Liberals sought and established a constitutional order that prized importantindividual freedoms, such asfreedom of speech andfreedom of association; anindependent judiciary and publictrial by jury; and the abolition ofaristocratic privileges.[6] Later waves of modern liberal thought and struggle were strongly influenced by the need to expand civil rights.[16] Liberals have advocated gender and racial equality in their drive to promote civil rights, and globalcivil rights movements in the 20th century achieved several objectives towards both goals. Other goals often accepted by liberals includeuniversal suffrage anduniversal access to education. In Europe and North America, the establishment ofsocial liberalism (often called simplyliberalism in the United States) became a key component in expanding thewelfare state.[17] 21st-centuryliberal parties continue to wield power and influence throughout the world. The fundamental elements ofcontemporary society have liberal roots. The early waves of liberalism popularised economic individualism while expanding constitutional government andparliamentary authority.[6]
Liberal,liberty,libertarian, andlibertine all trace theiretymology toliber, aroot fromLatin that means "free".[18] One of the first recorded instances ofliberal occurred in 1375 when it was used to describe theliberal arts in the context of an education desirable for a free-born man.[18] The word's early connection with the classical education of a medieval university soon gave way to a proliferation of different denotations and connotations.Liberal could refer to "free in bestowing" as early as 1387, "made without stint" in 1433, "freely permitted" in 1530, and "free from restraint"—often as a pejorative remark—in the 16th and the 17th centuries.[18]
In the 16th-centuryKingdom of England,liberal could have positive or negative attributes in referring to someone's generosity or indiscretion.[18] InMuch Ado About Nothing,William Shakespeare wrote of "a liberal villaine" who "hath ... confest his vile encounters".[18] With the rise ofthe Enlightenment, the word acquired decisively more positive undertones, defined as "free from narrow prejudice" in 1781 and "free from bigotry" in 1823.[18] In 1815, the first use ofliberalism appeared in English.[19] In Spain, theliberales, the first group to use the liberal label in a political context,[20] fought for decades to implement theSpanish Constitution of 1812. From 1820 to 1823, during theTrienio Liberal,King Ferdinand VII was compelled by theliberales to swear to uphold the 1812 Constitution. By the middle of the 19th century,liberal was used as a politicised term for parties and movements worldwide.[21]
Yellow is thepolitical colour most commonly associated with liberalism.[22][23][24] The United States differs from other countries in that conservatism is associated with red andliberalism with blue.[25]
Over time, the meaning ofliberalism began to diverge in different parts of the world. Since the 1930s,liberalism is usually used without a qualifier in the United States, to refer tosocial liberalism, a variety of liberalism that endorses aregulated market economy and the expansion ofcivil and political rights, with the common good considered as compatible with or superior to the freedom of the individual.[32]
In the context of current American politics of the present day,classical liberalism may be described as "fiscally conservative" and "socially liberal".[43] Despite this, classical liberals tend to rejectthe right's higher tolerance foreconomic protectionism andthe left's inclination for collectivegroup rights due to classical liberalism's central principle ofindividualism.[44] Additionally, in the United Statesclassical liberalism is considered closely tied to, or synonymous with,American libertarianism.[45][46]
Until theGreat Depression and the rise of social liberalism, classical liberalism was calledeconomic liberalism. Later, the term was applied as aretronym, to distinguish earlier 19th-century liberalism from social liberalism.[47] By modern standards, inthe United States the bare termliberalism often means social liberalism whereas inEurope andAustralia it often means classical liberalism.[48][49]
Liberalism—both as a political current and an intellectual tradition—is mostly a modern phenomenon that started in the 17th century, although some liberal philosophical ideas had precursors inclassical antiquity andImperial China.[59][60] TheRoman EmperorMarcus Aurelius praised "the idea of a polity administered with regard to equal rights and equal freedom of speech, and the idea of a kingly government which respects most of all the freedom of the governed".[61] Scholars have also recognised many principles familiar to contemporary liberals in the works of severalSophists and theFuneral Oration byPericles.[62] Liberal philosophy is the culmination of an extensive intellectual tradition that has examined and popularized some of the modern world's most important and controversial principles. Its immense scholarly output has been characterized as containing "richness and diversity", but that diversity often has meant that liberalism comes in different formulations and presents a challenge to anyone looking for a clear definition.[63]
Although all liberal doctrines possess a common heritage, scholars frequently assume that those doctrines contain "separate and often contradictory streams of thought".[63] The objectives ofliberal theorists and philosophers have differed across various times, cultures and continents. The diversity of liberalism can be gleaned from the numerous qualifiers that liberal thinkers and movements have attached to the term "liberalism", includingclassical,egalitarian,economic,social, thewelfare state,ethical,humanist,deontological,perfectionist,democratic, andinstitutional, to name a few.[64] Despite these variations, liberal thought does exhibit a few definite and fundamental conceptions.
Political philosopherJohn Gray identified the common strands in liberal thought asindividualist, egalitarian,meliorist anduniversalist. The individualist element avers the ethical primacy of the human being against the pressures of socialcollectivism; the egalitarian element assigns the samemoral worth and status to all individuals; the meliorist element asserts that successive generations can improve their sociopolitical arrangements, and the universalist element affirms the moral unity of the human species and marginalises localcultural differences.[65] The meliorist element has been the subject of much controversy, defended by thinkers such asImmanuel Kant, who believed in human progress, while suffering criticism by thinkers such asJean-Jacques Rousseau, who instead believed that human attempts to improve themselves through socialcooperation would fail.[66]
The liberal philosophical tradition has searched for validation and justification through several intellectual projects. The moral and political suppositions of liberalism have been based on traditions such as natural rights andutilitarian theory, although sometimes liberals even request support from scientific and religious circles.[65] Through all these strands and traditions, scholars have identified the following major common facets of liberal thought:
Enlightenment philosophers are given credit for shaping liberal ideas. These ideas were first drawn together and systematized as a distinctideology by the English philosopherJohn Locke, generally regarded as the father of modern liberalism.[68][69]Thomas Hobbes attempted to determine the purpose and the justification of governing authority in post-civil war England. Employing the idea of astate of nature — a hypothetical war-like scenario prior to the state — he constructed the idea of asocial contract that individuals enter into to guarantee their security and, in so doing, form the State, concluding that only anabsolute sovereign would be fully able to sustain such security. Hobbes had developed the concept of the social contract, according to which individuals in the anarchic and brutal state of nature came together and voluntarily ceded some of their rights to an established state authority, which would create laws to regulate social interactions to mitigate or mediate conflicts and enforce justice. Whereas Hobbes advocated a strong monarchical commonwealth (theLeviathan), Locke developed the then-radical notion that government acquiresconsent from the governed, which has to be constantly present for the government to remainlegitimate.[70] While adopting Hobbes's idea of a state of nature and social contract, Locke nevertheless argued that when the monarch becomes atyrant, it violates the social contract, which protects life, liberty and property as a natural right. He concluded that the people have a right to overthrow a tyrant. By placing the security of life, liberty and property as the supreme value of law and authority, Locke formulated the basis of liberalism based on social contract theory. To these early enlightenment thinkers, securing the essential amenities of life—liberty andprivate property—required forming a "sovereign" authority with universal jurisdiction.[71]
His influentialTwo Treatises (1690), the foundational text of liberal ideology, outlined his major ideas. Once humans moved out of theirnatural state and formedsocieties, Locke argued, "that which begins and actually constitutes anypolitical society is nothing but the consent of any number of freemen capable of a majority to unite and incorporate into such a society. And this is that, and that only, which did or could give beginning to any lawful government in the world".[72]: 170 The stringent insistence that lawful government did not have asupernatural basis was a sharp break with the dominant theories of governance, which advocated the divine right of kings[73] and echoed the earlier thought ofAristotle. Dr John Zvesper described this new thinking: "In the liberal understanding, there are no citizens within the regime who can claim to rule by natural or supernatural right, without the consent of the governed".[74]
Locke had other intellectual opponents besides Hobbes. In theFirst Treatise, Locke aimed his arguments first and foremost at one of the doyens of 17th-century English conservative philosophy:Robert Filmer. Filmer'sPatriarcha (1680) argued for thedivine right of kings by appealing tobiblical teaching, claiming that the authority granted toAdam byGod gave successors of Adam in the male line of descent a right of dominion over all other humans and creatures in the world.[75] However, Locke disagreed so thoroughly and obsessively with Filmer that theFirst Treatise is almost a sentence-by-sentence refutation ofPatriarcha. Reinforcing his respect for consensus, Locke argued that "conjugal society is made up by a voluntary compact between men and women".[76] Locke maintained that the grant of dominion inGenesis was not tomen over women, as Filmer believed, but to humans over animals.[76] Locke was not afeminist by modern standards, but the first major liberal thinker in history accomplished an equally major task on the road to making the world more pluralistic: integrating women intosocial theory.[76]
Locke also originated the concept of theseparation of church and state.[77] Based on the social contract principle, Locke argued that the government lacked authority in the realm of individualconscience, as this was somethingrational people could not cede to the government for it or others to control. For Locke, this created a natural right to the liberty of conscience, which he argued must remain protected from any government authority.[78] In hisLetters Concerning Toleration, he also formulated a general defence forreligious toleration. Three arguments are central:
Earthly judges, the state in particular, and human beings generally, cannot dependably evaluate the truth claims of competing religious standpoints;
Even if they could, enforcing a single "true religion" would not have the desired effect because belief cannot be compelled byviolence;
Locke was influenced by the liberal ideas of Presbyterian politician and poetJohn Milton, who was a staunch advocate of freedom in all its forms.[80] Milton argued fordisestablishment as the only effective way of achieving broadtoleration. Rather than force a man's conscience, the government should recognise the persuasive force of the gospel.[81] As assistant toOliver Cromwell, Milton also drafted a constitution of theindependents (Agreement of the People; 1647) that strongly stressed the equality of all humans as a consequence of democratic tendencies.[82] In hisAreopagitica, Milton provided one of the first arguments for the importance of freedom of speech—"the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties". His central argument was that the individual could use reason to distinguish right from wrong. To exercise this right, everyone must have unlimited access to the ideas of his fellow men in "a free and open encounter", which will allow good arguments to prevail.
In a natural state of affairs, liberals argued that humans were driven by the instincts of survival andself-preservation, and the only way to escape from such a dangerous existence was to form a common and supreme power capable of arbitrating between competing human desires.[83] This power could be formed in the framework of acivil society that allows individuals to make a voluntary social contract with the sovereign authority, transferring their natural rights to that authority in return for the protection of life, liberty and property.[83] These early liberals often disagreed about the most appropriate form of government, but all believed that liberty was natural and its restriction needed strong justification.[83] Liberals generally believed in limited government, although several liberal philosophers decried government outright, withThomas Paine writing, "Government even in its best state is a necessary evil."[84]
James Madison and Montesquieu
As part of the project to limit the powers of government, liberal theorists such asJames Madison andMontesquieu conceived the notion ofseparation of powers, a system designed to equally distribute governmental authority among theexecutive,legislative andjudicial branches.[84] Governments had to realise, liberals maintained, that legitimate government only exists with theconsent of the governed, so poor and improper governance gave the people the authority to overthrow the ruling order through all possible means, even through outright violence andrevolution, if needed.[85] Contemporary liberals, heavily influenced by social liberalism, have supported limitedconstitutional government while advocating forstate services and provisions to ensure equal rights. Modern liberals claim that formal or official guarantees of individual rights are irrelevant when individuals lack the material means to benefit from those rights and call for agreater role for government in the administration of economic affairs.[86] Early liberals also laid the groundwork for the separation of church and state. As heirs of the Enlightenment, liberals believed that any given social and political order emanatedfrom human interactions, not fromdivine will.[87] Many liberals were openly hostile toreligious belief but most concentrated their opposition to the union of religious and political authority, arguing that faith could prosper independently without official sponsorship or administration by the state.[87]
Beyond identifying a clear role for government in modern society, liberals have also argued over the meaning and nature of the most important principle in liberal philosophy: liberty. From the 17th century until the 19th century, liberals (fromAdam Smith toJohn Stuart Mill) conceptualised liberty as the absence of interference from government and other individuals, claiming that all people should have the freedom to develop their unique abilities and capacities without being sabotaged by others.[88] Mill'sOn Liberty (1859), one of the classic texts in liberal philosophy, proclaimed, "the only freedom which deserves the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way".[88] Support forlaissez-fairecapitalism is often associated with this principle, withFriedrich Hayek arguing inThe Road to Serfdom (1944) that reliance on free markets would preclude totalitarian control by the state.[89]
Among them was also one of the first thinkers to go by the name of "liberal", theEdinburgh University-educated Swiss Protestant,Benjamin Constant, who looked to the United Kingdom rather than toancient Rome for a practical model of freedom in a large mercantile society. He distinguished between the "Liberty of the Ancients" and the "Liberty of the Moderns".[98] The Liberty of the Ancients was a participatoryrepublican liberty,[99] which gave the citizens the right to influence politics directly through debates and votes in the public assembly.[98] In order to support this degree of participation, citizenship was a burdensome moral obligation requiring a considerable investment of time and energy. Generally, this required a sub-group of slaves to do much of the productive work, leaving citizens free to deliberate on public affairs. Ancient Liberty was also limited to relatively small and homogenous male societies, where they could congregate in one place to transact public affairs.[98]
In contrast, the Liberty of the Moderns was based on the possession ofcivil liberties, the rule of law, and freedom from excessive state interference. Direct participation would be limited: a necessary consequence of the size of modern states and the inevitable result of creating a mercantile society where there were no slaves, but almost everybody had to earn a living through work. Instead, the voters would electrepresentatives who would deliberate in Parliament on the people's behalf and would save citizens from daily political involvement.[98] The importance of Constant's writings on the liberty of the ancients and that of the "moderns" has informed the understanding of liberalism, as has his critique of the French Revolution.[100] The British philosopher and historian of ideas, SirIsaiah Berlin, has pointed to the debt owed to Constant.[101]
Beginning in the late 19th century, a new conception of liberty entered the liberal intellectual arena. This new kind of liberty became known aspositive liberty to distinguish it from the priornegative version, and it was first developed byBritish philosopherT. H. Green. Green rejected the idea that humans were driven solely byself-interest, emphasising instead the complex circumstances involved in the evolution of ourmoral character.[103]: 54–55 In a very profound step for the future of modern liberalism, he also tasked society and political institutions with the enhancement of individual freedom and identity and the development of moral character, will and reason and the state to create the conditions that allow for the above, allowing genuinechoice.[103]: 54–55 Foreshadowing the new liberty as the freedom to act rather than to avoid suffering from the acts of others, Green wrote the following:
If it were ever reasonable to wish that the usage of words had been other than it has been ... one might be inclined to wish that the term 'freedom' had been confined to the ... power to do what one wills.[104]
Rather than previous liberal conceptions viewing society as populated by selfish individuals, Green viewed society as an organic whole in which all individuals have aduty to promote thecommon good.[103]: 55 His ideas spread rapidly and were developed by other thinkers such asLeonard Trelawny Hobhouse andJohn A. Hobson. In a few years, thisNew Liberalism had become the essential social and political programme of the Liberal Party in Britain,[103]: 58 and it would encircle much of the world in the 20th century. In addition to examining negative and positive liberty, liberals have tried to understand the proper relationship between liberty and democracy. As they struggled to expandsuffrage rights, liberals increasingly understood that people left out of thedemocratic decision-making process were liable to the "tyranny of the majority", a concept explained in Mill'sOn Liberty andDemocracy in America (1835) byAlexis de Tocqueville.[105] As a response, liberals began demanding proper safeguards to thwart majorities in their attempts at suppressing therights of minorities.[105]
Besides liberty, liberals have developed several other principles important to the construction of their philosophical structure, such as equality, pluralism and tolerance. Highlighting the confusion over the first principle,Voltaire commented, "equality is at once the most natural and at times the most chimeral of things".[106] All forms of liberalism assume in some basic sense that individuals are equal.[107] In maintaining that people are naturally equal, liberals assume they all possess the same right to liberty.[108] In other words, no one is inherently entitled to enjoy the benefits of liberal society more than anyone else, and all people areequal subjects before the law.[109] Beyond this basic conception, liberal theorists diverge in their understanding of equality. American philosopherJohn Rawls emphasised the need to ensure equality under the law and the equal distribution of material resources that individuals required to develop theiraspirations in life.[109] Libertarian thinkerRobert Nozick disagreed with Rawls, championing the former version ofLockean equality.[109]
To contribute to the development of liberty, liberals also have promoted concepts like pluralism and tolerance. By pluralism, liberals refer to the proliferation of opinions and beliefs that characterise a stablesocial order.[110] Unlike many of their competitors and predecessors, liberals do not seekconformity and homogeneity in how people think. Their efforts have been geared towards establishing a governing framework thatharmonises and minimises conflicting views but still allows those views to exist and flourish.[111] For liberal philosophy, pluralism leads easily to toleration. Since individuals will hold diverging viewpoints, liberals argue, they ought to uphold and respect the right of one another to disagree.[112] From the liberal perspective, toleration was initially connected toreligious toleration, withBaruch Spinoza condemning "the stupidity of religious persecution and ideological wars".[112] Toleration also played a central role in theideas of Kant and John Stuart Mill. Both thinkers believed that society would contain different conceptions of a good ethical life and that people should be allowed to make their own choices without interference from the state or other individuals.[112]
Smith wrote that as long assupply, demand,prices andcompetition were left free of government regulation, the pursuit of material self-interest, rather than altruism, maximises society's wealth[114] through profit-driven production of goods and services. An "invisible hand" directed individuals and firms to work toward the nation's good as an unintended consequence of efforts to maximise their gain. This provided a moral justification for accumulating wealth, which some had previously viewed as sinful.[113]: 64
Smith assumed that workers could bepaid as low as was necessary for their survival, whichDavid Ricardo andThomas Robert Malthus later transformed into the "iron law of wages".[113]: 65 His main emphasis was on the benefit of free internal andinternational trade, which he thought could increase wealth through specialisation in production.[113]: 66 He also opposed restrictivetrade preferences, state grants ofmonopolies andemployers' organisations andtrade unions.[113]: 67 While Smith advocated for minimal government intervention, he recognized that some market regulation was necessary to prevent fraud, protect consumers, and ensure fair competition.[115]Other than that government should be limited to defence,public works and theadministration of justice, financed bytaxes based on income.[113]: 68 Smith was one of the progenitors of the idea, which was long central to classical liberalism and has resurfaced in theglobalisation literature of the later 20th and early 21st centuries, that free trade promotes peace.[116] Smith's economics was carried into practice in the 19th century with the lowering of tariffs in the 1820s, the repeal of thePoor Relief Act that had restricted the mobility of labour in 1834 and the end of the rule of theEast India Company over India in 1858.[113]: 69
In hisTreatise (Traité d'économie politique), Say states that any production process requires effort, knowledge and the "application" of the entrepreneur. He sees entrepreneurs as intermediaries in the production process who combine productive factors such as land, capital and labour to meet the consumers' demands. As a result, they play a central role in the economy through their coordinating function. He also highlights qualities essential for successful entrepreneurship and focuses on judgement, in that they have continued to assess market needs and the means to meet them. This requires an "unerring market sense". Say views entrepreneurial income primarily as the high revenue paid in compensation for their skills and expert knowledge. He does so by contrasting the enterprise and supply-of-capital functions, distinguishing the entrepreneur's earnings on the one hand and the remuneration of capital on the other. This differentiates his theory from that ofJoseph Schumpeter, who describes entrepreneurial rent as short-term profits which compensate for high risk (Schumpeterian rent). Say himself also refers to risk and uncertainty along with innovation without analysing them in detail.
Say is also credited withSay's law, or the law of markets which may be summarised as "Aggregate supply creates its ownaggregate demand",and "Supply creates its own demand", or "Supply constitutes its own demand" and "Inherent in supply is the need for its own consumption". The related phrase "supply creates its own demand" was coined byJohn Maynard Keynes, who criticized Say's separate formulations as amounting to the same thing. Some advocates of Say's law who disagree with Keynes have claimed that Say's law can be summarized more accurately as "production precedes consumption" and that what Say is stating is that for consumption to happen, one must produce something of value so that it can be traded for money or barter for consumption later.[117][118] Say argues that "products are paid for with products" (1803, p. 153) or "a glut occurs only when too much resource is applied to making one product and not enough to another" (1803, pp. 178–179).[119]
Related reasoning appears in the work ofJohn Stuart Mill and earlier in that of his Scottish classical economist father,James Mill (1808). Mill senior restates Say's law in 1808: "production of commodities creates, and is the one and universal cause which creates a market for the commodities produced".[120] In addition to Smith's and Say's legacies,Thomas Malthus' theories of population andDavid Ricardo'sIron law of wages became central doctrines of classical economics.[113]: 76 Meanwhile, Jean-Baptiste Say challenged Smith'slabour theory of value, believing that prices were determined by utility and also emphasised the critical role of the entrepreneur in the economy. However, neither of those observations became accepted by British economists at the time. Malthus wroteAn Essay on the Principle of Population in 1798,[113]: 71–72 becoming a major influence on classical liberalism. Malthus claimed that population growth would outstrip food production because the population grew geometrically while food production grew arithmetically. As people were provided with food, they would reproduce until their growth outstripped the food supply. Nature would then provide a check to growth in the forms of vice and misery. No gains in income could prevent this, and any welfare for the poor would be self-defeating. The poor were, in fact, responsible for their problems which could have been avoided through self-restraint.[113]: 72
Several liberals, including Adam Smith andRichard Cobden, argued that the free exchange of goods between nations would lead to world peace.[121] Smith argued that as societies progressed, the spoils of war would rise, but the costs of war would rise further, making war difficult and costly for industrialised nations.[122] Cobden believed that military expenditures worsened the state's welfare and benefited a small but concentrated elite minority, combining hisLittle Englander beliefs with opposition to the economic restrictions of mercantilist policies. To Cobden and many classical liberals, those who advocated peace must also advocate free markets.[123]Utilitarianism was seen as apolitical justification for implementingeconomic liberalism by British governments, an idea dominating economic policy from the 1840s. Although utilitarianism prompted legislative and administrative reform, and John Stuart Mill's later writings foreshadowed the welfare state, it was mainly used as a premise for alaissez-faire approach.[124]: 32 The central concept of utilitarianism, developed byJeremy Bentham, was thatpublic policy should seek to provide "the greatest happiness of the greatest number". While this could be interpreted as a justification for state action toreduce poverty, it was used by classical liberals to justify inaction with the argument that the net benefit to all individuals would be higher.[113]: 76 His philosophy proved highly influential on government policy and led to increased Benthamite attempts at governmentsocial control, includingRobert Peel'sMetropolitan Police,prison reforms, theworkhouses andasylums for the mentally ill.
John Maynard Keynes, one of the most influential economists of modern times and whose ideas, which are stillwidely felt, formalized modern liberal economic policy.
During theGreat Depression, the English economistJohn Maynard Keynes (1883–1946) gave the definitive liberal response to the economic crisis. Keynes had been "brought up" as a classical liberal, but especially after World War I, became increasingly a welfare or social liberal.[125] A prolific writer, among many other works, he had begun a theoretical work examining the relationship between unemployment, money and prices back in the 1920s.[126] Keynes was deeply critical of the British government'sausterity measuresduring the Great Depression. He believedbudget deficits were a good thing, a product ofrecessions. He wrote: "For Government borrowing of one kind or another is nature's remedy, so to speak, for preventing business losses from being, in so severe a slump as the present one, so great as to bring production altogether to a standstill".[127] At the height of the Great Depression in 1933, Keynes publishedThe Means to Prosperity, which contained specific policy recommendations for tackling unemployment in a global recession, chiefly counter cyclical public spending.The Means to Prosperity contains one of the first mentions of themultiplier effect.[128]
Keynes'smagnum opus,The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, was published in 1936,[129] and served as a theoretical justification for theinterventionist policies Keynes favoured for tackling a recession. TheGeneral Theory challenged the earlierneo-classical economic paradigm, which had held that themarket would naturally establishfull employment equilibrium if it were unfettered by government interference.Classical economists believed inSay's law, which states that "supply creates its own demand" and that in afree market, workers would always be willing to lower their wages to a level where employers could profitably offer them jobs. An innovation from Keynes was the concept ofprice stickiness, i.e. the recognition that, in reality, workers often refuse to lower their wage demands even in cases where a classical economist might argue it isrational for them to do so. Due in part to price stickiness, it was established that the interaction of "aggregate demand" and "aggregate supply" may lead to stable unemployment equilibria, and in those cases, it is the state and not the market that economies must depend on for their salvation. The book advocated activist economic policy by the government to stimulate demand in times of high unemployment, for example, by spending on public works. In 1928, he wrote: "Let us be up and doing, using our idle resources to increase our wealth. ... With men and plants unemployed, it is ridiculous to say that we cannot afford these new developments. It is precisely with these plants and these men that we shall afford them."[127] Where the market failed to allocate resources properly, the government was required to stimulate the economy until private funds could start flowing again—a "prime the pump" kind of strategy designed to boostindustrial production.[130]
Liberal feminism, the dominant tradition infeminist history, is anindividualistic form offeminist theory that focuses on women's ability to maintain their equality through their actions and choices. Liberal feminists hope to eradicate all barriers togender equality, claiming that the continued existence of such barriers eviscerates the individual rights and freedoms ostensibly guaranteed by a liberal social order.[131] They argue that society believes women are naturallyless intellectually and physically capable than men; thus, it tends todiscriminate against women in theacademy, the forum and themarketplace. Liberal feminists believe that "female subordination is rooted in a set of customary and legal constraints that blocks women's entrance to and success in the so-called public world". They strive for sexual equality via political and legal reform.[132]
BritishphilosopherMary Wollstonecraft (1759–1797) is widely regarded as the pioneer of liberal feminism, withA Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792) expanding the boundaries of liberalism to include women in the political structure of liberal society.[133] In her writings, such asA Vindication of the Rights of Woman, Wollstonecraft commented on society's view of women and encouraged women to use their voices in making decisions separate from those previously made for them. Wollstonecraft "denied that women are, by nature, more pleasure seeking and pleasure giving than men. She reasoned that if they were confined to the same cages that trap women, men would develop the same flawed characters. What Wollstonecraft most wanted for women was personhood".[132]
John Stuart Mill was also an early proponent of feminism. In his articleThe Subjection of Women (1861, published 1869), Mill attempted to prove that the legal subjugation of women is wrong and that it should give way to perfect equality.[134][135] He believed that both sexes should have equal rights under the law and that "until conditions of equality exist, no one can possibly assess the natural differences between women and men, distorted as they have been. What is natural to the two sexes can only be found out by allowing both to develop and use their faculties freely".[136] Mill frequently spoke of this imbalance and wondered if women were able to feel the same "genuine unselfishness" that men did in providing for their families. This unselfishness Mill advocated is the one "that motivates people to take into account the good of society as well as the good of the individual person or small family unit".[132] Like Mary Wollstonecraft, Mill compared sexual inequality to slavery, arguing that their husbands are often just as abusive as masters and that a human being controls nearly every aspect of life for another human being. In his bookThe Subjection of Women, Mill argues that three major parts of women's lives are hindering them: society and gender construction, education and marriage.[137]
Equity feminism is a form of liberal feminism discussed since the 1980s,[138][139] specifically a kind of classically liberal or libertarian feminism.[140]Steven Pinker, anevolutionary psychologist, defines equity feminism as "a moral doctrine about equal treatment that makes no commitments regarding open empirical issues in psychology or biology".[141] Barry Kuhle asserts that equity feminism is compatible withevolutionary psychology in contrast togender feminism.[142]
Sismondi, who wrote the first critique of the free market from a liberal perspective in 1819
Jean Charles Léonard Simonde de Sismondi'sNew Principles of Political Economy (French:Nouveaux principes d'économie politique, ou de la richesse dans ses rapports avec la population) (1819) represents the first comprehensive liberal critique of early capitalism and laissez-faire economics, and his writings, which were studied byJohn Stuart Mill andKarl Marx among many others, had a profound influence on both liberal and socialist responses to the failures and contradictions of industrial society.[143][144][145] By the end of the 19th century, theprinciples of classical liberalism were being increasingly challenged by downturns ineconomic growth, a growing perception of theevils of poverty, unemployment and relative deprivation present within modern industrial cities, as well as the agitation oforganised labour. The ideal of theself-made individual who could make his or her place in the world through hard work and talent seemed increasingly implausible. A major political reaction against the changes introduced byindustrialisation andlaissez-faire capitalism came from conservatives concerned about social balance, althoughsocialism later became a more important force for change and reform. SomeVictorian writers, includingCharles Dickens,Thomas Carlyle andMatthew Arnold, became early influential critics of social injustice.[124]: 36–37
New liberals began to adapt the old language of liberalism to confront these difficult circumstances, which they believed could only be resolved through a broader and more interventionist conception of the state. An equal right to liberty could not be established merely by ensuring that individuals did not physically interfere with each other or by having impartially formulated and applied laws. More positive and proactive measures were required to ensure that every individual would have anequal opportunity for success.[146]
John Stuart Mill contributed enormously to liberal thought by combining elements of classical liberalism with what eventually became known as the new liberalism. Mill's 1859On Liberty addressed the nature and limits of thepower that can be legitimately exercised by society over theindividual.[147] He gave an impassioned defence of free speech, arguing that freediscourse is anecessary condition for intellectual and social progress. Mill defined "social liberty" as protection from "the tyranny of political rulers". He introduced many different concepts of the form tyranny can take, referred to as social tyranny andtyranny of the majority. Social liberty meant limits on the ruler's power through obtaining recognition of political liberties or rights and establishing a system of "constitutional checks".[148]
His definition of liberty, influenced byJoseph Priestley andJosiah Warren, was that theindividual ought to be free to do as he wishes unless he harms others.[149] However, although Mill's initialeconomic philosophy supportedfree markets and argued thatprogressive taxation penalised those who worked harder,[150] he later altered his views toward a more socialist bent, adding chapters to hisPrinciples of Political Economy in defence of a socialist outlook and defending some socialist causes,[151] including the radical proposal that the whole wage system be abolished in favour of a co-operative wage system. Another early liberal convert to greater government intervention wasT. H. Green. Seeing the effects of alcohol, he believed that the state should foster and protect the social, political and economic environments in which individuals will have the best chance of acting according to their consciences. The state should intervene only where there is a clear, proven and strong tendency of liberty to enslave the individual.[152] Green regarded the national state as legitimate only to the extent that it upholds a system of rights and obligations most likely to foster individual self-realisation.
The New Liberalism or social liberalism movement emerged in about 1900 in Britain.[153] The New Liberals, including intellectuals like L. T. Hobhouse andJohn A. Hobson, saw individual liberty as something achievable only under favourable social and economic circumstances.[5]: 29 In their view, the poverty, squalor and ignorance in which many people lived made it impossible for freedom and individuality to flourish. New Liberals believed these conditions could be ameliorated only through collective action coordinated by a strong, welfare-oriented, interventionist state.[154] It supports amixed economy that includespublic and private property incapital goods.[155][156] Principles that can be described as social liberal have been based upon or developed by philosophers such as John Stuart Mill,Eduard Bernstein,John Dewey,Carlo Rosselli,Norberto Bobbio andChantal Mouffe.[157] Other important social liberal figures include Guido Calogero,Piero Gobetti, Leonard Trelawny Hobhouse andR. H. Tawney.[158]Liberal socialism has been particularly prominent in British and Italian politics.[158]
Classical liberalism advocatesfree trade under the rule of law. In contrast, the "anti-state liberal tradition", as described byRalph Raico, was supportive of a system where law enforcement and the courts being provided by private companies, minimizing or rejecting the role of the state. Various theorists have espoused legal philosophies similar toanarcho-capitalism. One of the first liberals to discuss the possibility ofprivatizing the protection of individual liberty and property was the French philosopherJakob Mauvillon in the 18th century. Later in the 1840s,Julius Faucher andGustave de Molinari advocated the same. In his essayThe Production of Security, Molinari argued: "No government should have the right to prevent another government from going into competition with it, or to require consumers of security to come exclusively to it for this commodity". Molinari and this new type of anti-state liberal grounded their reasoning on liberal ideals and classical economics. Historian and libertarian Ralph Raico argued that what these liberal philosophers "had come up with was a form of individualist anarchism, or, as it would be called today, anarcho-capitalism or market anarchism".[159]
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.[160] The anti-state liberal tradition in Europe and the United States continued after Molinari in the early writings ofHerbert Spencer and thinkers such asPaul Émile de Puydt andAuberon Herbert. However, the first person to use the term anarcho-capitalism wasMurray Rothbard. In the mid-20th century, Rothbard synthesized elements from theAustrian School of economics, classical liberalism and 19th-century Americanindividualist anarchistsLysander Spooner andBenjamin Tucker (while rejecting theirlabour theory of value and the norms they derived from it).[161] Anarcho-capitalism advocates the elimination of the state in favour ofindividual sovereignty,private property andfree markets.Anarcho-capitalists believe that in the absence ofstatute (law bydecree orlegislation), society would improve itself through the discipline of the free market (or what its proponents describe as a "voluntary society").[162][163]
In a theoreticalanarcho-capitalist society,law enforcement,courts and all other security services would be operated by privately funded competitors rather than centrally throughtaxation.Money and othergoods and services would be privately and competitively provided in anopen market. Anarcho-capitalists say personal and economic activities under anarcho-capitalism would be regulated by victim-based dispute resolution organizations undertort andcontract law rather than by statute through centrally determined punishment under what they describe as "political monopolies".[164] A Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist society would operate under a mutually agreed-upon libertarian "legal code which would be generally accepted, and which the courts would pledge themselves to follow".[165] Although enforcement methods vary, this pact would recognizeself-ownership and thenon-aggression principle (NAP).
The two key events that marked the triumph of liberalism in France were theabolition of feudalism in France on the night of 4 August 1789, which marked the collapse of feudal and old traditional rights and privileges and restrictions, as well as the passage of theDeclaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen in August, itself based on the U.S. Declaration of Independence from 1776.[171] During theNapoleonic Wars, the French brought Western Europe the liquidation of thefeudal system, the liberalization ofproperty laws, the end ofseigneurial dues, the abolition ofguilds, the legalization ofdivorce, the disintegration ofJewish ghettos, the collapse of theInquisition, the end of theHoly Roman Empire, the elimination of church courts and religious authority, the establishment of themetric system and equality under the law for all men.[172] His most lasting achievement, theCivil Code, served as "an object of emulation all over the globe"[173] but also perpetuated further discrimination against women under the banner of the "natural order".[174]
The development into maturity of classical liberalism took place before and after the French Revolution in Britain.[102]Adam Smith'sThe Wealth of Nations, published in 1776, was to provide most of the ideas of economics, at least until the publication ofJohn Stuart Mill'sPrinciples in 1848.[113]: 63, 68 Smith addressed the motivation for economic activity, the causes of prices and wealth distribution, and the policies the state should follow to maximise wealth.[113]: 64 Theradical liberal movement began in the 1790s in England and concentrated on parliamentary and electoral reform, emphasizing natural rights andpopular sovereignty. Radicals likeRichard Price andJoseph Priestley saw parliamentary reform as a first step toward dealing with their many grievances, including the treatment ofProtestant Dissenters, the slave trade, high prices and high taxes.[175][full citation needed]
InLatin America, liberal unrest dates back to the 18th century, when liberal agitation in Latin America led toindependence from the imperial power of Spain and Portugal. The new regimes were generally liberal in their political outlook and employed the philosophy ofpositivism, which emphasized the truth of modern science, to buttress their positions.[176] In the United States, avicious war ensured the integrity of the nation and the abolition of slavery in theSouth. HistorianDon H. Doyle has argued that the Union victory in theAmerican Civil War (1861–1865) greatly boosted the course of liberalism.[177][page needed] In the 19th century,English liberalpolitical philosophers were the most influential in the global tradition of liberalism.[178]
During the 19th and early 20th century, in the Ottoman Empire and the Middle East, liberalism influenced periods of reform, such as theTanzimat andAl-Nahda; the rise of secularism, constitutionalism and nationalism; and different intellectuals and religious groups and movements, like theYoung Ottomans andIslamic Modernism. Prominent of the era wereRifa'a al-Tahtawi,Namık Kemal andİbrahim Şinasi. However, the reformist ideas and trends did not reach the common population successfully, as the books, periodicals, and newspapers were accessible primarily to intellectuals and segments of the emerging middle class. ManyMuslims saw them as foreign influences on theMuslim world. That perception complicated reformist efforts made by Middle Eastern states.[179][180] These changes, along with other factors, helped to create a sense of crisis within Islam, which continues to this day. This led toIslamic revivalism.[181]
Abolitionist andsuffrage movements spread, along with representative and democratic ideals. France established anenduring republic in the 1870s. However, nationalism also spread rapidly after 1815. A mixture of liberal and nationalist sentiments inItaly and Germany brought about the unification of the two countries in the late 19th century. A liberal regime came to power in Italy and ended the secular power of the Popes. However, theVatican launched a counter-crusade against liberalism.Pope Pius IX issued theSyllabus of Errors in 1864, condemning liberalism in all its forms. In many countries, liberal forces responded byexpelling the Jesuit order. By the end of the nineteenth century, the principles of classical liberalism were being increasingly challenged, and the ideal of the self-made individual seemed increasingly implausible. Victorian writers likeCharles Dickens,Thomas Carlyle andMatthew Arnold were early influential critics of social injustice.[124]: 36–37
Liberalism gained momentum at the beginning of the 20th century. The bastion ofautocracy, theRussian Tsar, was overthrown in thefirst phase of theRussian Revolution. The Allied victory in theFirst World War and the collapse of four empires seemed to mark the triumph of liberalism across the European continent, not just among thevictorious allies but also in Germany and the newly created states ofEastern Europe. Militarism, as typified by Germany, was defeated and discredited. As Blinkhorn argues, the liberal themes were ascendant in terms of "cultural pluralism, religious and ethnic toleration, nationalself-determination, free market economics, representative and responsible government, free trade, unionism, and the peaceful settlement of international disputes through a new body, theLeague of Nations".
In the United States,modern liberalism traces its history to the popular presidency ofFranklin D. Roosevelt, who initiated theNew Deal in response to theGreat Depression and won anunprecedented four elections. TheNew Deal coalition established by Roosevelt left a strong legacy and influenced many future American presidents, includingJohn F. Kennedy.[189] Meanwhile, the definitive liberal response to the Great Depression was given by the British economistJohn Maynard Keynes, who had begun a theoretical work examining the relationship between unemployment, money and prices back in the 1920s.[190] The worldwide Great Depression, starting in 1929, hastened the discrediting of liberal economics and strengthened calls for state control over economic affairs. Economic woes prompted widespread unrest in the European political world, leading to the rise offascism as an ideology and a movement against liberalism andcommunism, especially inNazi Germany andItaly.[191] The rise of fascism in the 1930s eventually culminated inWorld War II, the deadliest conflict in human history. TheAllies prevailed in the war by 1945, and their victory set the stage for theCold War between theCommunistEastern Bloc and the liberalWestern Bloc.
In Iran, liberalism enjoyed wide popularity. In April 1951, theNational Front became the governing coalition when democratically electedMohammad Mosaddegh, a liberal nationalist, took office as thePrime Minister. However, his way of governing conflicted with Western interests, and he was removed from power in acoup on 19 August 1953. The coup ended the dominance of liberalism in the country's politics.[192][193][194][195][196]
The Cold War featured extensive ideological competition and severalproxy wars, but the widely fearedWorld War III between the Soviet Union and the United States never occurred. While communist states and liberal democracies competed against one another, aneconomic crisis in the 1970s inspired a move away fromKeynesian economics, especially underMargaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom andRonald Reagan in the United States. This trend, known asneoliberalism, constituted aparadigm shift away from thepost-war Keynesian consensus, which lasted from 1945 to 1980.[199][200] Meanwhile, nearing the end of the 20th century, communist states in Eastern Europecollapsed precipitously, leaving liberal democracies as the only major forms of government in the West.
At the beginning of World War II, the number of democracies worldwide was about the same as it had been forty years before.[201] After 1945, liberal democracies spread very quickly but then retreated. InThe Spirit of Democracy, Larry Diamond argues that by 1974 "dictatorship, not democracy, was the way of the world" and that "barely a quarter of independent states chose their governments through competitive, free, and fair elections". Diamond says that democracy bounced back, and by 1995 the world was "predominantly democratic".[202][203] However, liberalism still faces challenges, especially with the phenomenal growth of China as a model combination of authoritarian government and economic liberalism.[204] Liberalism is frequently cited as the dominantideology of themodern era.[4][5]: 11
Liberalism has drawn criticism and support from various ideological groups throughout its history. Despite these complex relationships, some scholars have argued that liberalism actually "rejects ideological thinking" altogether, largely because such thinking could lead to unrealistic expectations for human society.[205]
Conservatism
Conservatives have attacked what they perceive as the reckless liberal pursuit of progress and material gains, arguing that such preoccupations undermine traditional social values rooted in community and continuity.[206] However, some variations of conservatism, such asliberal conservatism, expound some of the same ideas and principles championed by classical liberalism, including "small government and thriving capitalism".[207]
Edmund Burke, the first major proponent of modern conservative thought, offered a blistering critique of the French Revolution by assailing the liberal pretensions to the power of rationality and the natural equality of all humans.[207] Nonetheless, Burke was highly influential on other classical liberal thought, and has been praised by both conservatives and liberals alike.[208]
In the bookWhy Liberalism Failed (2018),Patrick Deneen argued that liberalism has led toincome inequality, cultural decline, atomization,nihilism, the erosion of freedoms, and the growth of powerful, centralized bureaucracies.[209][210] The book also argues that liberalism has replaced old values of community, religion and tradition with self-interest.[210]
Russian PresidentVladimir Putin believes that "liberalism has become obsolete" and claims that the vast majority of people in the world oppose multiculturalism, immigration, andcivil and political rights forLGBTQ people.[211]
One of the most outspoken early critics of liberalism was theRoman Catholic Church, which resulted in lengthy power struggles between national governments and the Church.[212]Christian democracy, a movement associated with modern democracy, hopes to spreadCatholic social ideas and has gained a large following in some European nations.[213] The early roots of Christian democracy developed as a reaction against theindustrialisation andurbanisation associated withlaissez-faire liberalism in the 19th century.[214]
Anarchism
Anarchists criticize the liberalsocial contract, arguing that it creates a state that is "oppressive, violent, corrupt, and inimical to liberty".[215]
Marxism
Karl Marx rejected the foundational aspects of liberal theory, hoping to destroy both the state and the liberal distinction between society and the individual while fusing the two into a collective whole designed to overthrow the developing capitalist order of the 19th century.[216]Vladimir Lenin stated that—in contrast withMarxism—liberal science defendswage slavery;[217][218] however, some proponents of liberalism, such asThomas Paine,George Henry Evans, andSilvio Gesell, were critics of wage slavery.[219][220]
Deng Xiaoping believed that liberalization would destroy the political stability of thePeople's Republic of China and theChinese Communist Party, making it difficult for development to take place, and is inherently capitalistic. He termed it "bourgeois liberalization".[221] Thus, some socialists accuse the economic doctrines of liberalism, such as individualeconomic freedom, of giving rise to what they view as a system of exploitation that goes against the democratic principles of liberalism, while some liberals oppose the wage slavery that the economic doctrines of capitalism allow.[222]
Feminism
Somefeminists argue that liberalism's emphasis on distinguishing between the private and public spheres in society "allow[s] the flourishing of bigotry and intolerance in the private sphere and to require respect for equality only in the public sphere", making "liberalism vulnerable to the right-wing populist attack. Political liberalism has rejected the feminist call to recognize that thepersonal is political and has relied on political institutions and processes as barriers against illiberalism."[223]
Social democracy is an ideology that advocates for the reform of capitalism in a progressive manner. It emerged in the 20th century and was influenced by socialism. Social democracy aims to address what it perceives as the inherent flaws of capitalism through government reform, with a focus on reducing inequality.[228] Importantly, social democracy does not oppose the state's existence. Several commentators have noted strong similarities between social liberalism and social democracy, with one political scientist[who?] callingAmerican liberalism "bootleg social democracy" due to the absence of a significant social democratic tradition in the United States.[229]
^"liberalism In general, the belief that it is the aim of politics to preserve individual rights and to maximize freedom of choice."Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics, Iain McLean and Alistair McMillan, Third edition 2009,ISBN978-0-19-920516-5.
^Dunn, John (1993).Western Political Theory in the Face of the Future.Cambridge University Press.ISBN978-0-521-43755-4.political rationalism, hostility to autocracy, cultural distaste for conservatism and for tradition in general, tolerance, and ... individualism.
"The Economist, Volume 341, Issues 7995–7997".The Economist. 1996. Retrieved31 December 2007 – viaGoogle Books.For all three share a belief in the liberal society as defined above: a society that provides constitutional government (rule by law, not by men) and freedom of religion, thought, expression and economic interaction; a society in which ... .
Lalor, John Joseph (1883).Cyclopædia of Political Science, Political Economy, and of the Political History of the United States. Nabu Press. p. 760. Retrieved31 December 2007.Democracy attaches itself to a form of government: liberalism, to liberty and guarantees of liberty. The two may agree; they are not contradictory, but they are neither identical, nor necessarily connected. In the moral order, liberalism is the liberty to think, recognised and practiced. This is primordial liberalism, as the liberty to think is itself the first and noblest of liberties. Man would not be free in any degree or in any sphere of action, if he were not a thinking being endowed with consciousness. The freedom of worship, the freedom of education, and the freedom of the press are derived the most directly from the freedom to think.
^Locke, John.Second Treatise of Government.All mankind ... being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions
^Conway, Martin (2014)."The Limits of an Anti-liberal Europe". In Gosewinkel, Dieter (ed.).Anti-liberal Europe: A Neglected Story of Europeanization.Berghahn Books. p. 184.ISBN978-1-78238-426-7 – viaGoogle Books.Liberalism, liberal values and liberal institutions formed an integral part of that process of European consolidation. Fifteen years after the end of the Second World War, the liberal and democratic identity of Western Europe had been reinforced on almost all sides by the definition of the West as a place of freedom. Set against the oppression in the Communist East, by the slow development of a greater understanding of the moral horror of Nazism, and by the engagement of intellectuals and others with the new states (and social and political systems) emerging in the non-European world to the South.
^Kirchner, Emil J. (1988).Liberal Parties in Western Europe. Cambridge University Press.ISBN978-0-521-32394-9. "Liberal parties were among the first political parties to form, and their long-serving and influential records, as participants in parliaments and governments, raise important questions ... ."
^Kumar, Rohit Vishal; Joshi, Radhika (October–December 2006). "Colour, Colour Everywhere: In Marketing Too".SCMS Journal of Indian Management.3 (4):40–46.ISSN0973-3167.SSRN969272.
^Cassel-Picot, Muriel "The Liberal Democrats and the Green Cause: From Yellow to Green" in Leydier, Gilles and Martin, Alexia (2013)Environmental Issues in Political Discourse in Britain and Ireland. Cambridge Scholars Publishing.p.105Archived 6 December 2022 at theWayback Machine.ISBN9781443852838
^Puddington, p. 142. "After a dozen years of centre-left Liberal Party rule, the Conservative Party emerged from the 2006 parliamentary elections with a plurality and established a fragile minority government."
^Grigsby, pp. 106–07. [Talking about the Democratic Party] "Its liberalism is, for the most part, the later version of liberalism – modern liberalism."
^Arnold, p. 3. "Modern liberalism occupies the left-of-center in the traditional political spectrum and is represented by the Democratic Party in the United States."
^Jeffries, John W. (1990). "The "New" New Deal: FDR and American Liberalism, 1937–1945".Political Science Quarterly.105 (3):397–418.doi:10.2307/2150824.JSTOR2150824.
^Mayne, Alan James (1999).From Politics Past to Politics Future: An Integrated Analysis of Current and Emergent Paradigmss. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Publishing Group. pp. 124–125.ISBN0275961516.
^Ishiyama, John T.; Breuning, Marijke; et al. (Ellen Grigsby) (2011). "Neoclassical liberals".21st Century Political Science A Reference Handbook. SAGE Publications, Inc. pp. 596–603.ISBN978-1-4129 6901-7.
^Feldman, Noah (2005).Divided by God. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, p. 29 ("It tookJohn Locke to translate the demand for liberty of conscience into a systematic argument for distinguishing the realm of government from the realm of religion.")
^Feldman, Noah (2005).Divided by God. Farrar, Straus and Giroux, p. 29
^McGrath, Alister. 1998.Historical Theology, An Introduction to the History of Christian Thought. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. pp. 214–15.
^Bornkamm, Heinrich (1962), "Toleranz. In der Geschichte des Christentums",Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart (in German), 3. Auflage, Band VI, col. 942
^Hunter, William Bridges.A Milton Encyclopedia, Volume 8 (East Brunswick, NJ: Associated University Presses, 1980). pp. 71, 72.ISBN0-8387-1841-8.
^Wertenbruch, W (1960), "Menschenrechte",Die Religion in Geschichte und Gegenwart (in German), Tübingen, DE{{citation}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link), 3. Auflage, Band IV, col. 869
^Tenenbaum, Susan (1980). "The Coppet Circle. Literary Criticism as Political Discourse".History of Political Thought.1 (2):453–473.
^Lefevere, Andre (2016).Translation, Rewriting, and the Manipulation of Literary Fame. Taylor & Francis. p. 109.
^Fairweather, Maria (2013).Madame de Stael. Little, Brown Book Group.
^Hofmann, Etienne; Rosset, François (2005).Le Groupe de Coppet. Une constellation d'intellectuels européens. Presses polytechniques et universitaires romandes.
^Jaume, Lucien (2000).Coppet, creuset de l'esprit libéral: Les idées politiques et constitutionnelles du Groupe de Madame de Staël. Presses Universitaires d'Aix-Marseille. p. 10.
^Delon, Michel (1996). "Le Groupe de Coppet". In Francillon, Roger (ed.).Histoire de la littérature en Suisse romande t.1. Payot.
^Hofmann, Étienne, ed. (1982).Benjamin Constant, Madame de Staël et le Groupe de Coppet: Actes du Deuxième Congrès de Lausanne à l'occasion du 150e anniversaire de la mort de Benjamin Constant Et Du Troisième Colloque de Coppet, 15–19 juilliet 1980 (in French). Oxford, TheVoltaire Foundation and Lausanne, Institut Benjamin Constant.ISBN0-7294-0280-0.
^Rosen, Frederick (2005).Classical Utilitarianism from Hume to Mill. Routledge. p. 251. According to Berlin, the most eloquent of all defenders of freedom and privacy [was] Benjamin Constant, who had not forgotten the Jacobin dictatorship.
^abcRichardson, James L. (2001).Contending Liberalisms in World Politics: Ideology and Power. Boulder, Colorado: Lynne Rienner Publishers.ISBN155587939X.
^Skidelsky, Robert (2003).John Maynard Keynes: 1883–1946: Economist, Philosopher, Statesman. Pan MacMillan Ltd. pp. 494–500, 504,509–510.ISBN978-0-330-48867-9.
^Tribe, Keith (1997).Economic careers: economics and economists in Britain, 1930–1970. p. 61.
^Spiegel, Henry William (1991).The Growth of Economic Thought. Duke University Press. pp. 302–303.
^Stedman Jones, Gareth (2006). "Saint-Simon and the Liberal origins of the Socialist critique of Political Economy". In Aprile, Sylvie; Bensimon, Fabrice (eds.).La France et l'Angleterre au XIXe siècle. Échanges, représentations, comparaisons. Créaphis. pp. 21–47.
^John Stuart Mill (1806–1873), "The Contest in America". Harper's New Monthly Magazine. Volume 24. Issue 143. pp. 683–684. Harper & Bros. New York. April 1862.Cornell.edu.
^Nicholson, P. P., "T. H. Green and State Action: Liquor Legislation",History of Political Thought, 6 (1985), 517–50. Reprinted in A. Vincent, ed.,The Philosophy of T. H. Green (Aldershot: Gower, 1986), pp. 76–103
^Michael Freeden,The New Liberalism: An Ideology of Social Reform (Oxford UP, 1978).
^The Routledge Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, p. 599
^Thompson, Noel W. (2006).Political economy and the Labour Party: the economics of democratic socialism, 1884–2005 (2nd ed.). Oxon, England; New York, New York:Routledge. pp. 60–61.
^"A student and disciple of the Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises, Rothbard combined the laissez-faire economics of his teacher with the absolutist views of human rights and rejection of the state he had absorbed from studying the individualist American anarchists of the 19th century such as Lysander Spooner and Benjamin Tucker." Blackwell Encyclopaedia of Political Thought, 1987,ISBN978-0-631-17944-3, p. 290
^abRothbard, Murray (2005). Excerpt from "Concepts of the Role of Intellectuals in Social Change Toward Laissez Faire",The Journal of Libertarian Studies, Vol. IX, No. 2 (Fall 1990) atmises.orgArchived 8 November 2014 at theWayback Machine
^Rothbard, Murray (2005). "The Ancient Chinese Libertarian Tradition",Mises Daily, (5 December 2005) (original source unknown) atmises.orgArchived 8 November 2014 at theWayback Machine
^The CIA's history of the 1953 coup in Iran is made up of the following documents: a historian's note, a summary introduction, a lengthy narrative account written by Donald N. Wilber and as appendices five planning documents he attached. Published on 18 June 2000 under the title"The C.I.A. in Iran"Archived 25 January 2013 at theWayback Machine byThe New York Times.
^Fiala, Andrew (2021),"Anarchism", in Zalta, Edward N. (ed.),The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2021 ed.), Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University, retrieved17 June 2023
^"《邓小平文选第三卷》《在党的十二届六中全会上的讲话》" (in Chinese). Archived fromthe original on 27 February 2022. Retrieved27 February 2022.大家可以回想一下，粉碎"四人帮"以后，全国人大在一九八○年通过一个议案，取消宪法中的关于"大鸣、大放、大辩论、大字报"这一条。为什么做这件事？因为有一股自由化思潮。搞自由化，就会破坏我们安定团结的政治局面。没有一个安定团结的政治局面，就不可能搞建设。 自由化本身就是资产阶级的，没有什么无产阶级的、社会主义的自由化，自由化本身就是对我们现行政策、现行制度的对抗，或者叫反对，或者叫修改。实际情况是，搞自由化就是要把我们引导到资本主义道路上去，所以我们用反对资产阶级自由化这个提法。管什么这里用过、那里用过，无关重要，现实政治要求我们在决议中写这个。我主张用。
^Kumar H. M., Sanjeev (10 October 2018). "Islam and the Question of Confessional Religious Identity: The Islamic State, Apostasy, and the Making of a Theology of Violence".Contemporary Review of the Middle East.5 (4). SAGE Publications:327–348.doi:10.1177/2347798918806415.ISSN2347-7989.
^abPerry, Marvin; Chase, Myrna; Jacob, Margaret; Jacob, James R. (2009).Western Civilization: Ideas, Politics, and Society – From 1600. Vol. 2 (9th ed.). Boston, Massachusetts:Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. p. 760.
Amin, Samir; Membrez., James H. (2004).The liberal virus: permanent war and the americanization of the world. New York: Monthly Review Press.ISBN9781583671078.OCLC55018976.
Bell, Duncan. "What is Liberalism?"Political Theory, 42/6 (2014).
Brack, Duncan and Randall, Ed (eds.).Dictionary of Liberal Thought. London: Politico's Publishing, 2007.ISBN978-1-84275-167-1.
George Brandis, Tom Harley &Donald Markwell (editors).Liberals Face the Future: Essays on Australian Liberalism, Melbourne: Oxford University Press, 1984.
Chodos, Robert et al.The unmaking of Canada: the hidden theme in Canadian history since 1945. Halifax: James Lorimer & Company, 1991.ISBN1-55028-337-5.
Feuer, Lewis.Spinoza and the Rise of Liberalism. New Brunswick: Transaction 1984.
Flamm, Michael and Steigerwald, David.Debating the 1960s: liberal, conservative, and radical perspectives. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2008.ISBN0-7425-2212-1.
Freeden, Michael, Javier Fernández-Sebastián, et al.In Search of European Liberalisms: Concepts, Languages, Ideologies (2019)
Gallagher, Michael et al.Representative government in modern Europe. New York: McGraw Hill, 2001.ISBN0-07-232267-5.
Gifford, Rob.China Road: A Journey into the Future of a Rising Power. Random House, 2008.ISBN0-8129-7524-3.
Godwin, Kenneth et al.School choice tradeoffs: liberty, equity, and diversity. Austin: University of Texas Press, 2002.ISBN0-292-72842-5.
Gould, Andrew.Origins of liberal dominance. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1999.ISBN0-472-11015-2.
Gray, John.Liberalism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1995.ISBN0-8166-2801-7.
Grigsby, Ellen.Analyzing Politics: An Introduction to Political Science. Florence: Cengage Learning, 2008.ISBN0-495-50112-3.
Hafner, Danica and Ramet, Sabrina.Democratic transition in Slovenia: value transformation, education, and media. College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2006.ISBN1-58544-525-8.
Handelsman, Michael.Culture and Customs of Ecuador. Westport: Greenwood Press, 2000.ISBN0-313-30244-8.
Hodge, Carl.Encyclopedia of the Age of Imperialism, 1800–1944. Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2008.ISBN0-313-33406-4.
Jensen, Pamela Grande.Finding a new feminism: rethinking the woman question for liberal democracy. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 1996.ISBN0-8476-8189-0.
Johnson, Paul.The Renaissance: A Short History. New York: Modern Library, 2002.ISBN0-8129-6619-8.
Kirchner, Emil.Liberal parties in Western Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.ISBN0-521-32394-0.
Knoop, Todd.Recessions and Depressions Westport: Greenwood Press, 2004.ISBN0-313-38163-1.
Koerner, Kirk.Liberalism and its critics. Oxford: Taylor & Francis, 1985.ISBN0-7099-1551-9.
Lightfoot, Simon.Europeanizing social democracy?: The rise of the Party of European Socialists. New York: Routledge, 2005.ISBN0-415-34803-X.
Losurdo, Domenico.Liberalism: a counter-history. London: Verso, 2011.
Mackenzie, G. Calvin and Weisbrot, Robert.The liberal hour: Washington and the politics of change in the 1960s. New York: Penguin Group, 2008.ISBN1-59420-170-6.
Mazower, Mark.Dark Continent. New York: Vintage Books, 1998.ISBN0-679-75704-X.
Monsma, Stephen and Soper, J. Christopher.The Challenge of Pluralism: Church and State in Five Democracies. Lanham:Rowman & Littlefield, 2008.ISBN0-7425-5417-1.
Rivlin, Alice.Reviving the American Dream Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 1992.ISBN0-8157-7476-1.
Ros, Agustin.Profits for all?: the cost and benefits of employee ownership. New York: Nova Publishers, 2001.ISBN1-59033-061-7.
Rosenblatt, Helena (2018).The Lost History of Liberalism : From Ancient Rome to the Twenty-First Century. Princeton University Press.ISBN9780691203966.OCLC1028166609.
Van Schie, P. G. C. and Voermann, Gerrit.The dividing line between success and failure: a comparison of Liberalism in the Netherlands and Germany in the 19th and 20th Centuries. Berlin: LIT Verlag Berlin-Hamburg-Münster, 2006.ISBN3-8258-7668-3.
Wallerstein, Immanuel.The Modern World-System IV: Centrist Liberalism trimphant 1789–1914. Berkeley and Los Angeles:University of California Press, 2011.
%2c_%25C3%25A9crivain_et_homme_politique_-_P1679_-_Mus%25C3%25A9e_Carnavalet.jpg)
.jpg)
.png)
_b_269.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
