Talk:Liberalism
I'm very skeptical that this article is really worth importing. --Larry Sanger 15:48, 3 September 2007 (CDT)
Delete it by all means then. Personally I thought the lack of articles for core political and economical philosophies is something the site lacked, but maybe someone will come along and write a Liberalism article to be proud of (I know I sure as hell haven't got it in me). :-) Denis Cavanagh 16:03, 3 September 2007 (CDT)
As an economist, I would think this useful. Liberalism is the philosophical basis for the early questioning as to how a non-authoritarian government aught to interact with the economy. A few points about your existing text:
Overall, the end of the second paragraph of the intro could probably be incorporated into the main body of the article.
Its first success was in the American Revolution, though it was largely based on British Parliamentarianism and the first, constitutional phase of the French Revolution.
The French Revolution strikes me as an inherently illiberal affair, elaborate a bit more about your notions of the "constitutional phase"... also, if the Americal Revolution is to be cited as a success (which I agree with) it seems inconsistent for the philosophy to be rooted in the slightly later French Revolution.
They tended to rein against inbuilt establishments, such as the crown, church or aristocracy.
I think it might be the case that the notion of the catholic church wielding quasi-state powers rubbed liberals the wrong way... Private established institutions and customs form the basis for rules of behavior which are necessary for the operation of society, however enforcement through private/social sanctioning rather than law allows social innovations to occur without interference by the state.
Britain could claim to be home of the 'mother of parliaments', of the rule of law (The English Common Law system), of the Bill of Rights, and of Free Trade.
"rule of law" needs further explanation. In the liberal tradition I think the important point is that laws should be above the will/preference of the individuals currently serving as government officials. When you bring up common law, I start thinking about stare decisis vs. civil code, etc... which are important disticntions, but I think muddy the bigger issue of citizens who are governed by laws rather than men.
There were Republican sympathies in Britain among some political circles, but no serious attempt was made to abolish the monarchy or to introduce a constitution.
If you're going to bring up big "R" Republican sympathies, tell us what they wanted.
Overall, this article is a nice start. However, I think notion of economic vs. political liberalism is a false dichotomy. The article can be more coherent and consise if liberalism is presented as a political philosophy which logically leads to a number of economic policies. The core components of liberalism are up front in this article, but I think they could be called out a little more explicitly:
- Rule-of-law, that the arbitrary will of executive officials should not dictate policy, they should carry out pre-existing laws
- Constitutional limits on state authority
- Those limits based on negative rights to be free from interference in a known and constant domain of activities which are private
- Those rights are rooted in either rule utilitarianism or divine/natural rights
- The economic policy that flows from these ideas is that government policy should address the means of how the economy operates rather than the end objectives that an economy should attain. i.e. economic policy should set down rules of the game and those rules should apply equally across participants in the economy.
- The core freedom is that individuals are free to decide which ends they wish to pursue for themselves. Economic policy which dictates ends rather than means, will necessarily make individuals the tools to attain the ends of policy makers.
Stephen Saletta 11:29, 7 April 2008 (CDT)