Talk:Classical liberalism#Dispute

Specifically the Vieira piece. The cited quote is taken out of context. It implies that classic liberalism is incompatible with "democratic" principles.

And yet, reading further down the cited article, we come across this:

"We show that, unlike in Amartya Sen’s seminal contribution, classical liberal views of individual autonomy and freedom – as embodied in the harm principle – can provide consistent foundations for collective evaluations, and are consistent with the fundamental democratic principle of unanimity."

Proposed that the section be rewritten to more correctly reflect Vieira's views. Because, TBH, this looks like someone selectively quoted to make their point, while deliberately ignoring the rest of the article. Rumplestiltskin1992 (talk) 04:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Why is Thomas Hobbes included among the "notable thinkers"?

Hobbes advocated the need for absolute and indivisible sovereign power to emerge from the "state of nature"-which he described as a condition of "war of all against all." In his masterpiece "Leviathan" (1651), he argues that individuals must surrender all their natural rights to the sovereign in exchange for protection and civil order.

This view contrasts profoundly with the principles of classical liberalism that would later develop, characterized by:

• Limitation of state power

• Inalienable individual rights

• Separation of powers

• Representative government

Hobbes shares some important elements with future liberals: contractualism (the idea that government derives from an agreement between individuals), methodological individualism, and a materialistic conception of human nature. For this reason, I consider him (as some prominent scholars have argued) precursor or "proto-liberal."

Those who argue that Hobbes should remain on the list should specify why, so as not to confuse readers. 79.55.155.233 (talk) 14:16, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

: Hobbes doesn't argue that individuals must surrender all their rights. He argues that they must surrender their right to all things. In exchange for giving up the right of private justice they acquire a right to public justice. OTOH, the actual answer to your question is presumably "reference 110" William M. Connolley (talk) 17:06, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

:I question the need for these lists. All the important figures should be in the text of the article, which explains their significance to liberalism. The idea that all of them were either classical liberals or not liberals is simplistic, considering that liberalism was not identified as an ideology until the early 19th century, when ideas from previous writers were put together as a coherent world-view. TFD (talk) 17:45, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

::Yeah I agree. I will note there is a lot of overlap here with a list of Enlightenment philosophers. I think we might have some editors who are treating these terms interchangeably, which is an over-summarization problem. Simonm223 (talk) 19:14, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

::: Seems reasonable William M. Connolley (talk) 19:18, 6 June 2025 (UTC)