want to add that liberal equality is a scam, say so. TFD (talk) 02:56, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

@The Four Deuces: I think you're getting Hayek kind of backwards there? Hayek supported treating people the same (procedural equality) but believed that that would result in substantive inequality, because people have different abilities, temperaments, values, etc, and in that sense are unequal. And Thatcher was a liberal in the broad sense being discussed here. --Trovatore (talk) 18:41, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I think you are a confusing a belief that people are equal with a view that goverment should do something about their unequal conditions. That's the socialist view. They begin with the liberal view that all men are created equal and attempt to reduce their inequalities. Liberals reject that because it would conflict with their belief in freedom and may backfire anyway. Many people have called Thatcher a liberal, but she was leader of the Conservative Party. It's probably not a good example, because the party is a broad coalition of conservatives, liberals, populists and people with no ideology, and she was a politician, not a political theorist.

In "Why I am not a conservative," Hayek wrote that he believed the term liberal derived from Adam Smith, who wrote about "allowing every man to pursue his own interest his own way, upon the liberal plan of equality, liberty, and justice." Anyway, if he did not belief people to be equal, why he believe in equal rights?

I have provided sources that equality is a core liberal belief and have not seen one that says it is not. TFD (talk) 21:12, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

So first of all, "liberal" and "conservative" are not necessarily antonyms, or even mutually exclusive. Thatcher was a liberal, and also a conservative. She was liberal in believing (in broad strokes, not necessarily in every instance) in individual freedom; conservative in opposing a certain program that her main opponents thought constituted progress.

But the problem here is the various notions of "equal" floating around, which would be conflated in a claim in Wikivoice that "equality" is a core liberal value. Classical liberals believe in procedural equality, but (usually) do not believe that people are equal in (for example) ability. As to why they think people should have equal rights if they don't have equal abilities, I imagine we could examine that for days and days, but it seems not central to the question of the RfC. What is central to the question is that an unmodified claim that "equality" is a core value of liberalism is likely to be read, at least by some, as equality of result. --Trovatore (talk) 03:07, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I completely agree with this comment. By the way, the coexistence of liberalism and conservativism is not at all strange, paradoxical or specifici to the New Right of Thatcher and others. It can already be found in Edmund Burke, who is the founder of modern conservatism, the embodiment of English conservativism ("experience, not reason!" is his traditionalist slogan), but who is also often regarded as a liberal thinker. He was a Whig politician who praised "the rights of the Englishman" over the abstract and largely ineffective "rights of men" proclaimed by the Franch Revolution. On Burke and liberalism a few random sources from the internet comprise [3], [4], [5] (note the journal, National Review) and [6]. Let me share one interesting quotation from the last source I mentioned:

Both Tocqueville and Burke were leery of equality but neither was an unqualified supporter of the traditional aristocracy of birth. Burke's fervent hostility to social and political equality arose in revulsion against the attack upon the nobility unleashed by the French Revolution ... Tocqueville sympathized with Americans like John Adams who believed in the need for a "natural aristocracy" of the propertied and educated, but doubted that democracy would tolerate any sort of aristocracy
— Lakoff, S. (1998). Tocqueville, Burke, and the Origins of Liberal Conservatism. The Review of Politics, 60(3), 435-464. doi:10.1017/S003467050002742X

. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:06, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that liberal equality (equality before the law: formal equality) is a scam. It's actually very important and valuable. Besides, there are many staunch egalitarians among liberals, John Stuart Mill and John Rawls being two prominent examples. There are also socialists among liberals, such as Carlo Rosselli and Norberto Bobbio. And in American political parlance "liberals" are committed to social justice. But many liberals believe that there is a conflict between promoting equality and respecting freedom, and between these two values they prefer freedom. Hayek is a good example: I wouldn't say that he defended treating people differently to pursue material equality; on the contrary, he believed that The equality before the law which freedom requires leads to material inequality and the desire of making people more alike cannot be accepted in a free society.... Heyek opposed equal opportunity as a political goal and doubted that progressive taxation was compatible with liberalism. With regard to political equality (democracy), from the viewpoint of history of political ideals it's a fact that many 19th century liberals opposed universal suffrage (e.g., Benjamin Constant [7]). Many liberal theorists embrace democracy because it is instrumental to the protection of freedom: democracy has an instrumental value, not an intrinsic value to them, and therefore it can be limited to protect freedom (e.g., separation of powers and counter-majoritarian institutions like constitutional courts are defensible). Therefore in the opening sentence, I would mention only "equality before the law" and I would drop "political equality". Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:53, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Why do you think that liberals support equality before the law? Isn't it because they believe that everyone is equal? TFD (talk) 03:53, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but believing that everyone is equal does not imply believing that everyone should be treated equally. Claiming that liberalism is based on equality suggests a committent to social justice (substantive equality, equal opportunity) and democracy (political equality) that does not belong to 19th century liberalism and to some classics of liberal thought. Even John Stuart Mill, who was a progressive liberal, was a "reluctant democrat", and did not consider the lower classes fit to vote. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 09:41, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I think that this set of tertiary sources (encyclopedias entries on liberalism accessible from Oxford reference) support option C. It is controversial whether liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on equality and/or political equality. Equality is a core value in most contemporary interpretations of liberalism, but we cannot say in wikivoice that liberalism is based on equality. The distinction between "egalitarian liberalism" and "classical liberals or libertarians" is significant, and also the relation between liberalism and democracy (political equality) is not as straightforward as one could believe. Please feel free to enrich this list of sources and citations with other quality tertiary sources.

Definitions of liberalism from high quality tertiary sources (encyclopedias). References to equality in bold characters

Oxford University Press (2001). The world encyclopedia. New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-521818-3. OCLC 48026887. Political and intellectual belief that advocates the right of the individual to make decisions, usually political or religious, according to the dictates of conscience. Calhoun, Craig J.; Oxford University Press (2002). Dictionary of the social sciences. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-512371-9. OCLC 45505995. A broad and evolving set of political doctrines associated with opposition to feudal society and the rise of individualism, democratic institutions, and capitalist economies (…) Modern liberalism continues to be organized around a number of not-always-harmoniously related principles: the priority of individual rights and freedoms, including broad enfranchisement; the belief that any use of authority must be justified; the conviction that ethical choices or ideas of the good life should be left to individuals; the separation of private from public life and the belief that the former should be protected; the belief in the rule of law and the impartiality of the state; and, somewhat more contentiously, faith in human rationality and progress. Wright, Edmund; Tuthill, Margaret; Wells, Linda; Oxford University Press (2015). A dictionary of world history. Oxford, United Kingdom. ISBN 978-0-19-176572-8. OCLC 914321645.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) A political outlook attaching supreme importance to safeguarding the freedom of the individual within society. Liberal ideas first took shape in the struggle for religious toleration in the 16th and 17th centuries. The liberal view was that religion was a private matter; it was not the business of the state to enforce a particular creed. This later developed into a more general doctrine of the limited and constitutional state, whose boundaries were set by the natural rights of the individual (for instance in the political thought of Locke). Around 1800 liberalism became associated with the doctrines of the free market and reducing the role of the state in the economic sphere. This tendency was reversed later in the 19th century with the arrival of ‘New Liberalism’, committed to social reform and welfare legislation. In contemporary debate both schools of thought are represented. Liberals unite in upholding the importance of personal liberty in the face of encroachment by the state, leading to demands for constitutional government, civil rights, and the protection of privacy Krieger, Joel; Crahan, Margaret E. (2001). The Oxford companion to politics of the world. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-511739-5. OCLC 45172967. A protean doctrine with views on matters as diverse as epistemology and international relations, liberalism has been interpreted in different ways throughout history. As a minimal definition we can say that liberalism considers individuals the seat of moral value and each individual as of equal worth. Hence, the individual should be free to choose his or her own ends in life. Liberalism may be morally neutral in regard to the ends people choose for themselves, but it is not morally neutral in its view that such individual choice is desirable and must be safeguarded from unwarranted interference from the state. Liberalism is a view of the world, an ideology, and to adopt it is to take a stand. Grayling, A. C.; Pyle, Andrew; Goulder, Naomi (2006). The Continuum encyclopedia of British philosophy. Bristol: Thoemmes Continuum. ISBN 978-0-19-975469-4. OCLC 676714142. Liberalism is a philosophical and political theory, as well as a political ideology and movement, concerning the spheres and benefits of individual liberty (...). Two strands are prominent in those proto-liberalisms: the desire to curb absolute rule by defining the limits of government, including the right to resist tyranny, and the linked but analytically separate project of human emancipation, closely connected to theories of natural rights. In their influential Lockean version, the insistence on the fundamental status of the rights to life, liberty and estate heralded the idea of an underlying human equality alongside the universality of that claim. Honderich, Ted (2005). The Oxford companion to philosophy. [Oxford]: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-153265-8. OCLC 62563098. One of the major political ideologies of the modern world, liberalism is distinguished by the importance it attaches to the civil and political rights of individuals. Liberals demand a substantial realm of personal freedom—including freedom of conscience, speech, association, occupation, and, more recently, sexuality—which the state should not intrude upon, except to protect others from harm. Major philosophical exponents of liberalism include Locke, Kant, Constant, Humboldt, J. S. Mill, Green, Hobhouse, and, in the post-war era, Berlin, Hart, Rawls, and Dworkin (...) Liberalism was historically associated with capitalism, although most liberals today accept that justice requires regulating the market to ensure equality of opportunity. Those who continue to defend free markets and absolute property rights, such as Hayek and Nozick, are now called classical liberals or libertarians, as opposed to welfare liberals or liberal egalitarians, such as Rawls and Dworkin (...) Despite these disagreements about its philosophical foundations and sociological feasibility, the basic language of liberalism—individual rights, liberty, equality of opportunity—has become the dominant language of public discourse in most modern democracies. Stearns, Peter N. (2008). The Oxford encyclopedia of the modern world. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-517632-2. OCLC 173509401. Liberalism is a doctrine that seeks to defend and expand liberty for the individual, who claims rights guaranteed by law. Variously described also as ideology, program, party, or movement, it has been all of these things over the course of the seventeenth century to the present. Liberalism has been described both in “negative” and “positive” terms. “Negative” liberty, as Isaiah Berlin (1909–1997) called it, is freedom from coercion by the state or other organizations or persons, limited only by the equal claim to liberty by others. “Positive” liberty for Berlin stresses the opportunity to pursue self-determined goals, and the development of personality. Liberals agree on the rules for public reasoning, but not on the ends of liberty: government must be neutral on the Good (according to the twentieth-century American philosopher John Rawls). A corollary in the economic sphere is the notion that consumer sovereignty must prevail in all market transactions. Equality before the law and human dignity are implicit in the liberal creed. For both positive and negative conceptions, liberalism asserts the normative nature of liberty: any restriction by the state must show a compelling need for the good of society. Blackburn, Simon (2016). The Oxford dictionary of philosophy. Oxford. ISBN 978-0-19-179955-6. OCLC 945776618.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) A political ideology centred upon the individual (see individualism), thought of as possessing rights against the government, including rights of due process under the law, equality of respect, freedom of expression and action, and freedom from religious and ideological constraint. Scott, John (2014). A dictionary of sociology. Oxford. ISBN 978-0-19-176305-2. OCLC 910157494.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link) Although liberalism is usually seen as the dominant ideology of the Western democracies, with its roots in Enlightenment thought, there are many variations and hybrids of its doctrines. Nevertheless it is clear what liberalism is opposed to: namely, political absolutism in all its forms, be they monarchist, feudal, military, clerical, or communitarian. In this opposition it attempts to ensure that individuals and groups can resist any authoritarian demands. In practice, this has most commonly meant a split between (on one hand) a public world and a private world where rights are defined, the most common of which are to private property, and (on the other) the free exercise of religion, speech, and association. Classical liberalism is usually identified with the philosophies of John Locke, David Hume, Jeremy Bentham, and John Stuart Mill (all of whom have separate entries in this dictionary). These writers emphasize the guidance of human beings by enlightened self-interest, rationality, and free choice, and argue for the minimum intervention of the state in the lives of individuals. It is strongly associated both with economic doctrines of laissez-faire (as in the writings of Adam Smith), although the ‘New Liberalism’ of the late 19th and early 20th centuries (see L. T. Hobhouse, Liberalism, 1911) supported the extension of collective welfare systems. It advocates constitutional guarantees and representative democracy, inalienable rights of citizenship—such as the right to life, to property, to free speech, association, and religion, along with the right to have some say in the running of the country (usually the right to vote)—and, for New Liberals, the right to welfare.

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 12:30, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Your first source is for high school students and the second two are dictionaries, none of which we would use as sources. But the next one, which is a usable source, is more in line with the sources I have read: "liberalism considers individuals the seat of moral value and each individual as of equal worth" (Wright). Do you agree or disagree with that statement? Do you have any sources that liberalism opposes belief in equality? I have provided a source that conservatism does and can find others that fascism does too.

I appreciate the socialist criticism that merely considering people to be equal without taking any steps make their conditions equal is hollow. But the correct approach to articles about any belief system is to describe them, then mention criticisms. TFD (talk) 19:02, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

What you say about equal moral value (equal respect/human dignity) is certainly true, but is perhaps too generic to characterise liberalism. The notion that men are born equal is shared by Christianity (man as image of God) and by a theoretician of absolutism such as Hobbes. As I said, believing that everyone is morally equal does not imply believing that everyone should be treated equally. But please note: I don't mean to criticise liberalism! My remarks are strictly descriptive. 1) Most liberal theorists believe that there's a tension between promoting equality and protecting freedom, and they embrace freedom over equality. This is an important feature of liberalism as political theory, which the definition of liberalism as based on freedom, rights and equality fails to acknowledge; 2) Liberalism as a political movement has often been pitted against democrats/republicans/radicals. This is particularly true in the context of the European constitutional debates of 19th century, such as monarchy vs republic and the extension of suffrage. See for example Mazzini, who is correctly described as a democrat/radical/republican vs Cavour, who was a liberal. 3) In the context of American political culture, "liberalism" has quite a peculiar meaning, which places it on the left side of the political spectrum: as Ronald Dworkin put it [8], Liberals were for greater economic equality, for internationalism, for freedom of speech and against censorship, for greater equality between the races and against segregation, for a sharp separation of church and state, for greater procedural protection for accused criminals, for decriminalization of 'morals' offenses, particularly drug offenses and consensual sexual offenses involving only adults, and for an aggressive use of central government power to achieve all these goals. These were, in the familiar phrase, liberal 'causes'. This works well for the US. But our definition of liberalism should embrace WP:WORLDVIEW. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 20:35, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

IOW, liberals believe that people are equal, but we shouldn't mention that because Christians also believe that, they do not believe that equality is a reason to promote equal conditions and there is a tension between their belief in freedom and equality. Christian incidentally does not necessarily include the belief that humans were born equal. It certainly did not before the modern era.

I don't know why you bring up Modern liberalism in the United States, since that is not the topic of this article. Liberalism is the ideology that emerged with modernity. Hobbes confuses some people because he used liberal assumptions to support absolutism, but he rejected the conservative view that the king and the hierarchy were put there by God's will because of their inherent superiority. TFD (talk) 21:47, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, with two corrections: 1) I didn't say that there is a tension between their belief in freedom and equality, I said that liberals often think that there is a tension between equality and freedom. The liberal thinkers who expressed this idea more clearly are Tocqueville and Nozick. The latter said that "liberty upsets patterns", which means that we cannot impose a theory of distributive justice (a "pattern") on society without undermining freedom: it's either free market or social justice, and he stuck up for the market. 2) I mentioned Modern liberalism in the United States because it is well known that Americans attach a special and more "left-wing" meaning to the word "liberal" than other countries. The word "liberalism" has different meanings in different contexts and is determined not only by the opposition to "conservatism", but also by the oppositions to "republicanism", "radicalism" and "socialism", so IMO liberal views on equality should not be taken for granted and stated with wikivoice. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:09, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

You appear to be implying that I am confusing the historic and U.S. usage of the term liberalism, which I am not. Liberalism is not just the ideology of the Democratic Party, but has dominated U.S. politics since the Declaration of Independence stated "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights." So equality and freedom were the two founding principles and are linked. Similar liberal revolutions used similar wording. Everyone has equal rights because everyone is equal. Right-wing liberals don't believe in equality before the law because it is the civilized thing to do (as Gilmour did), but because it follows from their belief in human equality. If liberals don't dwell on equality, its because it's almost universally accepted. No one seriously suggests that the U.S. have a caste system where someone's prospects in life are determined by an inherited title. In fact, as a  nod to equality, the U.S. abolished titles. TFD (talk) 23:12, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I agree with all this, but I insist that there's nothing specifically liberal in the notion that men are equal and endowed with rights. This idea belongs to classics of liberalism such as Locke, Thomas Paine, the Founding Fathers, etc., but it also belongs to authors who are not generally regarded as liberals, such as Hobbes, Pufendorf, Thomasius, Leibniz and Rousseau. More than to liberalism as such, this idea belongs to modern natural law and the Enlightenment, and was shared by liberalism without becoming (I believe) one of its defining features. For instance, I don't think that this idea can be attributed to two classics of liberalism such as Tocqueville (a staunch, intelligent critic of equality) and Herbert Spencer ("survival of the fittest"). P.S. Who is Gilmour? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:27, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Hobbes et al are all considered liberals or precursors of liberalism, while both Toqueville and Spencer believed in equality. The Enlightenment and natural law are the bases of liberalism. You seem to forget that before liberalism, the guiding ideology was that people were not equal and did not deserve freedom. Instead, each person had a social rank with a set of obligations and alienable rights and owed allegiance to someone else, unless he happened to be the sovereign, in which case he owed direct allegiance to God. Liberalism rejected that ideology, insisting that humans were equal and therefore had equal rights. Ian Gilmour was a leading theorist on ideology within the Conservative Party (UK). TFD (talk) 14:04, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Both Toqueville and Spencer believed in equality is a bit of an exaggeration, and that the theorists of absolutism and Rousseau are precursors of liberalism is also questionable. On a more general plane: I don't see the point of having a concept of liberalism so broad as to include anyone who doesn't believe in a social hierarchy based on blood - liberalism as the defining ideology of the modern age. A sensible definition of liberalism should not cover the entire field of reasonable ideas, that is, it must have discriminatory power: we must account for the fact that in modern times there are people who oppose liberalism without going around in armour fighting windmills. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:48, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Saying that liberals believe in equality does not mean that no one else does. However, it was what distinguished them from the defenders of absolute monarchy in opposition to which liberalism emerged.

You haven't provided any sources for your views of Spencer, Tocqueville or Rousseau. But consider what Roger Scruton said:

"[Liberalism] is not a term that Rousseau would have used; nor would he have recognized his ideas in those thinkers whom we now describe as “classical liberals.” Liberalism is an intellectual tradition formed from the interplay of two political ideals: liberty and equality. Liberals differ according to whether liberty or equality is more important to them. Libertarians believe that liberty should be traded for nothing else save liberty, whereas the present-day American “liberal” tends to sacrifice liberty for equality when the two conflict...Rousseau cared passionately for both liberty and equality."[9]

TFD (talk) 01:13, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

See also James L. Richardson, Contending Liberalisms: "Tocqueville challenged his fellow liberals with his thesis that Western societies experienced an inexorable movement in favor of social and political equality, the nature and consequences of which could be observed most clearly in the United States of America." (p. 30)[10] Where is your source he wasn't a liberal? TFD (talk) 03:17, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

No no, he was a liberal by all means! But he wasn't an egalitarian and was very much worried about the consequences of that "inexorable movement" towards equality. I will provide a few sources later on. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 08:20, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the approach is helpful. I can find sources that some liberals did not support freedom because they owned slaves but it is original research to use that for a general definition. Similarly, I could find examples of Communists who did not practice equality. But we're not supposed to reinvent the wheel, just summarize what reliable sources say. TFD (talk) 10:53, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Tocqueville is staunch opponent of "the passion for equality", as he calls it: it's one of the main themes of his work, one of the core ideas he is always associated with. It's not a matter of finding sources for an original research of mine. You can have a look at our Alexis de Tocqueville#On democracy and new forms of tyranny or here [11] (Tocqueville’s argument about how equality lowers human aspiration, and so threatens freedom), or here [12] (Throughout his works Alexis de Tocqueville struggled with the tension between liberty and equality. It is a recurring theme ... he argues that democratic ideas and passions, especially for equality, will lead Americans to concentrate power). Gitz (talk) (contribs) 11:24, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Again, that is OR. That Tocqueville saw a tension between freedom and equality, does not mean he rejected equality. In fact if you read further, he says, "the taste and the idea of freedom only began to exist and to extend themselves at the time when social conditions were tending to equality, and as a consequence of that very equality....Amongst these nations equality preceded freedom." (v2 s 2 c1)

Wikipedia articles are not btw reliable sources. The section you linked to was entirely sourced to an audiobook by a former paralegal. See Peter Lom, "Alexis de Tocqueville: The Psychologist of Equality" for an explanation of Tocqueville's comments. Some people see them as nostalgia for the Ancien Régime, and hence a rejection of liberalism, but Lom sees it as more nuanced. TFD (talk) 20:06, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

When I provide sources and quote from them, it's OR. When you say that both Toqueville and Spencer believed in equality without providing any sources, it's not OR - how is that possible? I'm not claiming that the notion of liberalism based on equality is "fringe". Richard Bellamy is an excellent political theorist. But I've provided numerous references from high-quality academic sources that show that his definition of liberalism as committed to the ideal of equality is not mainstream. It hardly applies to authors such as Tocqueville and Hayek, not to mention Burke, Spencer, Adam Smith and, in recent times, Nozick and the libertarians. That definition is acceptable only on the basis of a specific, peculiar notion of equality in the sense of denying that anyone is the natural subordinate of others (Bellamy), which is not what one immediately understands when one reads "equality" - one thinks of social equality and political equality. So stating that liberalism is based on equality in wikivoice would be WP:UNDUE. I've already supported this claim with plenty of quotations, but here's another one:

But equality, for classical liberals, means primarily 'equality before the law'. By this term, classical liberals understand that the law recognize each member of society as enjoying an equal standing, and hence an equal right to life, to liberty and to acquire and enjoy secure possession of property
— Conway, David (1998). Classical liberalism: The unvanquished ideal. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 26. ISBN 978-0-230-37119-4. OCLC 759110181.

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:53, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

How does he explain why he supports equality before the law? Since he uses the term "primarily," how else does he support equality? TFD (talk) 23:54, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Liberalism

Someone needs to fact-check this article/definition; it is nowhere near the truth! If they believed in the things cited in this article, they would not have supported forced Vax, undermined churches, suppressed opposing views on Facebook and the media. 67.209.0.150 (talk) 16:32, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

This is a place for evidence, not for editorials. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:25, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

This article is not about a particular center-left coalition in the United States, but about liberalism broadly construed. --Trovatore (talk) 21:27, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Most beliefs systems have a wide range of interpretations with various member groups questioning whether their adversaries share the same beliefs. The U.S. had a civil war over opposing interpretations of liberal values. I don't know what was in their minds, but wonder why they would claim to espouse beliefs they didn't believe in. In any case, you would need to present a reliable source that makes the point you want to be in the article. TFD (talk) 02:58, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Someone (you) need to actually read the article and its sources. Jibal (talk) 07:51, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Trakking's Edit

Trakiing has made a major edit of this article. In the hope of avoiding an edit war, I plan to consider each part of that edit carefully. In the hope that others will join me in this effort, I'll post here which part I'm working on. Today I will work on the part that begins on line 200. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:27, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I have finished my edit for today. I made no change to what Trakking wrote, only a minor edit of the previous sentence. Tomorrow I will take a look at the material under the heading Conservatism. Rick Norwood (talk) 20:46, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I did not write anything. I organized a chaotic part of the article into clear subheadings, which is the standard format for Wikipedia. And I removed a superfluous sentence. Trakking (talk) 21:42, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. Essentially, you grouped the material under the heading "Criticism and Support" into five subheads: Conservatism, Catholicism, Socialism, Social democracy, and Fascism. I look forward to reading them. This morning I plan to read the section under Conservatism.Rick Norwood (talk) 10:46, 31 March 2023 (UTC) The grouping under conservatism seems entirely admirable. I was a bit startled by this claim, "Conservatives have also attacked what they perceive as the reckless liberal pursuit of progress and material gains, ... " but Koerner is reporting what conservatives say, not supporting their claim to be less interested in material gains than liberals are. Rick Norwood (talk) 10:57, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes. The information was spread out all across the heading. So there was some socialist criticism on one place, some on another—and so on with different ideologies. It was a terrible mess. Now the chapter is readable. It shocked me that no one had fixed this already. Trakking (talk) 11:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes. I think that the war—alternatively the alliance—between conservatism and liberalism is extremely interesting, partly because the conservative forefather Edmund Burke was a Whig liberal, partly because I am well-read within both these ideologies, and partly because I consider myself simultaneously an ultra-conservative and an ultra-liberal, similarly to a man like the aforementioned Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn. I have voted Christian Democrat, whose ideology is very conservative and very liberal at the same time: it is a stimulating combination. Trakking (talk) 12:16, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate your interesting comments. I tend not to be "ultra" anything, but then, I'm a mathematician.

This afternoon, I plan to look at the heading "Catholicism".Rick Norwood (talk) 15:50, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

And the Catholicism section is very brief and to the point. I was tempted to add something about Pope Francis, but this is not the time. Maybe some other day.

I move on to Socialism. (I expected this to be much more controversial than it has been so far, and to require more input from other Wikipedians than it seems to require.) Rick Norwood (talk) 16:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

And now I have finished editing the "Socialism" section. I have made extensive changes, but none to the edits of Trakking. Wisely, I think, Trakking did not try to fix the many careless mistakes of previous editors. I have made an attempt.Rick Norwood (talk) 16:41, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

The section on socialism was quite a mess, indeed. And it lacked relevant information concerning the relationship between social liberalism–libertarian socialism–anarchism. Anarchism could even deserve its own subheading, because its relationship to Liberalism is interesting and complex. Trakking (talk) 18:22, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

This morning I plan to look at Social Democracy.Rick Norwood (talk) 09:48, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Trakking removed this sentence. "Scholars have praised the influence of liberal internationalism, claiming that the rise of globalisation "constitutes a triumph of the liberal vision that first appeared in the eighteenth century" while also writing that liberalism is "the only comprehensive and hopeful vision of world affairs"." But the idea is similar to the comment on globalization in the section on Adam Smith. Rick Norwood (talk) 09:59, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

I made a few minor changes for style and since the Fascism section is very short, did the same there. This concludes my editing of this article under this heading.Rick Norwood (talk) 10:43, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Good work on the clean-up. The whole chapter looks much better after our edits. One would suppose that an article of this magnitude would have been exposed to close scrutiny—but apparently not. Trakking (talk) 11:32, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

References

NPOV (anarcho-capitalism)

The given header seems to be in violation of the following guidelines:

• Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action" but may state that "genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil."
• Avoid stating seriously contested assertions as facts. If different reliable sources make conflicting assertions about a matter, treat these assertions as opinions rather than facts, and do not present them as direct statements.

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

It is incorrect to label Herbert Spencer, Paul Émile de Puydt, and Auberon Herbert as anarcho-capitalists. Spencer believed in the necessity of the state to safeguard property rights and is not considered an anarcho-capitalist by most historians [1]. Puydt proposed a unique system called "panarchy" that differs from anarcho-capitalism [2]. A. Herbert referred to his system as voluntarism and explicitly rejected the idea of anarchism during a debate with Benj. R. Tucker. He advocated for a voluntarily funded state with a legal system imposed by coercion, leading to criticism from Hobson and Yarros for promoting plutocracy [3].

References:

[1] Herbert Spencer

[2] Paul Émile de Puydt

[3] Auberon Herbert

Another problem is the idea of "statelessness" according to anarcho-capitalist authors, which seems to conflict with the definition of state in international law. The private communities proposed for example by Murray Rothbard and Hans-Hermann Hoppe are sovereign and de facto small states if we consider Thomas D. Musgrave's definition of state. In fact, a real-world walled-community or a real-world private charter city is subordinate to state power – private cities in anarcho-capitalism seem to be more akin to city-states. These issues have already been raised by various authors (see the critical section on the anarcho-capitalism article) however, primary source positions have been favored over analysis and criticism.

The history of anarcho-capitalism present in this article, on the other hand, seems to be a historical forgery; from brief search, I saw that anarcho-capitalist ideas seem to have originated in the 1960s, popularized by Jarret B. Wollstein, Karl Hess and Murray N. Rothbard (see https://c4ss.org/content/39997).

The topic, after a reading of the ideas, seems to be more akin to the radical right in the United States or the alt-right. Authors such as Rothbard and Hoppe are explicitly pro-segregation for example, as well as overt references to the Lost Cause (see Rothbard's views on Abraham Lincoln).

There are so many controversies, I'm not going to mention them all, but there is just such a blustering affiliation between racism and anarcho-capitalism. For example, anarcho-capitalist Jeffrey Tucker wrote for League of the South publications according to the SPLC.

I think it is necessary to investigate whether anarcho-capitalism is suitable to be presented in the article on liberalism and, if so, whether it should be presented in such an overtly apologetic manner with serious omissions highlighted.

n.b. When I mean "pro-segregation" I am referring to support for segregation academies, racial covenants, etc. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 13:25, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Ancaps are a good example of people thinking that when they've changed the names of things then they have changed the nature of those things. Their view on the state also conflicts with the Marxian view of the state as an instrument of class rule. Another definition I've seen is that of an armed body of men exercising a monopoly of violence in an area. That said, because ancaps defend private property, that still makes them liberals.

I do agree the section is very lacking in the NPOV department. KetchupSalt (talk) 18:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

@KetchupSalt I don't think the source - Ralph Raico - is reliable. In addition, the article is contradictory: the premises are anti-absolutist but anarcho-capitalism is absolutist (i.e., there are individuals who control portions of territory without constitutional limits - historians trace the birth of liberalism specifically to limit absolute monarchies). From what I have read (see the Italian Wikipedia article and related sources), this socio-economic system is akin to the concepts of plutocracy (or timocracy) and in some cases absolute monarchy.

I would also like to mention that Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Jesús Huerta de Soto, and other ancaps have explicitly written against liberalism (both classical liberalism and social liberalism).

Regarding segregationist positions the Italian wikipedia article summarizes these ideas: [13]https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcocapitalismo

These are ideas of the U.S. alt-right and radical right presented in a politically correct way. To me this looks like whitewashing. I invite other users to join the discussion. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 08:19, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

There seems to be a general agreement that the section on anarcho-capitalism needs work. I will also point out that it links to a very long article, anarcho-capitalism which needs a great deal of work. I hope someone is willing to undertake the thankless task of fixing the section and the long article. Both need to be much shorter, and have points of view attributed to their authors, not stated as facts. Rick Norwood (talk) 12:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

@Trakking @Rick Norwood @KetchupSalt @TFD @Trovatore @Gitz6666 @Pincrete @User:HiLo48 @Jibal @Beyond My Ken @LokiTheLiar I think anarcho-capitalism conflicts with certain guidelines such as WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE.

WP:FRINGE is mainly because the idea of those present (proto)anarcho-capitalist authors is only supported by a right-libertarian author.

For example, no serious source describes Herbert Spencer as "anarcho-capitalist" or "anti-state liberal"; by the way, Herbert himself supports the very state in defense of property rights.

As already mentioned those authors are generally regarded as neo-classical liberals, voluntaryists (see Auberon Spencer; which as mentioned above rejects anarchy after a debate with Benjamin R. Tucker.), panarchists, Manchesterists, etc. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 12:26, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2023

Please, include more recent scholarship on liberalism:

In the book Minoritarian Liberalism (Chicago 2022), anthropologist Moises Lino e Silva argues that liberalism as we know it has a colonial and Eurocentric heritage. The author proposes an alternative theory on minoritarian modes of liberalism: "always relational — it is not simply an alternative, but something that emerges 'within, against, and beyond' the domination and limited (often bleak) possibilities that normative liberalism brings to the life of 'subaltern' populations." (p.12) Mles2022 (talk) 13:19, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Not clear why this is necessary, and since your username is an initialism of that author's name, the impression of a conflict of interest is created. Actualcpscm (talk) 13:33, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Wendy Brown (University of California, Berkeley) explains why: "Lino e Silva's remarkable book fulfills its ambition to decolonize the freedom at liberalism's heart. Equal parts erudite political theory and delicate anthropology, it roams a favela in Rio for stories and imaginaries across Blackness, queerness, gender, and class, where it discovers everywhere the bubbling of minoritarian desires and practices of freedom. This beautifully written work does nothing less than bring liberalism--as theory and practice--into the twenty-first century." https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/M/bo135981232.html Mles2022 (talk) 13:38, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

I cannot find any discussion of minoritarian liberalism other than the book and articles about it. We shall have to wait an see what influence it has. TFD (talk) 15:08, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. -Lemonaka 17:23, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Before reading this discussion, I had separately had thoughts I think align well with "Option C".

I propose that we revise the section on liberalism and political equality to reflect the historical and philosophical origins of this concept. Liberalism emerged in the Age of Enlightenment as a reaction against the traditional forms of authority, such as hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, and divine right of kings. Liberalism advocated for representative democracy, rule of law, and **equality under the law** as the basis of a free and just society.  

Political equality, however, is not synonymous with equality under the law. Political equality refers to the equal participation and influence of citizens in a democratic system, regardless of their social or economic status. Equality under the law, on the other hand, means that all people are subject to the same laws and have the same rights and obligations before the courts. Equality under the law is a necessary but not sufficient condition for political equality. Confusing these concepts is an adulteration of English.

Liberalism has historically been more concerned with equality under the law than with political equality. Classical liberalism, for example, emphasizes individual rights, economic freedom, and limited government as the core principles of liberalism. Classical liberals oppose any interference by the state in the market or in the private sphere of individuals, even if such interference aims to promote social justice or political equality.

Therefore, I suggest that we clarify that liberalism is not based on political equality, but on equality under the law. We should also provide some citations from the Enlightenment thinkers who influenced the development of liberalism, such as John Locke, Montesquieu, Adam Smith, and John Stuart Mill.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

http://libjournals.unca.edu/ncur/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/1284-Stanton-FINAL.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equality_before_the_law

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism Burt Harris (talk) 21:34, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 July 2023

Create a section on neo-classical liberalism or radically anti-tax forms of liberalism. Integrate the content, if reliable, of the "anarcho-capitalism" section into the new section. 93.45.229.98 (talk) 11:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Lightoil (talk) 12:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Change "anarcho-capitalist theory" to "neo-classical liberal theory" per WP:FRINGE. It is unclear why a section of which a large proportion of the thinkers mentioned are not anarcho-capitalists should be called "anarcho-capitalist theory."

Ref.

From Politics Past to Politics Future An Integrated Analysis of Current and Emergent Paradigms by Alan Maine pp. 124–125

SAGE Publications' 21st Century Political Science A Reference Handbook pp. 596–603 93.45.229.98 (talk) 13:09, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

p.s. Among other things, the current section contains original research, such as "Unlike the liberalism of Locke, which saw the state as evolving from society, the anti-state liberals saw a fundamental conflict between the voluntary interactions of people, i.e. society, and the institutions of force, i.e. the state. This society versus state idea was expressed in various ways: natural society vs artificial society, liberty vs authority, society of contract vs society of authority and industrial society vs militant society, to name a few." 93.45.229.98 (talk) 13:23, 8 July 2023 (UTC)