Text as of 31 July 2004 seems extraordinarily controversial (although good luck trying to make it any less so).
This people aren't liberal[change source]
(Please excuse my very bad english; I'm from Austria, so I don't speak english very well.)
People like G.W.B., Winston Churchill and Ronald Reagan aren't liberal, if we use the european defination for liberalism. And if we use the american defination they're also not.
- But they supported free market economics, which isn't really conservative and is traditionally a liberal platform. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 20:38, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
In both they are conservative. European-defination-liberals are, for example, John Kerry and the whole democratic party.
And by the way: The main different between the US liberalism and the european liberalism are not so big. European liberals are for capitalism and left-liberals are for social capitalism, like in Austria. Socialists are in european for socialism. Examples for them: communists, anarchists, (left) social democrats (the new social democrats are mostly left-liberal or neoliberal (like in Germany)), marxists, etc.
And yeah, my english is really bad. But Thanks for reading. --184.108.40.206 16:48, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- First, your English is really good! You have no reason to worry.
- Second, I'm not European but I agree about George W. Bush. I deleted that sentence because I've never heard GWB called "liberal". I think the confusion might have come from an older version that said libertarians are liberal in the European sense -- laissez-faire, I want the government to leave me alone. But GWB is simply NOT a libertarian, not at all, so I think that claim is an error. I removed it.
- Cheers, PhilipR 17:13, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)
- As an anarchist I can clearly state that anarchists are not liberal. First of all, there are lots of different definitions of liberalism, but we don't fit the modern view or classic liberal view. Too busy to really try to fix it now though. The Ungovernable Force 05:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Copy from en[change source]
The current version (here) seems to be a version directly copied from en, without any simplification. The last version which was simplified seems to be this one. Unless someone feels like simplifying the whole 87k, I suggest we revert to the version cited above, and only add more info bit by bit. --Eptalon 14:42, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
It is too specific word, i've translated it hardly. May be better to change it with "stuff", "goods", "things", "ownership" etc?--Himurakenshi 08:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Improvement needed[change source]
The article needs improvement, in the following:
- "European" liberals are Thomas Hobbes (16th century, to some extent), John Locke, David Hume,Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and Alexis de Tocqueville, amongst others (yes, some are econmists, or political philosophers); I currently fail to see how someone like Bolivar fits in.
- We shouldf probably work out the core ideas more, and differentiate more between philiosphical ideas, and others; Smith and Ricardo were econmists. There is a difference between a "free" (as in as unregulated as possible) market", and the possibility to express any idea, with some limits ("free speech"). --Eptalon (talk) 09:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)