Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 February 18

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 18

Why did the Pietists reject the "dead orthodoxy" of Lutheran Orthodoxy?

Eric W Gritsch writes in A History of Lutheranism that the Pietists rejected what they perceived as "dead orthodoxy" of Lutheran Orthodoxy in the early Lutheran church. He describes Lutheran Orthodoxy as getting too theological. What's wrong with that? What's wrong with focusing on the will and the intellect? 71.79.234.132 (talk) 00:44, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

unconstructive discussion that does not answer the question and that treats the OP's question non-seriously and off-topic 71.79.234.132 (talk) 02:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)}}:You've started with a reference already in hand and are asking us why we would agree with it's interpretation? We don't engage in debate, perhaps someone can point you to a religious chat forum. μηδείς (talk) 00:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The reference is mainly concerned with the history, not theology. And no, I am not asking why you would agree with it's interpretation. I am asking for the reasoning behind Pietism and the social atmosphere at the time that might have contributed to Pietism. It's a history-based question, not an opinion-based question. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 01:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I think my wording may have been misleading. It does sound a bit whine-y. :P 71.79.234.132 (talk) 01:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, it will be much easier to answer if we know you want information on Pietism in that context. Inter/intra-Protestant dialectic will have better specialists than me. μηδείς (talk) 04:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Who said this? There is no signature! 71.79.234.132 (talk) 02:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I just want to add that my main obstacle is trying to visualize pietism. Perhaps, understanding the social atmosphere may help me understand why people thought that way and thus what were the real sentiments behind pietism. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 02:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The now signed statement above was me. I think if you realize Lutheranism is very close in form of worship to a reform version of Roman Catholicism not under Rome, the sentence from our article "True Christianity, became widely known and appreciated; Heinrich Müller...described the font, the pulpit, the confessional and the altar as "the four dumb idols of the Lutheran Church". These four dumb idols are symbols of the authority of clergyman. Pietism rejects pomp and ceremony as papist, and emphasizes bible reading and Christian living (presumably virtuous living and charity.) In any case, I am a lapsed Catholic reading this for you. The article seems clear, I suggest you read it and associated links and then ask if you have further specific questions. μηδείς (talk) 04:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Huh. That's slightly different from what I imagined. I thought pietism had something to do with anti-intellectualism. The A to Z of Lutheranism writes "While it is difficult to generalize Pietism, it seems to be ecumenical, emotional, lay-focused, and interested in institutions only if they are voluntary associations. It opposed Orthodoxy for its overattention to the will and the intellect, seeing it as encouraging a barren and arid assent rather than a living faith. Later, Pietism opposed its own child, Enlightenment rationalism, for its overattention to reason, seeing it as setting skepticism above faith." In my mind, I imagined that as "anti-intellectual", focusing on practical matters instead of on esoteric theological subjects that don't have much to do with reality. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 04:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I tried to search "papist" on the two Wikipedia articles you linked to, pietism and Johann Arndt, and can't find the word. Can you give a cite where you get the idea it's related to papistry? My readings in the two said books lead me to believe that pietism was an anti-intellectual movement. So, I'm actually quite interested in how it is interpreted as something related to opposition to papistry. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 05:25, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Papistry is just a derogatory term Protestants use to refer to the things about the hierarchical, ceremonial, and theological things about the Catholic church they don't like. It's a bad name, not a thing. I really can't help you any further than the article at this point. μηδείς (talk) 05:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I already know what papistry means, and I already know, from my reading of Martin Luther's biography and early Lutheran history, that Martin Luther was convinced that the Roman Catholic Church was corrupted or "lost the gospel". But the Pietist movement actually occurred after Martin Luther's life, and all sources I've encountered to date does not suggest that the Pietist movement was inherently anti-Catholic. So, that never got into my mind. What I did thought, based on the descriptions, was that Pietism seemed to carry an anti-intellectual flavor, and this tendency to go against the intellect and go for the heart influenced other Christian denominations, including modern-day Evangelicals. Also note that Pietism focuses on ecumenism, and as far as I know of the current Roman Catholic Church, it seems that it does a lot of ecumenical work too. So, Pietism is hardly an anti-Catholic thing. You still need to explain where you get the idea that it has anything to do with anti-Catholicism. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 06:41, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I have already said Pietism rejected "the font, the pulpit, the confessional and the altar" which were seen as papist elements still remaining in "high church" Lutheranism, as well as an emphasis on theological argument, shared both by Catholicism and Luther (and others like Calvin and Zwingli). I said nothing about Pietists being necessarily hostile to Roman Catholics as such. You already have your sources, and your set opinions, which you seem to want to debate: "You still need to explain..." No, I do not need to explain anything. This is a volunteer desk where personal opinions are not the main focus and where obstinacy and rudeness don't invite others to invest their time on questions. μηδείς (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

So, how did you know that "the font, the pulpit, the confessional, and the altar" were seen as papist elements still remaining in "high church Lutheranism"? Can you give a cite? I do not want to debate; I just want to know how you know it. As this is a volunteer desk where personal opinions are not the main focus and where obstinacy and rudeness don't invite others to invest their time on questions, I politely ask you to give some references. I am interested. I thought "the font, the pulpit, the confessional, and the altar" was in all churches. :P Sorry, but I really have not much personal experiences with churches, so I am just wondering if "the font, the pulpit, the confessional, and the altar" are the four characteristics of "high church". Is it? I'm just curious. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 23:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

There was one time when I asked a librarian about the tabernacle, because I didn't have a clue what the article on the catholic encyclopedia was about. Then, the librarian told me that the "blessed sacrament" was really the eucharist. I probably completely skipped over it, because I didn't know that the blessed sacrament referred to the host, which referred to the eucharist. Sometimes, I wonder if I ask questions that are too simple that some people think I am not being serious or trying to confront them or something. I apologize for sounding too confrontational. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 23:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I am going to ask a similar question on the Stack Exchange Network. Hopefully, I may get conclusive answers from the experts. Wikipedia is useful for general, basic information (both the articles and the Reference Desks), but if one wants more understanding, then Wikipedia usually cannot provide the answer, or the answer tends to be not well sourced. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 01:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that Medeis has merely skimmed through the Pietism article and picked one line out of the whole article: "Heinrich Müller, who described the font, the pulpit, the confessional and the altar as 'the four dumb idols of the Lutheran Church.'" As an ex-Catholic, Medeis probably thought the usage of the word "idols" in the Pietism context resembled the usage of the word "idols" when anti-Papistry Protestants talk about "idols" in the Catholic church. The line might have led Medeis to think that Lutheran Orthodoxy was high-church, and the Pietism movement essentially criticized this high-church liturgy.

This may call for a few interesting questions:

• Was the Pietism movement essentially an anti-Papistry movement?

Perhaps, my initial interpretation was mistaken, yet I still need to find support for the alternative interpretation. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 02:19, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

This question has been answered here. 71.79.234.132 (talk) 02:32, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

Resolved by someone on another site quoting the Wikipedia article on Pietism. So whatever. Rmhermen (talk) 03:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Islam and music

According to this possibly unreliable website and many other Islamic websites, Islamic law forbids music. Music, something so fundamental to humanity that we have flutes as old as the oldest cave paintings. How many percent of Muslims actually buy into this? Have any polls been conducted to see whether it's just an obsession of fundamentalists, or a common belief?

(Forgive my inability to hide my disdain for this barbarism.) --Bowlhover (talk) 07:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I won't. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Please see Islamic music#Permissibility of music.--Shantavira|^{feed me} 09:30, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

It seems there are more or less four schools of thought: that music is more or less entirely unacceptable to Islam ([1], for example); that only vocal-only music, or music that only uses vocals and basic percussion, is acceptable ([2]); that music is acceptable as long as it doesn't incite debauchery, indecency or sin (which by some interpretations rules out most popular music) ([3]); and that music is perfectly acceptable ([4]). I can't find any sources regarding how common each view is, and googling the issue produces many results backing up each interpretation. Nasheeds, a form of usually vocal music, seem to be widely considered acceptable at least - according to this article, "most Islamic scholars now say nasheeds are acceptable, especially during wartime." It also points out that ISIS now has a nasheed associated with it as its "anthem," and that Osama bin Laden started a nasheed group as a teenager. So it seems that very few modern Muslims feel that all music is forbidden. A related topic that may be of interest to you is dancing bans, which have historically been common not just in Islam but in Christianity and Judaism as well. -Elmer Clark (talk) 10:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

IMDB hss no release dates for Footloose in any Muslim nation. They call it Yasak dans in Turkey, though, and Egypt and the UAE got the 2011 remake just a few weeks late. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Fundamentalists do all sorts of stupid things (in any religion) and it doesn't usually affect regular people. I would say approximately 0% of Muslims "buy into" this supposed prohibition. Aside from the Islamic music article above, we also have Arabic music, and "Music of (country)" articles (Music of Egypt, Music of Saudi Arabia, etc). The music industry of the Arab world alone is huge. There is music of every genre you can think of and several more you've probably never imagined. I mean...what else can be said here? Go to YouTube and check out some Egyptian pop music or whatever. I find it difficult to believe this is even a serious question, given the parenthetical aside... Adam Bishop (talk) 10:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hussam "Flipperachi" Aseem starts his generic (but shiny) rap video with Ford product placement. Some true blue-chip Western decadence, with a vaguely Puerto Rican sound. Of course, he's a certified outlaw. InedibleHulk (talk) 11:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Sadly, Bahrain isn't represented in the Arabic hip hop article. InedibleHulk (talk) 12:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I highly doubt it's 0%, because most Islamic websites I've found on Google explain why music is forbidden. It seems to be at least a mainstream opinion, not a lunatic fringe. --Bowlhover (talk) 02:25, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• Umm Kulthum, for which see Inta Omri, remnant of a civilized age, sung by a woman whose funeral was attended by more than that of Nasser. μηδείς (talk) 02:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

U.S Constitution

Hi everyone. I am from England so I know very little about this subject as we are not taught it at school! I am having a debate with an American friend over the ideology surrounding the U.S Constitution. So here is my question:

Was the U.S constitution of 1787 a 'conservative' document, or is it liberal? Thank you! --Clickrsona (talk) 08:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Define "conservative" and "liberal". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

A generalized response: it tried to "balance" between both. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The US "revolution" was conservative in that it largely tried (and managed) to maintain the societal status quo. A lot of the rhetoric at the time spun around the "ancient rights of Englishmen" that King George (and Parliament) violated and that needed to be restored. But the written constitution and especially the Bill of Rights was heavily influenced by the climate of Enlightenment, and hence liberal in the original sense - separation of church and state, protections against government interference, codified rights of the individual, and so on, were all fairy progressive ideas. It is, however, a frequent misunderstanding that the US constitution is somehow static and sacrosanct. While the document only changes rarely, the interpretation is much more fluent with the Zeitgeist. Dred Scott v. Sandford or Schenck v. United States would not be decided now as they had been back then. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:52, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I suppose I see that, but it's a pretty tough sell to claim that establishment of a new sovereign nation by armed revolt is an overall appeal to maintain the status quo ... SemanticMantis (talk) 15:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, these words mean different things in different contexts, and also change through time. My understanding is that the document in question is largely rooted in the ideals of Classical_liberalism, which was being developed relatively concurrently. You'll need to read the article carefully to see how those concepts are different from some of the concepts of modern liberals in the USA and UK. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Clickrsona -- Charles A. Beard famously claimed that the U.S. constitution was written to serve the economic interests of the upper classes, launching a decades-long debate, but I'm not sure that too much survives of his "economic interpretation", except for the fact that the constitution is more creditor-friendly than debtor-friendly (providing for national bankruptcy laws) and eliminates various obstacles to trade (no interstate tariffs, no export tariffs etc.)... AnonMoos (talk) 15:50, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Those are some rather stupid forms of taxation. Taxing something will tend to reduce it, so the result of those taxes would be to decrease exports and inter-state trade, both of which are bad for the national economy. Taxing imports, on the other hand, would tend to reduce imports, which mean your nation's money isn't sent overseas. This would be a very good thing, if not for the effect that other nations will then do the same to you. Sin taxes make even more sense, since you can reduce alcohol consumption, tobacco use, etc., while also bringing in money. (Of course, if you set them too high you will get cheating and/or a rebellion.) StuRat (talk) 16:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Sin taxes are widely considered a Regressive_tax. It's very simple, tobacco, alcohol, and other "sinful" things have relatively inelastic demand - that means people buy almost as many cigarettes at $6 a pack as they did at $3 a pack [5] [6]. While rich people don't notice the difference between $3/6 per day, poor people certainly do. So sin taxes end up placing a disproportionate tax burden on the poor, and that is the very definition of a regressive tax. I will not argue with you about this, but I wanted to post some references that present the other side to your claim that sin taxes are good public policy. More refs and info at Sin_tax#Opposition. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:00, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

"Taxing imports, on the other hand, would tend to reduce imports, which mean your nation's money isn't sent overseas. This would be a very good thing, if not for the effect that other nations will then do the same to you." That is pretty close to the mercantilist argument, and it has been pretty thoroughly refuted by Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations. Basically, if you tax imports, you will import less. But then you have less of whatever you imported. It's been imported because whoever exported it too you offered it cheaper than the local economy could make it. So you're better of buying (say) iPhones in China, and use your own resources to (say) design the thing, program iOS, and play in the Super Bowl, all of which create more revenue than soldering tiny bits of semiconductors on tiny bits of metal. In a fair trade, both sides profit. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I have moved the hat below this point since Shay's Rebellion (over the whiskey tax) and tariff policy before the Civil War and the 16th Amendment are highly important topics. μηδείς (talk) 19:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

very off-topic discussion of tax policy SemanticMantis (talk) 18:56, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

So you think that if we could somehow have import tariffs and at the same time avoid any other country doing the same, that would be bad for the nation ? I disagree. Any tax will have some negative consequence, but some, like import tariffs, also have positive effects, in this case protecting local industry. So, given that you must have taxes, those with both positive and negative consequences are better than those with strictly negative consequences. (Of course, as I've already said, import tariffs are a bad idea because they will cause reciprocal tariffs to be levied on your nation.) And as for sin taxes, they are a better choice than other regressive taxes (and note that it's only regressive in rate, not by amount), such as sales tax, which will tend to make people buy cheaper, less healthy food, etc., thus damaging their health, rather than improving it. I'd counter the regressive nature of such taxes with a highly progressive income and inheritance taxes. I also favor taxes on gambling, although in the case of lotteries using that money to advertise gambling, there I think they've gone off the deep end. The government might as well start advertising smoking, drinking, and, where legal, prostitution. StuRat (talk) 18:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC) Please stop arguing, we aren't supposed to do that here. Please also stop telling us your opinions on what types of tax you support, we aren't supposed to do that either. If you do insist on arguing, I'd suggest that making a straw man of Stephan Schulz and Adam Smith is a poor way to do so. This thread is now far off topic, and I apologize that I helped make it so. Anyway, if you want to spitball this stuff without putting in the time do real research, do so at the bar or coffee shop, or seek an appropriate internet forum. I'm hatting this sub thread now, as IMO it's distracting from the other good responses with good references. SemanticMantis (talk) You miss the point. "Protected industries" will charge more for the products they make. The ultimate goal of an economy is not to make money. It's to provide "stuff". If stuff is cheaper to make elsewhere, find some stuff you can make cheaper than the other economic partner and exchange goods. Even if you both have absolutely the same environment and resources, it still will be better to specialise due to economy of scale, at least in a perfect market with commodity goods. Things change if transport is expensive, but then you need protectionism even less. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:54, 18 February 2015 (UTC) But the ability to make things cheaper elsewhere is not an absolute, it depends on many factors which are subject to change. Take clothing manufacture, for example. Sure labor is cheaper abroad, but that can be countered by domestic automation. And it's not quite fair to compare local industry with good environmental, health and labor laws with foreign competition which lacks all of those. Sure local suppliers could compete better if they had children in sweatshops, didn't worry about dumping toxic waste or paying minimum wage, either, but that doesn't mean we should just shut down local industry and send those jobs abroad where they can do those things. Then there are strategic industries, where to to lose the ability to make those things would threaten national defense. That includes electronics manufacturing, aircraft and automobile manufacturing (which switched to military production during WW2), energy production, etc. Only being able to produce junk food, movies, and sports teams will not win a major war. Also, the goal of creating "lots of cheap stuff" is outdated. Most people in the West have more than enough material possessions now, and even more just leads to pollution problems, etc. Instead, we should focus on sustainability, both in terms of natural resources and economical stability. But, again, avoiding a trade war is a good reason to skip the import tariffs. StuRat (talk) 19:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The answer to your question really does depend on what you mean by conservative and liberal. Also, you have specified the Constitution as it stood in 1787, before the addition of the Bill of Rights. In today's terms, that document, which assured little in the way of rights for citizens and which enshrined slavery, was profoundly conservative, indeed reactionary. But it doesn't make sense to measure a historic document by present-day standards. In its day, its opponents accused the original Constitution of being illiberal and conservative, in that it gave too much power to the government and did not guarantee the rights of individuals. Also, the Constitution created a powerful presidency that opponents found monarchical and therefore conservative. Under the previous constitution of the United States, the Articles of Confederation, the federal government did not have a strong executive and required agreement from a majority, and sometimes a supermajority, of state governments before it could take action. So, in its immediate and local historical context, the Constitution was a moderately conservative document. However, in the larger context of Western history, and by comparison with the political systems of other countries at the time, the Constitution was an almost radically liberal document in subjecting government to democratic control and in checking the powers of the executive. Marco polo (talk) 18:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, if you're in England and your friend is in America, there's likely going to be a huge misunderstanding over terminology. "Liberal" and "Conservative" both mean very different things in the UK and US - neither the British Liberal nor Conservative parties would be considered as such in the USA, while some policies of American conservatives appear quite left-wing and radical to a European eye. Mogism (talk) 19:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd like hear you name one American conservative position that would be regarded as "left-wing" in Europe. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

You might be interested in reading about Horseshoe theory. Also perhaps Radical right and British left. SemanticMantis (talk) 19:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Opposition to international integration (it's historically been the left who want out of the EU, and the right who want in—UKIP is a very recent phenomenon), immigration restriction (the British Labour Party has always been the anti-immigration party, as the unions who fund it see immigration as a threat to their members, while the business interests that fund the Conservative Party generally support cheap imported labour), an emphasis on religion and specifically Christianity (as has been seen this week, the Church of England and the Labour Party are very closely intertwined)... Our own Conservatism in the United States article includes in the lead that "what Americans now call conservatism much of the world calls liberalism or neoliberalism." Mogism (talk) 19:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

That's a quote from Ribuffo. We don't have to agree with it! Dbfirs 09:15, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I am sorry, but that last quote of yours is not supportive of that theory. The "liberalism" in "neoliberalism" (or in what the rest of the call "liberalism") isn't used as "liberal" is used in the US, but used in the strict economic sense, which is certainly not in any way a left wing phenomenon. The quote merely throws light on the fact that the word "liberal" has different meanings. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think things are as simple as you suggest. Firstly you said European not UK. As far as I can tell, National Front (France) has always been fairly anti immigration. Describing them is complicated, particularly since their policies have changed over time. But as far as I can tell, they're generally more associated with the right than the left even in France. Notably, their were anti-communist and in their early days were more opposed than supportive of protectionism. Similarly Francoist Spain which is AFAIK considered fairly right wing even in France restored the Catholic church's privileges in Spain and made Catholic education mandatory (although in the later days particularly after Vatican II, there were problems which results in priests opposing the regime, some ending up as leftist politicians). Our article Religion in Spain notes that despite the traditional connection between religion and the right wing, voting preferences changed somewhat e.g. by 1982 many Catholics voted for the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party and it had many Catholic members, although the leadership was agnostic and in 1980 82% of Spaniards still considered themselves Catholic. Perhaps it's more true on the more mainstream level, but I don't think it's even really true there. Consider even our Conservative Party (UK) says "Since accession to the EU, British membership has been a source of heated debate within the Conservative party." It's unsourced but AFAIK it's mostly true. In reality many of those things you highlighted have had people on both the left and right opposed for various reasons. Nil Einne (talk) 11:59, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

He might be mistaking some Libertarian politicians, like Ron Paul, for conservatives, since both are in the Republican Party. Libertarian policies, like avoiding foreign intervention, might indeed seem liberal. StuRat (talk) 19:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

So-called "paleoconservatives" were generally anti-interventionist, or "America-firsters", or "isolationists". So-called "neoconservatives" have tended to be warhawks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:34, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• Some things to look at. First, the Revolution itself came about because the Colonists considered themselves to have the full rights of Englishman as granted by the Magna Carta, and with no taxes to be raised without parliamentary consent. Yet special taxes on the colonists such as paper The Stamp Act and tea Boston Tea Party were passed by Parliament without either Colonial consent or Colonial representation in Parliament. The Proclamation Line of 1763 limiting colonists to the fringe of the East Coast, while Britain controlled all of the territory east of the Mississippi except for Florida was rightly seen as a means of keeping the Colonists under check by preventing the use of the west for farming and settlement. In so far as most colonists were family farmers and small businessmen, these were middle class interests. The conflict here was between Loyalists, like Benjamin Franklin's well-heeled son and royally-appointed governor of New Jersey, William Franklin, and those less tied to Britain by birth or connection with the established order.
  

Second, after the Revolution was won, the colonies were in essence separate nations. Under the Articles of Confederation, there was no modern presidency, no way for the federal government to tax the states or raise an army without their consent. States could erect trade boundaries between themselves, and there was armed conflict within and among the states, e.g., Shay's Rebellion. The Constitution was drafted to remedy these deficiencies of a weak central government without returning to an overbearing system like the one they had overthrown.

Third, the drafters of the Constitution were educated and invested lawyers, statesmen and businessmen who had been through the Revolution, risked their lives on principle, and supported its classical-liberal causes. They had read John Locke and Suetonius's Lives of the Caesars and were familiar with English history from the Magna Carta through the English Civil War, Oliver Cromwell, and the Glorious Revolution. They knew how the Roman Republic had turned into the Empire. So they drafted a document with three branches of federal government, each able to check the other to prevent parliamentary or presidential dictatorship. They ultimately retained sovereignty for the people and states by regular elections, a Senate appointed by the state governments to preserve their sovereign interests, and a House to represent the people by number, as well as the Ninth and Tenth amendments stating that rights of the people not enumerated by the Constitution were not disparaged and powers not explicitly granted to the federal government were retained by the states or the people. The US Bill of Rights was instituted specifically to redress problems of colonial and revolutionary times--freedom of the press John Peter Zenger; freedom of religion (Puritan, Quaker, and Catholic ad other minority religious rights); trial by jury, habeas corpus, no search without a warrant, no forced quartering of troops (The Coercive Acts), etc.

Finally, compromises had to be made between the liberal and commercial interests of the small northern states and the existence of slavery in the southern states. The Constitution could not forbid slavery outright or the South would secede or return to England, which would pick off the northern states piecemeal. The North won in negotiations the end of the slave trade by 1801 and the forbidding of slavery in the area north of the Ohio river. The South got to keep slavery for now, and got the famous three-fifths clause. Other than the slavery compromises, for Europeans, the Constitution was a fully classical-liberal document. It was also informed by Roman, British, and American history, and was conservative (small c) in the sense that it was meant to uphold the traditional rights of Englishman, and not to disenfranchise any one class of people. Racially, blacks and Indians remained an issue. μηδείς (talk) 00:39, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

• Regarding "Taxation without representation", note that this still exists in the US. For example, many cities have taxes on people who work there, but do not live there, and thus are not entitled to vote there. I believe California also tried to tax workers who are not allowed to vote there. Then there are taxes children pay, who can't vote (sales tax and sometimes income tax). Also, speed traps are designed not to improve safety, but to generate revenue from people who can't vote to stop the practice (in that town). There are many other examples. StuRat (talk) 19:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• They're free to look for work elsewhere. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, and the colonists were free to move elsewhere, to someplace where they would be represented. StuRat (talk) 20:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Despite its flaws, as viewed from a 1787 international standpoint, the US constitution certainly was one of the most liberal in the world at that time. --Saddhiyama (talk) 10:39, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

The biggest problem, or one of the biggest problems, with the original question, is that it assumes "liberal" and "conservative" are opposites. They are not. In fact, they measure completely different things.

Liberalism is a theory about how things ought to be. Traditionally, liberalism holds that the individual has inherent value, and seeks to provide guarantees for the individual against the state. In a more recent sense, it seeks to moderate (though not eliminate) economic inequality.

Conservatism, on the other hand, is a theory about how fast things ought to change. It is not so much about finding the ideal state of affairs as about moderating the disruptions caused in the attempt to get there.

So it is perfectly possible to be liberal and conservative at the same time, especially if you live in a country that is already liberal. Or you can be opposed to both liberalism and conservatism at the same time, if you seek radical change that does not offer guarantees for the individual against the state. --Trovatore (talk) 16:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• The problem, dear friends, is that people want terms like "Conservatism" and "Liberalism" to be universal political constants, so we can pigeonhole a particular political figure or event or movement into the definitions we work with today. The problem is that these terms are predicated on a specific relation to time and place. In the broadest sense, political "conservatism" seeks to "conserve" the political status quo while "liberalism" seeks to "liberalize" (expand) political power to more people. Unless we know what the political situation is in a particular place, at a particular time, we cannot define what is politically liberal or politically conservative. To define a particular political situation as "conservative" or "liberal" based solely on our current definitions of those terms based on where we live and when we live is folly. --Jayron32 03:03, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Conservatism is relative to the current society, but liberalism is not. That's why, as I was explaining, it is incorrect to treat them as opposites; they are not necessarily even in tension. That's the exact point I was making, and you are making the precise error I was calling out. Of course the way that people use the word changes, but that's different — liberalism is still about a desired form of social organization (though exactly which one is meant changes, but just as linguistic change, not in any predictable way relative to the society). The ones who really have the right to the honorable name "liberal", of course, are now more often called "libertarians". --Trovatore (talk) 07:38, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
    • No, Liberalism is relative too. It's why we had to invent a term like "classical liberalism" because the ideals of classical liberalism would be viewed as not very liberal in a modern society, where "liberal" have evolved. The sort of expansion of rights and liberties to the people that "classical liberalism" expanded rights and liberties to are now the very people who are in power, and liberalism as an ideology has moved on to liberalizing the political landscape for other disenfranchised people. The social classes enfranchised in the age when "classical liberalism" was just called "liberalism" are now the political elite, which is why they are now the conservatives. Remember, the stated ideals of "classical liberalism" was designed to benefit the merchant and "middle" classes as defined in late 18th century Anglo-American politics. The people who were the beneficiaries of classical liberalism were people who had money and wealth, but no political power (who the French called the Bourgeoisie), while those in political power were the landed nobility. The American and French revolutions occurred in this age, and were about limiting the power of the Monarchy and Nobility to allow for the moneyed (but not noble) classes to have access to the political power they lacked. Once those classes became the ruling classes, "classical liberalism", which was the liberal thought of their day, no longer was a political ideology that sought to advance rights of disenfranchised people. Instead, "classical liberalism" became the ideology of those in power, and new sorts of liberalism became new voices to provide political power towards those lower on the power ladder. Liberalism is always seeking to enfranchise (legally and culturally and socially) those people who lack access to political power. At a time when those people were white, rich, middle-class men who resented the Monarchy and Nobility for their hereditary power, that was liberal. Today, those people are in power, and so their philosophy is no longer "liberal" in regards to the changing political climate. --Jayron32 22:46, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
      • This is the standard line of so-called "progressives", at least the ones that still also want to call themselves "liberals" (I think the identity-politics crowd has, correctly, given up all pretense of being liberal, and on that point at least I have to give them credit). But this is a reinterpretation meant to justify a sort of historicism and class-based analysis that ultimately shares much with the ideas of Marx. Liberalism is not about distributing political power downwards; it's about structuring protections against political power. To the extent that this has changed, it's a change in the meaning of the word, not some sort of natural progression of history. --Trovatore (talk) 01:04, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
        • Someone would have to check it on the full OED, which has a fuller etymology and historical usages, but requires a subscription for online use. Merriam-Webster has a similar respect as an American dictionary, though is somewhat less comprehensive than the full OED (well TBH, everything is less comprehensive than the full OED), but M-W defines liberalism as "belief in the value of social and political change in order to achieve progress" for a first definition, and notes the usage dating from 1819. I would hardly call such usage novel. --Jayron32 02:16, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
          • There's a better definition in the first two sentences of our article: "Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality. The former principle is stressed in classical liberalism while the latter is more evident in social liberalism." Nothing about change per se; different desired organizations of society depending on the particular branch of liberalism, and change is desired if the actual society does not meet those ideals, but not when it does meet them. --Trovatore (talk) 04:57, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
            • Except that Wikipedia itself is not a reliable source. It would really be nice to see what the OED says (if someone has a subscription and could look it up). It's nice that you prefer the Wikipedia definition because it supports your own idiosyncratic viewpoint, but I'll take the work of a respected dictionary which has been compiled by professional dictionary writers after years of etymological research. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy definition is, of course, more nuanced and complex than a simple dictionary definition, and notes that liberalism is primarly devoted to the pursuit of and protection of "liberty", which, of course, simply moves the locus of the need for definition one word over: one needs to define liberty, and its pursuit. Liberty is the rights of people to self-determination, don't take my word for it. The Stanford Encyclopedia itself notes that the definition of liberalism is always context-dependent, "Liberals disagree, however, about the concept of liberty, and as a result the liberal ideal of protecting individual liberty can lead to very different conceptions of the task of government" That's the point: the view of a "liberal" regarding the role of government depends on whether or not the "liberal" in question has access to the political power (and by extension, their own self-determination, their liberty). In a society where the government takes an active role in suppressing the liberty of individuals, liberalism tends to be anti-government. In a society where coercive forces come from those outside of the government per se (such as social institutions, commercial institutions, the culture at large) and where the government is actively fighting to provide liberty to people, and is at odds with those coercive forces, liberalism comes off as pro-government. Liberalism is still always about access to liberty and power over one's own life: not about government per see and its role in that regard. It's about what are the coercive forces restricting a person's liberty, and what is being done to remove those coercive forces. In the context of late 18th century political thought, it was the Monarchy and it's arcane, hereditary, absolutist ideas that were the barrier to the liberty of the people who didn't have it. Thus, liberalism in that context is to limit (or eliminate) the power of hereditary nobility and establish a system where people have the right to choose all of their leaders. It's inherently anti-state at that time, because it was the existing state at that time which represented the conservative situation. That particular historic situation is not necessarily analogous to every situation in every country. It's historic and geographic context is still required to understand if a particular political situation would be seen as liberal or conservative: does it seek to create every-growing liberty (that is, does is diffuse political power from those that have it concentrated in their own hands to people without access to it) or does it seek to maintain the political status quo. When a particular political instrument or group, be it a party, a document, a set of ideas, a platform, etc. etc. is a tool to maintain status quo, it is is conservative by definition. When said instrument is a tool to increase liberty to more people, it is liberal by definition. We can only judge it based on how, when, by whom, and for what purpose any political idea is being used before we decide if it is "liberal" or "conservative". --Jayron32 05:25, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I looked over the SEP article. I didn't read it in full detail (would take a while), but at the level I did read it, it looked excellent; a fine summary of the various strains of liberalism.

What I didn't see was really any support at all for your point of view. You claim it recognizes the importance of "context", but what I see is just different strains of a philosophy about the ideal organization of society. I think you're adding a historicist gloss that just isn't there. --Trovatore (talk) 19:22, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The OED has two (non-theological) definitions of liberalism: 1. Support for or advocacy of individual rights, civil liberties, and reform tending towards individual freedom, democracy, or social equality; a political and social philosophy based on these principles; spec. (freq. with capital initial) the doctrine or practice of the Liberal Party in Britain or elsewhere. and 2. Freedom from bias, prejudice, or bigotry; open-mindedess, tolerance; (Polit.) liberal left-wing political views and policies. (Third edition November 2010.) The definitions of liberal include: (Polit.) favouring social reform and a degree of state intervention in matters of economics and social justice; left-wing. and Supporting or advocating individual rights, civil liberties, and political and social reform tending towards individual freedom or democracy with little state intervention. and Freq. with capital initial. Designating any of various political parties advocating individual rights and freedoms and Chiefly with capital initial. A person advocating political and social reform tending towards individual freedom or democracy; a member or supporter of the Liberal Party. I don't know whether any of this helps. Dbfirs 10:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

shivraj singh chouhan cm of mp

he is not from a rajput family because rajput comes in general category, rajput comes in upper caste and shivraj singh chouhan comes in OBC category.Infact the people from sehore,budhni,hoshangabad who write singh chouhan as their sirname they all take scholarship of OBC category.They are not thakur or rajput people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 43.252.35.166 (talk) 08:38, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

This would be better on Talk:Shivraj Singh Chouhan. The statement currently in the article that Chouhan is "Belonging to Kirar Rajput community" is uncited, and therefore can be removed per WP:BLP. But discussion on the article talk page is required. Tevildo (talk) 09:22, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

House price increases

What causes house prices to increase?—Wavelength (talk) 17:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, besides inflation, it would also be the lack of enough housing, making them more valuable. Bear in mind, though, that housing prices also decrease sometimes. You might as well be asking about why the price of bananas was higher than it was twenty years ago. KägeTorä - (^影_虎) (Chin Wag) 17:19, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

To expand on "lack of available housing", this could be due to many causes:

1) People moving into the area faster than more homes can be built.

2) Destruction of many homes from some catastrophe, such as a fire, earthquake, or war.

3) A higher birth rate than can be accommodated.

4) Communism. This often had houses provided at lower price than they cost to build, which meant the government could only afford to build a few. So, after communism ends, there is a building boom to make up for the housing shortage. Until the housing demand is met, prices will remain high.

5) Limited geographic space. In some locations, like Singapore, there is very little room to build more houses.

6) In other places, there may be room, but building might not be permitted (maybe it's in a national park area, for example).

The other side of the equation is that people might have more money as a result of a growing economy, and thus be willing to spend more to get a good house. This will tend to increase all housing prices, but particularly the high end homes. Ironically, when the economy is down, this might actually increase the price of budget homes, as people downsize and a shortage in that market emerges. StuRat (talk)

Every one of your points is an aspect of "supply and demand". (That's all I know about economics, from Father Sarducci's Five-Minute University.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Absolutely, and I see you're putting your 5-minute education to good use ! StuRat (talk) 21:18, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

• We have a pretty good article on the Housing market. It is much better than any response anyone here can type up in five minutes. I suggest you read that article carefully and come back with any more specific questions. SemanticMantis (talk) 18:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

The short answer, as others have pointed out, is that prices increase when demand exceeds supply. However, when you see a substantial increase over time, it's the LAND that's going up in value, not the house itself. Remember the maxim "Location, location, location?" The land IS the location; moreover, the supply of all land is fixed (just ask Lex_Luthor), meaning that it's value tends to appreciate in time even if demand stays relatively constant. OldTimeNESter (talk) 21:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

While the overall amount of land is somewhat fixed (with a few exceptions, like extending beaches outward with fill), the land available for houses in a given area is not. There's land reclamation, such as draining swamps and clearing forests, then there's land repurposing, like turning farms into subdivisions. And, of course, you can always fit more people into a given amount of land by building up and down. Now these things might be bad for the environment, but they do keep housing prices down. StuRat (talk) 21:26, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Besides what is written in the housing market article linked to above, rises in productivity outside the home construction industry can also increase the value of a home. If a house built in 1970 took 1000 person-hours to create and it would take 1000 person-hours today to create an identical house then one could see the value of the house change as the dollar value of a person-hour changed between 1970 and today. If the number of person-hours needed to build the same house today was only 200 then the value of that 1970 house would drop to 1/5th as despite costing 1000-person hours when built, it's only worth 200 today. Though if wages also saw a five time boost the value would be the same as when it was built. So ya, a difference between supply and demand for labour changes wages which changes the value of goods though the cost of producing at least some goods could have been the change that affected the supply and demand of labour. The moral of the story is hire a group of North Korean construction workers as they work just as fast and skillfully but accept 1/4th the pay. 70.50.123.188 (talk) 08:32, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• Along the lines of cheap labor, my experience as a past California real estate broker has been to buy "fixer-upper" properties and use Mexicans for labor as they worked for about 1/2 that of a legal U.S. citizen. Then the next trick was to get a motivated seller (somebody that really needed to sell fast) and purchase the property below the market. After the property was all fixed up I made the house price go up (+10% to +30%), keeping all the profits to myself. Made a good living doing this = now retired.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:12, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

As an investor I was more interested in what caused house prices to decrease = to be below the market, so I could make a profit. Some reasons were family issues (i.e. divorce, separation), loss of job, foreclosure, Probates, Estate Sales, and couldn't manage the property.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 21:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• An answer to the O.P. of What causes house prices to increase? could relate to the motivation of the buyer and seller. The seller usually wants to get the highest price possible for their house that they are emotionally involved with. They usually think it has a value higher than houses in the neighborhood because their house "has a better.....(whatever)" than the others. Now IF the buyer is highly motivated to buy a house in that neighborhood with that feature (because they recently came into a bunch of money) they are motivated more than the average buyer and will purchase this house at full price (something slightly over the market) = making the neighborhood houses go up in value (causing higher property taxes). So I look more at motivation of the buyer and seller = which could relate somewhat to supply and demand. However the opposite of this is a foreclosure property where the seller is many times highly motivated to sell (even under the market), irregardless of the area 'supply and demand'. Making a fast sale is the most important thing in this case = highly motivated seller. This then sets up an opportunity for an investor with money to buy something under the market, to make a potential profit.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 15:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

OR: On the day construction of a house is completed, it begins to deteriorate (depreciate in value). Taxes and perhaps a mortgage must be paid, and maintenance must be carried out. Given that the building itself is (typically) vastly more valuable than the raw land it sits on, changes in real estate prices (building + land) are primarily driven by changes in the value of the land.

Assume the building is 75% of the value, and the land 25%. If the building depreciated by 5% a year, the value of the land must rise 15% just to keep the value the same: (75*0.95=71.25) + (25*1.15=28.75) and 71.25+28.75=100.DOR (HK) (talk) 04:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Pre-Song Chinese Female Footwear

What was the common forms/fashion of footwear of Chinese female commoners and noblewomen before the advent of footbinding?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 20:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Are you sure commoners didn't mostly go barefoot then ? StuRat (talk) 21:16, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

What idiotic source told you they went barefoot instead of wearing their shoes? 70.50.123.188 (talk) 07:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Stu didn't make a claim, he merely asked a question. Do you have the answer? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, commoners go barefoot in some places even today, but, if you go back far enough, shoes were a major expense, and poor people couldn't afford them. Of course, weather conditions made shoes an absolute necessity in some places, and totally optional in other places, so that also had a major impact. I don't know what the situation was in China prior to the Song dynasty, but it's a question worth asking. StuRat (talk) 16:23, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

It's not really a major expense when you make your own clothes. Even Otzi the Iceman had shoes. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

In that climate (hiking through glaciers in the Alps) shoes are a necessity. In places where they were less important, spending the limited resources you had on making or buying shoes may not have made sense. StuRat (talk) 18:10, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

A simple google search will yield many valuable sources for the OP. In short, they made various sandals, shoes, and boots using materials ranging from grasses, hemp, cloth, silk, wood, and leather. 70.50.123.188 (talk) 07:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)